Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Screeners accepting unacceptable photos.

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    15

    Default Screeners accepting unacceptable photos.

    Found it very interesting, on the front page today was a cool shot of the new F1 Racing livery, A6-BLV by Dutch, so I decided to take a closer look at it.

    I zoomed in on the nose, and what did I see! an obstruction! If you zoom in, the pole is actually slightly in front of the nose!

    Here is the link, https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9450021, zoom in on the nose and see for yourself! What do you guys think of this?!

  2. #2
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phx_airspace View Post
    Found it very interesting, on the front page today was a cool shot of the new F1 Racing livery, A6-BLV by Dutch, so I decided to take a closer look at it.

    I zoomed in on the nose, and what did I see! an obstruction! If you zoom in, the pole is actually slightly in front of the nose!

    Here is the link, https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9450021, zoom in on the nose and see for yourself! What do you guys think of this?!
    What I think? I'm glad you're not a screener.

    Why do you think it should have been rejected?

  3. #3
    Member pawelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Ummm... if the pole obstructs nose then how come it doesn't obstruct the tow tug? This one is fine.

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LX-A343 View Post
    What I think? I'm glad you're not a screener.

    Why do you think it should have been rejected?
    Obstruction, and lack of contrast.
    On 3.5, on in the guidelines, "Exceptions may be made if the equipment forms part of the motive of the shot, such as in use de-icing equipment, or if the angle of the shot means only a small part of the aircraft is obstructed, such as ground power units/cargo loading devices."
    This pole clearly isn't a gpu, or cargo loading devices, its a pole.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pawelm View Post
    Ummm... if the pole obstructs nose then how come it doesn't obstruct the tow tug? This one is fine.
    The tow tug has nothing to do with this... The tug can be obstructed and it has nothing to do with the plane being obstructed. The pole is what is obstructing the plane, and is what the problem is.

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phx_airspace View Post
    Obstruction, and lack of contrast.
    The pole doesn't obstruct the nose. The nose just happens to end right at the side of the pole. As was stated earlier, the tug is attached to the plane, and the pole is very clearly behind the tug. You also don't have access to a histogram for the photo so that contrast claim isn't necessarily accurate.

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klaxspotting View Post
    The pole doesn't obstruct the nose. The nose just happens to end right at the side of the pole. As was stated earlier, the tug is attached to the plane, and the pole is very clearly behind the tug. You also don't have access to a histogram for the photo so that contrast claim isn't necessarily accurate.
    Lack of contrast still remains. Histogram is not needed to determine contrast.

  8. #8
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phx_airspace View Post
    Lack of contrast still remains. Histogram is not needed to determine contrast.
    Thanks for providing the laugh. The main reason for your gripe has been proven false, so now you're really reaching for something. If the contrast is so bad, why didn't you mention it in your first post?

    Perhaps now it's time you apologized for making something out of nothing, or do you want to keep digging your hole?

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    London
    Posts
    136

    Default

    It's behind the aircraft so not an obstruction and it can be confirmed by observing the tug is in front of the post. Yes, it is untidy and it would be much better if the post weren't there but he can't change that.

  10. #10
    Member pawelm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phx_airspace View Post
    The tow tug has nothing to do with this... The tug can be obstructed and it has nothing to do with the plane being obstructed. The pole is what is obstructing the plane, and is what the problem is.
    Ofcourse it has. Tug is attachted to the plane. If the is nose would be obstructed then the tug should also be obstructed, and it isn't.

  11. #11
    Administrator Alex - Spot-This !'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    4,456

    Default

    Guys,
    This is just a fantastic night shot and if we should reject that night shot, we can probably reject 90% of other night shots for contrast issues...

  12. #12
    Junior Member QuocTrungTran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pawelm View Post
    Ofcourse it has. Tug is attachted to the plane. If the is nose would be obstructed then the tug should also be obstructed, and it isn't.
    Pawelm, you've got some perfect reasoning we need no further evidence. It's funny to see that simple rule but clearly not everybody could understand

    Well I'm wondering how many "haha" reacts this post could get if this were to post onto Facebook.
    201 flights - 121,966 miles (4.9x around Earth)
    160 VN - 8 CZ - 5 KE - 4 TG - 4 CI - 4 AK - 4 VJ - 2 NH - 2 QR - 2 VZ - 1 CA - 1 MU - 1 SQ - 1 TR - 1 BL - 1 MH
    HAN HPH VII VDH HUI DAD CXR UIH SGN PQC KUL KCH SIN BKK CNX PNH HKG CAN PEK NKG HGH NNG PVG ICN GMP PUS CJU TPE NRT HND ITM
    B78X - B789 - B788 - B77W - B773 - B772 - B744 - B739 - B738 - B737 - A388 - A359 - A333 - A332 - A321 - A21N - A320 - A319 - E190

  13. #13
    Dutch ....... ErwinS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    EHAM/SPL
    Posts
    4,140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phx_airspace View Post
    Lack of contrast still remains. Histogram is not needed to determine contrast.
    Thanks for the comments below my pictures. Cool way to handle.

    Enjoy your time on insta.....
    “The only time you have too much fuel is when you’re on fire.”

    Erwin


  14. #14
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phx_airspace View Post
    Found it very interesting, on the front page today was a cool shot of the new F1 Racing livery, A6-BLV by Dutch, so I decided to take a closer look at it.

    I zoomed in on the nose, and what did I see! an obstruction! If you zoom in, the pole is actually slightly in front of the nose!

    Here is the link, https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9450021, zoom in on the nose and see for yourself! What do you guys think of this?!
    Check your email inbox. You will find this in it. Lets see how you like public criticism....

    Well done for contravening every rule concerning comments on other photographers images. Point one.... Screeners do not screen their own images. Point two.... Your assessments of Erwin’s images are total bollocks. Point three.... I sincerely hope that you get banned for your actions.


    If you have something to say to someone, use the contact photographer link, not the publicly viewed comments section.
    Last edited by brianw999; 09-22-2019 at 01:48 PM.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    Check your email inbox. You will find this in it. Lets see how you like public criticism....

    Well done for contravening every rule concerning comments on other photographers images. Point one.... Screeners do not screen their own images. Point two.... Your assessments of Erwin’s images are total bollocks. Point three.... I sincerely hope that you get banned for your actions.

    If you have something to say to someone, use the contact photographer link, not the publicly viewed comments section.
    Haven’t gotten an email

  16. #16
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phx_airspace View Post
    Haven’t gotten an email
    Haven't apologized either. Still feeling aggrieved?

  17. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    Haven't apologized either. Still feeling aggrieved?
    What would I be apologizing for? If a photographer can’t take constructive critism, they shouldn’t be doing it.

  18. #18
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phx_airspace View Post
    What would I be apologizing for? If a photographer can’t take constructive critism, they shouldn’t be doing it.
    right.. well, first off, the whole point of your rant was the non-existent obstruction. Just thought you might want to own up to being completely wrong, but I guess not. The only reason this thread has been left open was to give you the chance to apologize, since we normally don't allow people to link other's images for critique, as it's seen as bad form/rude unless they've asked for it themselves.

    With that in mind, I take it then that you'd be ok if I posted a link to your images for people to offer their opinions?

  19. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    right.. well, first off, the whole point of your rant was the non-existent obstruction. Just thought you might want to own up to being completely wrong, but I guess not. The only reason this thread has been left open was to give you the chance to apologize, since we normally don't allow people to link other's images for critique, as it's seen as bad form/rude unless they've asked for it themselves.

    With that in mind, I take it then that you'd be ok if I posted a link to your images for people to offer their opinions?
    Sure!! I’m not the one screening my own photos and determining whether they should get accepted or not, so you’re just asking to criticize your screeners here. But go ahead.

  20. #20
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    7,861

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phx_airspace View Post
    Sure!! I’m not the one screening my own photos and determining whether they should get accepted or not, so you’re just asking to criticize your screeners here. But go ahead.
    That was a rhetorical question since I have a little more class than to try and humiliate someone in public by posting their images, and in any case I think you've said enough to do that to yourself

    Since this thread has run its course, there's no need for any continued discussion of the non-existent obstruction.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •