Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What the..

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What the..

    Can someone explain how the hell this got screeners choice, given it is oversharpened and noisey? Would be nice to see consistency

    [photoid=5767591]
    Last edited by AJ; 2006-07-12, 03:54. Reason: Thumbnailed

  • #2
    Look at the motive : The amazing vapour trails, you dont see that everyday. And omg. Look at the Golden Sunset. Perfect. Thats eyecandy for some. I like it too.


    It deserve the CS, thats for sure.

    "Use your eyes. Not your mouth"
    Last edited by MaxPower; 2006-07-12, 03:07. Reason: Corrected Vapour trails !
    Inactive from May 1 2009.

    Comment


    • #3
      So if its eye candy, flaws in the image are acceptable? Come on, those sunset shots @ LAX are a dime a dozen, vapour trails or not

      Dont get me wrong, the eye candy is nice.. But consistency is nice as well!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by cordy
        So if its eye candy, flaws in the image are acceptable? Come on, those sunset shots @ LAX are a dime a dozen, vapour trails or not

        Dont get me wrong, the eye candy is nice.. But consistency is nice as well!
        Then agian its a SC, so differnet screeners like differnet things. So how can you mantain consistency? Im sure there isnt guidelines that makes a photo a SC

        Comment


        • #5
          And back to the bad shot of the girl with the titties we go lol. That one should NOT have been a SC, however, this one's not that bad.

          Comment


          • #6
            Not this again!

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh yes, its that thing again, Sam !

              Tell him stop questioning why this photo was awarded with an SC.

              Its all down to the "screener". If the individual likes it, he'll tick with the SC and then move on..
              Inactive from May 1 2009.

              Comment


              • #8
                Somebody should just make a damn sticky explaining the point of a screener's choice. It's a CHOICE, it comes down to individual preference. Consistency has nothing to do with anything.
                "The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."

                -- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'

                Comment


                • #9
                  How about making it a rule not to question why so and so pic got accepted and why so and so pic got a screeners choice. Violators get banned.

                  Oh by the way asking like that ("how the hell") is the kind of thing that gives you a bad reputation around here.)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Man I'm starting to feel bad for this guy...this is now the second or third pic of his thats come under fire....

                    remember this one????
                    [photoid=5736624]

                    Give this guy, and every photog that goes for something different, a break.

                    That pic should very well be a SC.

                    Oh BTW, perhaps you have some better SC you could show us...just wondering.



                    "Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz the tower!"


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by sluger020889
                      Man I'm starting to feel bad for this guy...this is now the second or third pic of his thats come under fire....

                      remember this one????
                      [photoid=5736624]

                      Give this guy, and every photog that goes for something different, a break.

                      That pic should very well be a SC.

                      Oh BTW, perhaps you have some better SC you could show us...just wondering.
                      That photo I still believe is probably the worst I've seen accepted recently into the DB. Blurry, grainy, and HORRIBLY centered. Screeners should have absolutely caught this one. This brings us back to the consistency part. I've gotten shots rejected that were better than this thing that's for sure. If I had a say in the screener's choosing, I'd have to say that the pictures screened by the new screeners need to be screened by the other screeners who have been around as well up until a certain point (say 50 photos) just so they get the hang of it. This seems like a way to help prevent "junk" in the DB.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Crism
                        That photo I still believe is probably the worst I've seen accepted recently into the DB. Blurry, grainy, and HORRIBLY centered. Screeners should have absolutely caught this one. This brings us back to the consistency part. I've gotten shots rejected that were better than this thing that's for sure. If I had a say in the screener's choosing, I'd have to say that the pictures screened by the new screeners need to be screened by the other screeners who have been around as well up until a certain point (say 50 photos) just so they get the hang of it. This seems like a way to help prevent "junk" in the DB.
                        Steve, no offense, but have you been asleep for the last year or so?

                        As far as I'm aware, each photograph is screened by a minimum of 2 screeners, and if it's rejected there is an appeal feature that lets an admin or a senior screener decide if the rejection is to be reversed. So it doesn't matter if a particular screener can't tell a monkey's ball from a good picture, because it's still going to be screened by ATLEAST one other screener.
                        "The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."

                        -- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Ugh, same shit different thread...
                          Bobby DeBarge
                          www.debargephoto.com
                          http://utccollegelife.blogspot.com
                          1999 Firebird Driver| Aviation Enthusiast





                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No worries, Steve! If you want we apply an extra amount of "fair screening" to your pics. Or, why don't you ask to become a screener? You know more, than any of the crew ... apparently. Same goes to cordy, who still hasn't showed us his works.

                            As for the rest of the photographers, the screeners will continue to screen as they did so far. Screeners will continue to accept nice shots and to give SC's to photos with "WOW"-effect, even to photos of "QBiAnZaI", whose pics seem to be cause for irritation amongst some weird people.

                            Gerardo
                            My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Other than it being a little oversharpened and noisy, it's still a fantastic shot!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X