Hi,

The link does not point to any specific image.

Quote

---

N74JW :
Hi,

The link does not point to any specific image.

---

Oops, I guess you can't link to a rejected image! Thisis the image, if anyone's interested.

Quote

---

Hi Dean,
I'm sorry to hear about the rejected photo, but please don't take it personally. Just about everybody gets a photo rejected here and there. I can count on one hand the number of people who have never had a photo rejected. We have to screen each photo on it's own merits and unfortunately this one didn't get the required number of positive votes after it was appealed. You have a lot of great photos to be proud of, so nothing to worry about there.

---

Hi Ray, thanks for taking the time to reply. I didn't realise that the photo went through a different process after its been appealed. Never mind, just felt abit hard done by. But if anything that's something to push me to better my images.
Thanks, Dean.

I know how you feel on this one Dean, it is a pretty nice photo but the screeners thought otherwise i guess. I wouldnt worry though even if it doesn't make it. You have a lot of better photos and surely more to come.

Mario

Hi Dean,

Just picking up on your point about being rejected previously, we can only reject and give a reason on what we see and without knowing what the original image looks like and what software is being used, it is very difficult for us to know if the image can be brought up to the required standard. Also just bear in mind that the standard has risen since many images on here were accepted and a lot of those wouldn't be accepted now.

Cheers,
Scott.

Quote

---

Tomcatter :
...bear in mind that the standard has risen since many images on here were accepted and a lot of those wouldn't be accepted now.

---

I have to admit that quite a few of mine would come into that category, having uploaded them when this site was in it's infancy

One thing that I have learned about the screening here is that it is usually very thorough. Sometimes I will submit an image which I know is marginal and hope will just squeeze in and it will take a while to be screened. When that happens just take a look at the number of hits the image has whilst it is in the 'Inactive' section of 'My Photos'- the higher the number the more the screeners are looking at it. I currently have a B-57 there with 7 hits so far and I know the screeners are discussing the fact that one of the wing-tip fuel tanks has been truncated which could get it rejected LOL!

Perhaps it depends whether at heart you are a photographer first or an aviation nut. Me, I am an aviation nut and photography as a technical skill does little for me so sometimes rejections are difficult to accept until you look at an image from a photographer's view. I guess the screeners ultimately have to take that photographers viewpoint.

Michael

<Opening can of worms>
Ray and team, could you tell us a little bit about the AF.com screening criteria and how they're applied? In general they seem to be producing a database of quality images, but occasionally there are photos that, to my eyes, are iffy on technical areas like contrast. And, yes, once in a rare while there'll be a shot added that seems to have more wrong with it than the M2K image that gave birth to this thread -- but it's here and Dean's Mirages aren't.

Don't read any implied criticism of the criteria into the above, because it's not meant to be there. I realize all these matters are subjective. I'm inquisive in a positive way -- the more that we photographers know about the criteria, the better we'll be at meeting them.

</Opening can of worms>

-M.M.

Fair comment, Michael, and I've edited my post to remove the link. (You might wish to edit yours to remove the photog's name.) The over-inquisitve will have to look at recent uploads to the database and hypothesize about what photo I was referring to.

-M.M.

In general i find the screening process very consistent on here.