If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The problem really is your attitude. You complain about rude treatment, but to I've seen no rude comments to you at all from the crew. Starting your appeal with "You've got to be f**king kidding me", however, is extremely rude, and is what led to your ban. As clearly stated here, such language directed towards the crew is simply not tolerated:
Rudeness in actions is also rudeness. And the way screeners kept shifting goalposts and ignoring requests was rude as well. What I said was a reaction to that, and apart from that one word, I stand by it.
Website currently says I have reached my daily limit - well after the date when that ban should have expired. Just saying.
And sure as hell I get banned until October. Very nice. I have asked again and again to be told which category is missing. No one told me, not one screener had that wee little bit of courtesy to help me out, even during appeals. If the missing category was NOT "Night Shot", what could it have been?
Where do I appeal this ban? I consider it extremely rude for screeners to repeatedly (!) and totally ignore a request for help with the missing category (no hint, just slap on another rejection), and for simply adding reasons for rejection that weren't there originally, and I get banned for protesting that? That's really weird. There is definitely an issue on the screening side of things, and that's not "persecution complex".
The problem really is your attitude. You complain about rude treatment, but to I've seen no rude comments to you at all from the crew. Starting your appeal with "You've got to be f**king kidding me", however, is extremely rude, and is what led to your ban. As clearly stated here, such language directed towards the crew is simply not tolerated:
As I had suggested, you should have taken a little time to cool off a bit before doing/saying anything, but it is too late now. You'll simply need to deal with the consequence.
I can't comment on the category as I am not a screener, but I can comment on the dark/undexposed - it you have a look at the histogram that I am attaching, you will see that the right hand side of the histogram does not reach the edge of the box - there is lots of space - that is the dark/unexposed rejection.
And sure as hell I get banned until October. Very nice. I have asked again and again to be told which category is missing. No one told me, not one screener had that wee little bit of courtesy to help me out, even during appeals. If the missing category was NOT "Night Shot", what could it have been?
Where do I appeal this ban? I consider it extremely rude for screeners to repeatedly (!) and totally ignore a request for help with the missing category (no hint, just slap on another rejection), and for simply adding reasons for rejection that weren't there originally, and I get banned for protesting that? That's really weird. There is definitely an issue on the screening side of things, and that's not "persecution complex".
If you want to complain about inconsistent screening, so be it. It happens on a crew of 35+ people that sometimes things are missed, or that different people see the same image differently. That's unavoidable, unfortunately. But to suggest that someone is "absolutely hellbent on rejecting" your images is laughable at best, so you might want to give up on that unsubstantiate notion.
So I tried to add "Nightshot" to that picture (https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=7453030), and sure as hell it was rejected again for wrong/missing category. But did the screener have the courtesy to let me know which category was missing? No, of course not, why bother.... This is really rude, folks. Especially considering that I specifically asked during submission to let me know which category was missing or to simply be so kind as to add it. No way, I get another slot blocked for two weeks. Thanks. And you tell me this is not purposeful screening to reject and frustrate?
Also, I did increase exposure a bit, but still get "dark/underexposed" - makes no sense to me.
And I have no idea where there are artefacts. These reasons for rejection only came up after I fixed other issues (spots). This IS odd, it feels like reasons for rejections are just being added and made up on the go. Feel free to laugh or call it "unsubstantiated", but this is not the first time I see that kind of thing. Are screeners even more likely to reject if the acceptance rate so far is low?
Think you have a bit of a persecution complex. No one is out to get you. If the category had been the only issue with the image, it would have been fixed, simple. This is our standard procedure (to fix categories if nothing else is wrong), not only to build up a little good will with the photographers, but to also simply avoid clogging the queue when the image invariably gets resubmitted. I'd guess on average I fix categories/bad info for 20-30 images a day. Screeners may or may not leave a message (doing so adds significantly to the screening time), but if there is something you are unsure about (like the category), simply ask for help in the forum.
If you want to complain about inconsistent screening, so be it. It happens on a crew of 35+ people that sometimes things are missed, or that different people see the same image differently. That's unavoidable, unfortunately. But to suggest that someone is "absolutely hellbent on rejecting" your images is laughable at best, so you might want to give up on that unsubstantiate notion.
Hey,
I get where you're coming from. However the A350 is backlit no matter how you look at it. It just is.
Nah - it was headed right towards the sun. Here's a shot seconds earlier...
The category which is probably missing in the first two shots is 'Night Shot'.
Indeed that is what it was supposed to be - which makes absolutely no sense to me, the aircraft is in direct sunlight, the sun hasn't even set. And I don't understand why screeners won't just add a category. And of course the rude rejection (with more reasons added after the fact, which weren't there before) was again followed with a rejection of the appeal, and I get a slot blocked. This is just sheer arrogance, purposefully screening to reject and to frustrate. If I specifically ask in submission comments to add the required category, because I had no idea what it might be, how hard can it be to simply do that, instead of slapping on more reasons to reject and simply bring up the missing category again?
