Screening: Fair - Process/Method:Inconsistent

[Leftseat86]

All I'm saying is that the site started off as trying to differentiate itself from airliners.net. I don't see it like that anymore. The screeners are setting their standards waaaay to high.

Maybe you're setting your standards waaaay to low? I left Airliners.net because they reject good photos for being soft when it is barely noticeable, they reject a photo for bad quality when there are much worse in the database, and because Johan thinks he owns the internet aviation world. Over here it is NOT that damn hard to get a photo accepted. Since the beggining I've always tried to emulate the greats. Paul Paulsen, Tony Silgrim, Chis Sheldon, Don Boyd, Philippe Noret come to mind... And you dont have to have a 10D or a D100. Good photos are possible from scanned prints, scanned slides and almost any digital camera over 2MP if you know how to work within the limitations of your medium and utilize your camera to its fullest.
I hate...seriously hate to do this...but I dont think my shots are half bad for a 3.2MP 550$ camera. I've learned my equipments limitations and how to work around its faults to produce the best images it is capable of.
Tanuj, you dont become a photographer overnight. It takes practice, perserverence, failure and time. If you keep at it you should improve. Your latest shots are much better already...but you have to go further, because your camera is capable of better, I know that as a fact. Once you've gotten to th point where your camera will not produce any better...then you can sort of call yourself a photographer (Thats also when its time to upgrade :P )

-Clovis

[AIRLNRGUY]

I hate...seriously hate to do this...but I dont think my shots are half bad for a 3.2MP 550$ camera.

I got a 3 mp for $437 and it works great, my shots are clear and sharp.

[Leftseat86]

I got a 3 mp for $437 and it works great, my shots are clear and sharp.

That UA 744 certainly wasnt clear and sharp.

-Clovis

[AIRLNRGUY]

That one was with the SLR

[LX-A343]

OK, a few comments from another screener, just to balance out a bit.

Q: Wyll Lyster asked, why his shot was rejected.
First of all: I don't fully understand this: "The photo shown below (modified by JetPhotos.net) was rejected . . . " What did Jetphotos.net edit?

Anyway, the pic is not as bad as many others we get to see, but 1) it shows dull colors / low contrast and 2) that orange thing and the gas bottle in the lower left corner are disturbing. Some screeners may have accepted it, others not. There are no clear standards regarding such topics. But if we see, that a picture can EASILY be improved (i.e. in one or two minutes), than we rather reject. Look for example, what Greg made with this picture. It's looks MUCH better already. Of course, every screener handles such pics and rejections differently.

Q: Why did the screener only write "bad quality"?
If there isn't a clear reason to reject, sometimes it's better to just select "bad quality", instead of misleading the photographer.

I think it still somewhat depends upon the mood of the screeners when they are screening.

IT's the same, when you're on your job, isn't it?

Look at these pics. They were rejected once. Then I got some biiiiig help improving them, they were rejected again! I'll post one of the new rejects below.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=47329

A help doesn't mean guaranteed acceptance, just a help, nothing more.

The UPS picture is still bad quality. You did a good job cloning in the tail (some may be against it, but if I don't know, it was "faked", so what ), but not good enough. Look carefully and you'll see some weird artifacts around the tail. Add to that the jaggies for example in the UPS title on the fuselage.

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.

Sure, we need to look more closely at the info, but sometimes mistakes happen. If something wrong is added, then TWO mistakes happend, one of them beeing a wrong info submitted by the photographer. BTW, that's why we have a "submit correction" feature, which works very good.

I lowered the image size soley to reduce upload time considering the numbers of photos I was uploading. From here on out I will spend more time and upload the entire 2560x1920 image and let jp do the rest.

I suggest you crop, rotate, resize, adjust colors/level/curves and sharpen the image before uploading ANYWHERE. Otherwise don't come after, because your pics are rejected.

All I'm saying is that the site started off as trying to differentiate itself from airliners.net. I don't see it like that anymore. The screeners are setting their standards waaaay to high.

Try to upload your pics to A.net, and then tell us, how many were accepted. Do you really think, the UPS B747 shot would have been accepted at A.net? We have lower standards, than A.net and probably also as PP.net. But this doesn't mean, we accept everything. And - again - if we see, that a picture can EASILY be improved, then we rather reject with the possible solution for a 100% sure upload.

Overall, I'd say, we have a rejection rate of MAX 10-20%. Some admins could give a more precised info perhaps. Compare this to the rejection rate at any other aviation picture database.....

Cheers
Gerardo

[wlyster]

You mean you dont edit your photos?

-Clovis

I didn't do any editing because the six criteria set up by JetPhotos.net implied that I shouldn't.

General Criteria

1. Only upload photos that you have taken!
2. Photos must be in the JPEG (with extension .jpg) format.
3. Do not upload files with invalid characters in the filename (valid characters in a filename are A-Z, a-z, 0-9, -, _)
4. Photos must be at least 800x600 pixels in size (with the exception of vertical shots). This applies to both the height and width of the image. 6. Images which are overcropped (very narrow) will be rejected.
5. Model photos, digitally enhanced photos etc. will be rejected.
6. Do not upload in masses the same aircraft at very similar angles; pick your best shots.

http://www.jetphotos.net/addphotos/

I figured that digitally enhanced photos meant that I was not to enhance the photo, ie. sharpen, adjust saturation, etc. and that if I couldn't take a photo without a purple sky - don't upload it. Of course later I found this forum and an offer of help from people on tips to enhance the photos.

I agree with AIRLNRGUY when he says:

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 1:33 am

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.

[mikecweb]

Digitally enhance meaning cloning in a engine. Or changing the livery of the aircraft.
No matter what they say on there always try to upload at 1024X768. No higher no lower. Thats where you'll get your best results. And use the extra resolution that your camera gives you to crop.
AIRLNRGUY,
Can you honestly say that this site has the same standards of A.net. Try uploading some there that get rejected here. Oh wait. I forgot you were once a screener over there so you would know.

[Chris Kilroy]

Thanks, Gerardo! I was mentally formulating a reply to all of the comments in this thread, but then saw yours, and realized I didn't have to. Right on!

[AIRLNRGUY]

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.

AIRLNRGUY,
Can you honestly say that this site has the same standards of A.net. Try uploading some there that get rejected here. Oh wait. I forgot you were once a screener over there so you would know.

Woah, MISQUOTE!!!!! I never said that! That was Indian Airlines! And I totally disagree with that statement. I absolutly love this site. LX-A343, where did you get that from?

[mikecweb]

So this wasn't you?

http://www.jetphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=39263&highlight=#39263

I was with airliners a year or so ago until I ticked Johan off. (If I were to make a post about this there would be alot of arguing over what happened.) ....

Yes I did go back and dug that up. And no I don't have anything better to do.

[AIRLNRGUY]

You have really confused me?

[LX-A343]

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.

AIRLNRGUY,
Can you honestly say that this site has the same standards of A.net. Try uploading some there that get rejected here. Oh wait. I forgot you were once a screener over there so you would know.

Woah, MISQUOTE!!!!! I never said that! That was Indian Airlines! And I totally disagree with that statement. I absolutly love this site. LX-A343, where did you get that from?

Airlnrguy, you wrote exactly that, what I quoted in this very topic. Turn one page that and you'll see the following:

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.

That was the one of my quotes, which you are referring to. The other quote is NOT from me (or in your words: a MISQUOTE ), but thanks to Mike, we also know, that you really said, you were a A.net screener.

[wlyster]

What about me?

So as far as I can see from my original question, JetPhotos will be fair about uploads as long I crop good photos down to 1024x768. I don't know what dpi they expect, but since the ones that they show seem to be at about 72 dpi, anything higher should be acceptable.

I noticed that everyone got off topic a bit, but if anyone has further advice for me, I welcome it - I just wanted to make sure that the screening process had some standards to go by when judging pictures before I spend more time uploading to no avail. Anyone who got a hot head about my question should sit back a bit before responding - it's a forum and I had to ask the question.

I too, have previewed the other sites (a.net, etc) and JetPhotos appealed to me due to the stringent requirements for photo acceptance.

I had no idea what requirements were after uploading, since the photos I uploaded when pretty good and got rejected for what appeared to be a generic excuse.

I will resubmit the photos in 1024x768 and see what happens after that.

[mikecweb]

Don't expect much. And don't let this batch of uploads determine your future uploading to the site. Upload another batch and see what happens. And learn from what people tell you in the forum and see if you can improve. If you were here longer you would see how much people have improved with help of the members of this forum.

[AIRLNRGUY]

LOOK!!!! I am not talking about that!