Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Screening Consistency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Screening Consistency

    > I have been a regular contributor to this site for a numberof years now and have over 1,500 accepted images. > Generally, I find that the majority of images I submit areaccepted without difficulty. However, over the last couple of months I have beenincreasingly frustrated by the lack of consistency from your screening team. > This particularly relates to a session at Brussels airportin March. I submitted a number of images which were taken as the sun brokethrough on what had previously been a foggy morning. In each case the aircraftis correctly exposed but the overall scene is dark due to the blackness of thesky. See enclosed N225UA. You have accepted 14 such images from thissession, all taken within a two hour period and all in the same lighting conditions.

    https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9341446

    However, the last five or six images submitted have all beenrejected as too dark. In each case the aircraft was sunlit and was properly exposedaccording to the luminosity histogram. However, the screener (presumably) didnítlike the dark background. > It appears that during the time Iíve been submitting these picturesyou have moved the goalposts as to what is acceptable. There is no otherexplanation for the first dozen to be accepted and for everything submittedafterwards to be rejected. Your records will confirm this. > I am particularly frustrated with this latest rejection. > https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7431523

    On the first occasion you rejected it for horizon unlevel. >
    I fixed the horizon. You then rejected it for dark, eventhough there was no mention of this in the first rejection. >
    So I lightened the dark sky and parts of the taxiway. Theaircraft couldnít be lightened further as the histogram was already at the edgeof the box. You then rejected it for a third time, citing contrast and saturation,even though neither reason had been mentioned during the first two rejectionsand neither contrast nor saturation had been touched during the rework of the image.>
    I will not be submitting the image for a fourth time. If youare unable to give me all the reasons for a rejection at the first attempt, thenI am unable to spend the time trying yet another rework to meet your variable standards. >
    I believe you have a problem with the consistency of both your screening and your appeals. For that reason I have deleted all my images in the queue and will be taking a break from uploading to Jetphotos.




  • #2
    Unfortunately screening is a human endeavour, and as such there will always be inconsistencies. Frustrating at times, I'm sure, but that's how it goes. We try hard to be as consistent as possible, but of course when 30-40 pairs of eyes look at an image, it's unlikely they will all see it exactly the same way. If the frustration is causing too many problems for you, feel free to use this forum as you have to voice your concerns in general, or the feedback forum if you have specific questions/concerns about images. You can post there before appealing or before re-submitting an image to get a better idea of the likely outcome.

    In the end however if a break is what you need, this also is often a good idea, as a little time and reflection often works to smooth over the immediate frustrations of receiving such rejections.

    Comment


    • #3
      My frustration is two-fold Dlowwa.

      Firstly, I have a problem with an appeal process which consistently fails to consider a comparison with accepted images. Where I take ten shots from the same location. Eight are accepted and the last two rejected because of horizon unlevel, despite the fact that the same reference point has been used in all. The appeals then fail and the only justification given is "screener correct".

      Secondly, I find it infuriating that an image is rejected because of one perceived flaw. You then fix the flaw, and the next rejection is for a different reason which was presumably acceptable the first time round. When it happens a third time for a third different reason I just lose all faith in the competence of the screeners.

      Actually, now that I think about it, I'll add a third reason. The "check for dust tool". This is very powerful. It detects clumps of pixels which are almost invisible in photoshop / equalize and certainly can't be seen by the naked eye, yet they're used as reasons for rejection. Over the years uploading here I've spent hours trying to spot heal a flaw in photoshop which I can't actually see in order to get a rejected image passed.

      Hence why I've decided that my time will be better spent elsewhere.

      Thank you for the courtesy of he response.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by snddim01 View Post
        The "check for dust tool". This is very powerful. It detects clumps of pixels which are almost invisible in photoshop / equalize and certainly can't be seen by the naked eye, yet they're used as reasons for rejection.
        A question for the JP.net staff, do you use ImageMagick to equalise the photo?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by snddim01 View Post
          Secondly, I find it infuriating that an image is rejected because of one perceived flaw. You then fix the flaw, and the next rejection is for a different reason which was presumably acceptable the first time round. When it happens a third time for a third different reason I just lose all faith in the competence of the screeners.

          Hence why I've decided that my time will be better spent elsewhere.
          I'd be pretty frustrated in that situation as well, but like I said, with a human process, human variability and foibles must be included, despite our best efforts to eliminate them. if one can accept that, the whole process is easier to deal with. That being said, if you've found a better outlet for your time, hopefully it proves less frustrating for you.

          Originally posted by jvdl View Post
          A question for the JP.net staff, do you use ImageMagick to equalise the photo?
          No.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by snddim01 View Post

            To be honest this photo is to dark and should not be accented. This is caused by sunflare on the back of fuselage and can be corrected with curves without overexposing the flare.
            Screeners are doing very hard job viewing thousands of images and we should accept a bit of inconsistency in that

            Comment


            • #7
              Quote by snddim01 : The "check for dust tool". This is very powerful. It detects clumps of pixels which are almost invisible in photoshop / equalize and certainly can't be seen by the naked eye, yet they're used as reasons for rejection. Over the years uploading here I've spent hours trying to spot heal a flaw in photoshop which I can't actually see in order to get a rejected image passed. "
              End of quote.

              Hello everyone,
              I can add to this paragraph that from a long investigation to this issue appearing on the "check-for-dust" tab as a clumps of pixels, as said - those are merely a light-heat differentials often considered and rejected as JPEG compression issue.
              Long ago I had consultant a scientist / an expert on light, photonic-effect's and Kelvin heat-numbers, came up with the understanding this is not a JPEG-Compression reason for rejection, and debated this issue for long on appeals and the forum.
              This issue deserves a reconsideration by the JP staff.
              Sincerely,
              Ike

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ikeharel View Post
                Quote by snddim01 : The "check for dust tool". This is very powerful. It detects clumps of pixels which are almost invisible in photoshop / equalize and certainly can't be seen by the naked eye, yet they're used as reasons for rejection. Over the years uploading here I've spent hours trying to spot heal a flaw in photoshop which I can't actually see in order to get a rejected image passed. "
                End of quote.

                Hello everyone,
                I can add to this paragraph that from a long investigation to this issue appearing on the "check-for-dust" tab as a clumps of pixels, as said - those are merely a light-heat differentials often considered and rejected as JPEG compression issue.
                Long ago I had consultant a scientist / an expert on light, photonic-effect's and Kelvin heat-numbers, came up with the understanding this is not a JPEG-Compression reason for rejection, and debated this issue for long on appeals and the forum.
                This issue deserves a reconsideration by the JP staff.
                Sincerely,
                Ike
                Sorry, but a pixelated sky all over the photo is simply JPG compression, period. Fuzzy lines along edges are mostly due to JPG compression, no matter what your expert says. I don't remember that we simply reject a photo for "a clumps of pixels" in the equalized photo.

                Come up with facts and we discuss from there.
                My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by LX-A343 View Post
                  Sorry, but a pixelated sky all over the photo is simply JPG compression, period. Fuzzy lines along edges are mostly due to JPG compression, no matter what your expert says. I don't remember that we simply reject a photo for "a clumps of pixels" in the equalized photo.

                  Come up with facts and we discuss from there.
                  My picture of 4K-SW008.
                  At first was rejected for JPEG-Compression, I argued, presented facts, as said on my thread before - and was accepted on the second post with not one change.
                  Ike

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X