Hi there. I can totally understand where you are coming from. We have all been there. It took me months to get my first pic accepted after many continuous rejections. However it doesn't help in any way to take your frustrations out on the screeners as they are human and they make decisions based on what they see. You must also take into account the fact that your pic will more than likely be looked at by different screeners, especially if you upload more than once after it's been rejected. The next screener may see faults that the first screeners missed and add those to the rejection reasons. It does not mean the screeners are out to get you.
Getting to the pics you uploaded. The first one of the A319 does seem to have some issues that warrant it being rejected. There are some hints of dust spots in either side of the vertical stabiliser and the pic does appear to be a bit dark. I usually brighten my pics up to a point where they are just a tad over exposed. I found that usually helps to avoid a dark/underexposed rejection. As for the comparison between the pics of the A330 and A350, I think it's pretty easy to see why one was accepted and one was rejected. The A330 pic is well lit and has overall good contrast, while the A350 is backlit, giving it poor contrast and a flat dull look.
You mustn't take the rejections so personally. Even though it might not seem like it, the purpose of the rejections is actually to help you improve your photos so you can take better pics. It sounds weird but it's true.
that must be frustrating for you about the a319 and it can get annoying ive been here for a month now and with the 14 day rejected thing ive only been able to upload like 6 pictures 4 been rejected 1 accepted and 1 in queue still but i don't think you should talk about the screeners that way these guys are very good at what they do and probably better than 95% off people on here.
but if there is a person on here with the authority to change things maybe try to change the rejected wait from 14 days to 7 days. it sure would save me alot of waiting thanks
Hey,
I get where you're coming from. However the A350 is backlit no matter how you look at it. It just is. The category which is probably missing in the first two shots is 'Night Shot'. I suggest reading the upload guidelines which are posted in this forum. We all have been there and I do understand your frustration. I hope my post helped.
With JPG Compression If you are using Lightroom make sure the slider is up to 100% trust me this will help,
Always do, no exception. I have no idea where they see them here.
and When using Auto-fill (this happens to everyone) Make sure the the C/n is in and you have ticked the correct class eg, Small Prop helicopter
I asked them to add a suitable category, as I was unaware of what it might be. No reply, just another rejection for the same reason (with a few other reasons added). I consider that quite rude, to be honest.
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Rejected for
Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots (the spots were flies)
Categories wrong or missing
Second try, where I specifically asked which categories might be missing, and would screeners be so kind as to add them, as I had no idea which one would be applicable.
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Suddenly they add:
Dark / Underexposed
JPG compression artefacts
And still
Categories wrong or missing
You'd thnk perhaps people might have the decency/courtesy to explain what categories they are referring to, or not add new reasons for rejection that weren't mentioned before, but if it helps getting rid of submissions, why not make stuff up....?
Where are the artefacts?Backlit is not correct, either, the sun came right from the side.
Rejection of appeal came within minutes, and said "slightly dark" - and again, three slots blocked for two weeks.
So much fun, so much motivation to continue. But probably that's the idea, frustrate people (apart from the chosen few) to a degree where they will just give up.
Hey, I don't think you should say such things about screeners.. They are human, and they're trained to closely examine each and every photo. They know more about photography, editing, and screening than pretty much anybody else on Jetphotos.
I too, have gotten lots and lots of rejections, most of the time caused by bad editing. I don't take each rejection personally, nor do I always disagree.. Occasionally I appeal, but I usually come to the forum first for advice before appealing, and I'd suggest that you do the same. Ask a screener here on the forum before appealing.
As for those rejections, wait for an actual screener to take a look at them.....
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Rejected for
Dirty Scan / CMOS Dust spots (the spots were flies)
Categories wrong or missing
Second try, where I specifically asked which categories might be missing, and would screeners be so kind as to add them, as I had no idea which one would be applicable.
JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
Suddenly they add:
Dark / Underexposed
JPG compression artefacts
And still
Categories wrong or missing
You'd thnk perhaps people might have the decency/courtesy to explain what categories they are referring to, or not add new reasons for rejection that weren't mentioned before, but if it helps getting rid of submissions, why not make stuff up....?
Where are the artefacts?Backlit is not correct, either, the sun came right from the side.
Rejection of appeal came within minutes, and said "slightly dark" - and again, three slots blocked for two weeks.
So much fun, so much motivation to continue. But probably that's the idea, frustrate people (apart from the chosen few) to a degree where they will just give up.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Leave a comment: