I used the grid to help when measuring and will move the picture up. I was told by the screener to make the windowline the center.
I used the grid to help when measuring and will move the picture up. I was told by the screener to make the windowline the center.
"lol retart"
Ok I'm a little frustrated right now:
Oversharpened and common, over sharpened maybe but common my ass, theres only one shot of this plane in the US:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... mrdewr.jpg
Then quality and soft:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 057ewr.jpg
The common rejection is based on pics in the DB not a certain area. There is 200 pics of that bird so the bar is very high to get it accepted.theres only one shot of this plane in the US:
As for the sharpness it looks marginal. Try it with a little less USM.
'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol
Common is a total BS rejection... The plane is being shown in a different place at a different time and I don't know too many people who can get a shot of it from EWR tower with that angle, so please don't tell me the bar is raised, Bill would be the one raising the bar.Originally Posted by njgtr82
The second one needs a bit of USM but quality.....again complete and utter bull**** and a slap in the face. Bill's shot is a good shot and certainly not bad quality, a picture taken with a cell phone camera is bad quality. Both those shots would get over 10k views as A.net, no doubt. I wonder how happy Demand Media would be if they saw how much revenue would be lost because of decisions like this? I'm happy I'm associated and volunteer with a site that sees this hobby from and enthusiast standpoint. The screeners who rejected those shots should be ashamed of themselves.
Tommy you love to argue points we have no control over. It's not what we think it's what they want in the DB. The common rejection is not BS, it simply states if there is a lot of pictures of a certain aircraft the quality has to be of the highest for acceptance. Thats all. Bill's pic is nice but has some minor flaws that can probably be fixed.Common is a total BS rejection... The plane is being shown in a different place at a different time and I don't know too many people who can get a shot of it from EWR tower with that angle, so please don't tell me the bar is raised, Bill would be the one raising the bar.
Huh?a picture taken with a cell phone camera is bad quality
I wonder how happy Demand Media would be if they saw how much revenue would be lost because of decisions like this?
I'm happy I'm associated and volunteer with a site that sees this hobby from and enthusiast standpoint. The screeners who rejected those shots should be ashamed of themselves.
Tommy this enthusiast stuff is so old and should be put to bed. The screeners on anet are just as much enthusiasts as everyone else in the hobby and are not in the business of rejecting stuff for reasons detremental to the hobby. There are other avenues to deal with rejections, such as appeal, posting the pic and seeing if it can be saved with a new edit etc. A rant on the conspiracy theory is not the way and is counterproductive.
'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol
Nick stop drinking the Anet Kool Aid. I never said a thing about a conspiracy. I simply stated that....
1. Bill's shot is not common, it was taken from EWR tower....hardly a common shot.
2. Bill's shots are of good quality and that the quality rejections should be used for truly bad shots like ones that are taken and uploaded from a camera phone.
3. I think I'm allowed to state my support and appreciation for working for JP.net.
4. Its dollars and sense, Bill's shot would have been a big hitter adding a few bucks to A.net's bottom line.
Read this.Bill's shot is not common, it was taken from EWR tower....hardly a common shot.
COMMON
The aircraft depicted in your photos was very common in the Airliners.net database, with many photos of this aircraft already present on the website.
In this case the standards for acceptance are higher than for aircraft of which we have fewer or no photographs on the database, and only photos of exceptional quality will be accepted.
Please understand that this is not a judgement on your abilities, as your picture may be of a technical quality which may be very decent. However, due to the common nature of the aircraft photographed, the highest standard is applied to avoid substantial duplication.
Why is that? Camera phone? I think we passed that level long time ago. Anet standards are exactly that. Their own. If you upload you have to understand this.2. Bill's shots are of good quality and that the quality rejections should be used for truly bad shots like ones that are taken and uploaded from a camera phone.
We are all well aware of this Tom.3. I think I'm allowed to state my support and appreciation for working for JP.net.
If you have a crystal ball that can tell how many hits a pic will get that's great but I think we're reaching here. I would encourage Bill to try to save the shot with another edit. Possibly contact the screener that rejected the shot and seek his advice.4. Its dollars and sense, Bill's shot would have been a big hitter adding a few bucks to A.net's bottom line.
'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol
Nick you always have to have the last word so I won't argue with you anymore, I'd have a more fruitful conversation with a tree.
No Tom I am just trying to discuss the matter of Bill's shots without interjecting bias as you do. You want everyone to buy into some notion that anet is not for aviation enthusiasts because they reject shots you feel should be accepted. This is not only crazy but I feel prevents photogs from taking a pic that has been rejected and doing the work in PS to get it accepted. As I have shown the common rejection on anet is well explained and not BS as you claim. If you read the last line it said it is NOT a judge of one abilities. I just feel that this is a photography forum and people here seek help not propaganda. As a screener yourself I would bet you get emails on pics you rejected as you can do at anet. The screeners there are very helpful and accomadating and always aere willing to help. I would bet if Bill posted either or both of his pics in av-photo on anet and asked the screener who rejected it as to what is needed to fix the shot he would get a response and with another edit could get the pics uploaded.Nick you always have to have the last word so I won't argue with you anymore
'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol
Well I wasn't intending on getting anyone all fired up over this but thanks for the advice guys. I don't know if I will even attempt to reupload them, because most of the time I do end up getting frustrated. I see lots of people having shots rejected that are fantastic. I understand the standards they have, but sometime theres no rhyme or reason it seems. But I will argue with anyone that tries to tell me that that is a common shot, its not. The thousands and thousands pictures in the database of airborne side profile shots is common.
That is unfortunate Bill. Those shots can most likely be saved with some patience and work in PS.I don't know if I will even attempt to reupload them, because most of the time I do end up getting frustrated
Arrrg. Bill you have to undertand the common rejection. Anet is not saying your shot is common. They are saying that with 200 pics of an aircraft in the DB the standards are much higher. Now, with this said your shot can have a minor flaw with a # of things that is not giving it the quality to get accepted., usually with something that is easily fixable in PS. As usual here people have bought into the conspiracy theory about the screening of anet. Now you can either sit here and give up or you can take the steps to find out why the shot was rejected and fix it and get it uploaded.But I will argue with anyone that tries to tell me that that is a common shot, its not. The thousands and thousands pictures in the database of airborne side profile shots is common.
'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol
Nick you just contradicted what the common shot means... By all means it means its a common shot to the database and unless there is something special about it, its going to be rejected. As I stated Bill's shot is far from common. First off there's not to many pics of it from the U.S and its from EWR tower. So how anyone says that his shot is common dosn't know what they are talking about.
Actually, I don't think that's what the Common rejection means, at least at a.net. It doesn't need to be "special" so much as the quality just needs to really be up there. Indeed, plenty of "common" planes are featured in the newest pictures in the database on a daily basis -- the quality just happens to be really good in the particular pictures. Nick's explanation of the Common rejection is correct:
On this shot, I can see how it would have been rejected for oversharpened. Since the Common rejection is only used in combination with other rejection reasons, the screener here was telling Bill that this shot can be accepted if re-edited and less sharpening is used. Pretty straightforward.
A.net is a global database, and its definition of "common" does not depend on where a particular plane was photographed, but instead is simply based on the number of pictures featuring the particular registration. I'm sure that JP adopts a different view towards that rule, but that doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". There is logic to the a.net approach, although I agree with you that this particular picture is not "common" in the literal sense. That being said, regardless of whether the plane is "common" in the database, the standards for acceptance (i.e., oversharpened pictures will be rejected) are not lowered simply because a plane was photographed in a new location for the first time.
-There is 200 pics of that bird so the bar is very high to get it accepted.
While I can understand the prinicple there, I can't wait to see what the next photo of 9M-MRD looks like.
-Tommy you love to argue points we have no control over.
And Nick, you love to argue. Period.
-If you have a crystal ball that can tell how many hits a pic will get that's great but I think we're reaching here. I would encourage Bill to try to save the shot with another edit. Possibly contact the screener that rejected the shot and seek his advice.
I too would encourage contacting the screener. It is hit or miss whether you will get an answer.
-I'd have a more fruitful conversation with a tree.
OMG, thanks for making me laugh.
-There are other avenues to deal with rejections, such as appeal, posting the pic and seeing if it can be saved with a new edit etc.
Nick, if you want, I'll email you what my travels down those avenues were like. Seriously,I would like to continue this offsite. My only gripe is this: Anet, in the act of applying stringent standards to an art like photography, makes up 'benchmarks' based on some sort of logic.
In a recent recjection of bad double, I saw someone else's shot of the same 'double' nature accepted. So when I inquired, shown them the photos accepted and showed them mine, well, let's say their logic was nil and the final answer I got was silence.
To me, when you are discussing something and you don't have an answer, that's just wrong and doesn't help create clear lines of communication or understanding.
And I, I took the path less traveled by
and that has made all the difference......yet...
I have a feeling a handle of people are going to be very interested in what I post in the near future.
http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=187
Well if you want to subscrube to this fine. I don't. This is America, let the people speak. Besides there are some here that share my views yet think it's useless to discuss. I am beginning to see why.And Nick, you love to argue. Period.
I can email you my travels too, all positive. In fact the screeners continue to help me even when I don't ask. Maybe if you didn't call screeners out when you get a picture of your ass rejected you would get a more positive response. As for benchmarks Mario it's their site. They can do whatever they want. If they want stringent standards it's fine. There are other sites to upload. Rather than embark on logic and accusing them of all sorts of stuff I would think it makes more sense to upload elsewhere. It just makes it worse for everyone involved. Including people new to the site.Nick, if you want, I'll email you what my travels down those avenues were like. Seriously,I would like to continue this offsite. My only gripe is this: Anet, in the act of applying stringent standards to an art like photography, makes up 'benchmarks' based on some sort of logic.
As for your double why not try to email Gary Watt who is a head screener. His door is always open as far as I am concerned and I am sure he can give you an answer.
'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks