Airliners.net Rejection

[DeanW]

For Airliners I think the smallest the image can be is 1000x667. Although that doesn't look like it's got an aspect ratio of 3:2 or 4:3 either?

[Ben Montgomery]

Yeah A.net like it at 3:2 ratio.

Can I direct your questions to this thread though, over in the Photography Q&A section, rather than have them in this section:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10718&start=260" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cheers,

Ben

[rattler]

I post at 1024 x 683 (the recommended size as advised by one of the screeners). If you do re-upload, I think it may get rejected again because of noise - it looks a wee bit grainy to me. Not a criticism; just my humble opion. Anyhow, the best of luck with A.net.

Mick F

[Mike]

Topics merged.

[Ben Montgomery]

Had this rejected for colour:



I assume they mean the orange colour - but it was sunset?

[Jonay]

Nah they had to make an excuse up for anything - its a crap picture alltogether

[Ben Montgomery]

Pretty strange - I'm pretty sure when I uploaded it I even added a comment to the screener mentioning that it was at sunset hence the orange colour.

I get peeved about small things it seems!

[Ben Montgomery]

Appeal upheld - win!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Ai ... 7bd4df66ce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Buff52]

Seems to have paid off Ben, its in the top 5. Well done


Rgds Alan.

[Craig]

They are fools at times Ben. We could adjust every picture to 5200 kelvin and they would probably prefer it, however it wouldn't make for a better picture!

[747woody]

They were probably green with envy Ben!

[BOLLO]

Here's one for ya.I have had quite a successful weekend re uploads.Had 5 accepted and 4 rejected,but here is the funny thing about it.I have had accepted one of my VC 25's 28000 and my Air Force One 29000 rejected.Reason for rejection is soft and here's the cracker...DOUBLE!! Now,seeing as I only have one VC 25 on there which is a totally different jet and shot toboot,how the hell can it be double,judge for yor self.

Accepted shot
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Ai ... 0a1555735c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rejected shot
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... af-1-c.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know what to say really,just goes to show some of the screeners don't know what there on with sometimes.

[Ben Montgomery]

I've had this - kinda shows the screeners don't really bother looking too closely at the info.

For me, it was two CV-22s, at a similar angle. Second was rejected for double, even though it was a different airframe.

[Wallace]

The problem probably lies in screener fatigue. Screening a large amount of images as the a.net screeners must do do numbs the brain, I tire after about 20 or so and that's when mistakes are made, so I limit my viewing to 15 or so at a time.

It takes a minute to screen a picture, not much you would say but that time mounts up when screening a large batch of images.

[BOLLO]

The problem probably lies in screener fatigue. Screening a large amount of images as the a.net screeners must do do numbs the brain, I tire after about 20 or so and that's when mistakes are made, so I limit my viewing to 15 or so at a time.

It takes a minute to screen a picture, not much you would say but that time mounts up when screening a large batch of images.

You a screener on A.Net chap? If so could you please explain why if a shot is rejected as soft that the soft area is not pointed out and what does personal mean.?

[Wallace]

"You a screener on A.Net chap? "

No, not a.net. It does not really matter which site it is, all I am doing is showing a side of "the business" that one would not normally see.

I really try to include some advice or explanation as to why I find it necessary to reject a photo, otherwise how is anyone ever going to better their photography?
Personally, I really hate it when I have to reject shot after shot, it is hard on a photographer (been there myself and have not forgotten what's that like) and hard on me, however I am trusted with maintaining the sites standards and at the end of the day no one wants to sit down and view poor photographs.

[BOLLO]

"Personal" means the screener has included a personal message in the rejection e-mail - something that will clarify the rejection reason.

As to why a soft area might not be mentioned in the e-mail: With the sheer volume of photos waiting to be screened (about 10,000 last time I looked) it'd be too much to expect the screeners to reply personally to every single photo.

No its not not at all.All they got to do is point out where they think its soft surly its not too much to ask for them to point it out.Instead of fobbing you off with the usual thing they do.

[Craig]

"Personal" means the screener has included a personal message in the rejection e-mail - something that will clarify the rejection reason.

As to why a soft area might not be mentioned in the e-mail: With the sheer volume of photos waiting to be screened (about 10,000 last time I looked) it'd be too much to expect the screeners to reply personally to every single photo.

No its not not at all.All they got to do is point out where they think its soft surly its not too much to ask for them to point it out.Instead of fobbing you off with the usual thing they do.

Correct Bollo, and in doing so, whilst it would be more time consuming to begin with, you would imagine it would eventually decrease their workload as people learn what is and isnt't acceptable and sort it prior to uploading. It would also stop people re-uploading the same picture and hoping for a different screener trick because if you can't see what they are getting at and you try this then again they are making themselves more work by not telling you in the first place IMO.

[BOLLO]

No,sorry chap I disagree totally with that.Surly it helps if the screener just puts a message to say ie soft on the nose wheel of slightly soft on the tail.They do when the reject images for rotation so I'm sure they can piont out where they feel an image is soft.Smacks of laziness to me.I have had 4 accepted today of which 2 have been rejected for various reasons,so I have re uploaded and tried again.

This one was rejected first time for compression,not done anything to it it and just sent by chance,accepted.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Ar ... f333cc0540" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This was rejected for being soft and grainy,sent again and accepted.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Ai ... 01910f333c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So,how come one screener reject and another pass?I just think they need to take a wee bit of thought before going to the "reject button" as quick as what they do.

[Craig]

No,sorry chap I disagree totally with that.Surly it helps if the screener just puts a message to say ie soft on the nose wheel of slightly soft on the tail.

Yeah that is what I am saying too in a confusing round about way.