Screening: Fair - Process/Method:Inconsistent

[wlyster]

I am pleased that JetPhotos.net has stringent requirements for their photo submissions. It enhances the quality and professionalism of the site. I do wonder if the method or process in screening photos is fair.

First, screeners have massive amounts of photos to screen as anyone can see in the queue - it takes days and each one must be looked at with human eyes. Second, after sitting and viewing photos for a certain amount of time, anyone could get bored and want to just get it over with.

I recently submitted digital photos that were rejected due to 'bad quality'. If they were truly bad quality, I can accept that but what exactly is 'bad quality'? It seems to be a quick response for rejecting a photo for any reason.

The photos were very sharp, excellent lighting, no blur movement, true-color, and reduced from 2560x1920 200dpi to 800x600 200dpi (I could have made them 1024x768 but decided against since jp.net accepts at minimum 800x600). One of these photos actually made it in - and it was the worst of the bunch!

So is there a Standard Operating Procedure for screeners or is it more of "who you get and what kind of day they had?"

This photo - the worst of the bunch was accepted:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=136834

The photo shown below (modified by JetPhotos.net) was rejected . . .

[fallingeese]

I'm sorry but to me that BIG orange thing, is really distracting as is the object in the bottom left corner.

[mikecweb]

Just curious why you would choose a lower quality?
Edit: Looking through your rejections I would have to say that the once accepted was definetly not the worst. The overall quality of all of the shots is bad. There is at least one thing wrong with each of them. The one of the helo I would appeal.

[Greg]

I feel the screening is consistent and professional. And as Mike said why would you go for lower quality?

[indian airlines]

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

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

[wlyster]

Lowering Quality

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.

Every photo was rejected do to 'bad quality'.

What is 'bad quality'? Did I take a bad shot? Was it grainy? Was it blurry? Was the dpi off? Poor saturation? Overexposed? Poor angle? Was it just too easy to keep hitting the 'bad quality" button?

I even thought the Helo pic was pretty good and figured it wasn't even worth the appeal.

I am not stirring things up here, these are the first photos I have sent and do not know if others have had similar circumstances. I did not want to continue sending photos that may get rejected on a whim, or if there was some other feedback than . . . 'bad quality'

[mikecweb]

Of course there is a human element to all screening decisions but trust me you'll find the fairest judgements here at Jp.
Tanuj. I don't know about oversharpened but you can definetly tell about the sudden addition of the full vertical stabilizer to your pic.

[indian airlines]

Yeah, it's been cloned in - I thought that was allowed?

[mikecweb]

I'll be nice...I'll leave the smartass stuff to the professionals like Jeff.
No cloning of adding parts to an aircraft.

[JeffinDEN]

T- Mike is right, never add anything that was not originally there to start with.

wlyster- Try not to take those shots at "high Noon". The contrast is miserable. Also, just resize to 1024 x 768 or around that size and they will be fine. Also, the shots are not sharp. Focused, just not sharp.

Jeff

[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.

[Leftseat86]

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.


You mean you dont edit your photos?

Tanuj, instead of dismissing all of your rejections as "It was the screeners fault, I take absolutley stunning photos" maybe you should try and take advice and produce the photos your camera is capable of...much better.

-Clovis

[indian airlines]

Clovis,

I never said any of that.

I didn't know that only cloning out was allowed, and cloning in was not allowed.

Nowhere have I said that it's the screeners fault, or that I take stunning pics. Don't misquote me.

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.

[AIRLNRGUY]

I think clovis is having a bad night.

[AIRLNRGUY]

I don't think its like a.net . Not that you don't edit your photos, but they could use a little more editing.