You're not logged in.

User Name  Remember me?
Password 
  Register   Lost your password? 
 
> 1 <

Author Message

dcraigwest


Photographers
See my 82 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 6
Location:
Occupation:
Age:

#3100 2008-08-24 09:57 GMT-5 hours    
Pretty gutted with a rejection I recieved today. Had this rejected for the quality of the photo being lower than the current standards. I know that it's not superbly edited with great quality, none of my editing is up to brilliant standards yet anyway, but I feel that there are a fair few images on the database that are of a poorer quality and haven't even been properly edited, ie level horizon, correctly centred etc. What also made this rejection even more annoying is that I'd had it previously rejected for only being slightly soft, so I sharpened it and reuploaded. Perhaps if I'd been told in the first place that this wasn't going to meet their standards I would have saved the time re-editing and uploading this image and waiting 11 days for it to be rejected when I could have focused on other images.
It would be interesting to hear any of your thoughts.
Thanks, Dean.

Author Message

N74JW


Members


 Online status  

 
Posts: 190
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Occupation: IT Administrator
Age: 42

#3101 2008-08-24 12:43 GMT-5 hours    
Hi,

The link does not point to any specific image.

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 57 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 2097
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#3102 2008-08-24 13:34 GMT-5 hours    
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.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

dcraigwest


Photographers
See my 82 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 6
Location:
Occupation:
Age:

#3103 2008-08-24 13:41 GMT-5 hours    
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.

Author Message

N74JW


Members


 Online status  

 
Posts: 190
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Occupation: IT Administrator
Age: 42

#3104 2008-08-24 15:05 GMT-5 hours    
I think the photo is pretty nice! It would be better without the building in the background...

I would be excited to get that close to a Mirage 2000. We don not get many of those around here. Actually, we don't get any...

Cheers!

Author Message

31 Bravo


Gold Members
See my 36 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 197
Location: Halifax
Occupation: Air Mechanic
Age:

#3105 2008-08-24 15:32 GMT-5 hours    
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

Author Message

dcraigwest


Photographers
See my 82 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 6
Location:
Occupation:
Age:

#3106 2008-08-24 15:38 GMT-5 hours    
Thanks for the kind words guys. It was pretty good to be able to get relatively close to the aircraft, especailly as though it's the last year of the Mirage 2000 on the display circuit.

Dean.

Author Message

Tomcatter


Photo Screeners
See my 562 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 291
Location: Manchester
Occupation: Train Driver
Age:

#3107 2008-08-24 17:38 GMT-5 hours    
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.

Author Message

Flameboy01


Photographers
See my 61 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 3
Location:
Occupation: Fireman
Age:

#3523 2009-01-16 18:07 GMT-5 hours    
Yeah, dont worry m8, you have a lot more better pictures to show, and you know this coan happen if you use this website for your images right? Keep smiling dude!

Regards,

Andras Brandligt
fb / afterburnerphotography

Author Message

Ghostbase


Photographers
See my 1,566 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 89
Location: Guildford
Occupation: Railway Guard / Conductor
Age:

#3525 2009-01-17 12:14 GMT-5 hours    
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

"Rolling..." B-36H serial 51-5734 Film 'Strategic Air Command' 1955 - Six Turning and Four Burning!

Author Message

DaPaBrown


Photographers
See my 9 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 2
Location: Oakland County, Michigan, US
Occupation: Retired
Age:

#3530 2009-01-18 10:21 GMT-5 hours    
Don't get too down, it happens, been there myself.

Dave

Author Message

mark_munzel


Photographers
See my 732 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 50
Location: Vancouver
Occupation: Dad (plus some engineering to pay the bills)
Age: 46

#3572 2009-01-27 15:57 GMT-5 hours    
<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.

Author Message

Ghostbase


Photographers
See my 1,566 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 89
Location: Guildford
Occupation: Railway Guard / Conductor
Age:

#3583 2009-01-28 13:02 GMT-5 hours    
Quote
mark_munzel :
And while I hate to single out anyone's photo...



Nothing wrong with being "inquisitive in a positive way" and you are asking a very fair question Mark however I do have to ask whether we as Airfighters photographers should be publicly singling out other people's work on this site, even if it is in a greater good cause?

Just my tuppence worth

Michael

"Rolling..." B-36H serial 51-5734 Film 'Strategic Air Command' 1955 - Six Turning and Four Burning!

Author Message

mark_munzel


Photographers
See my 732 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 50
Location: Vancouver
Occupation: Dad (plus some engineering to pay the bills)
Age: 46

#3584 2009-01-28 13:47 GMT-5 hours    
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.

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 57 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 2097
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#3585 2009-01-28 14:39 GMT-5 hours    
I have edited Michael's post to remove the particular photog's name.

As you can see, and we have discovered over the past few months, screening can be very subjective and consistency can be very difficult to attain at times. I agree, that photo is rather questionable and if I was the screener I would've probably rejected it, but I'm sure the screener probably had a very good reason to accept it. Maybe it was the photog's first upload to the site; we are usually pretty lenient on first uploads? Maybe it was the first shot of that particular airframe in the database, or maybe it was a very rare photo in one way or form. Those are some of the factors to think about, including the age of the photo. You may have noticed we have several hundred photos in the database from the 70's and 80's that would definitely not make it were they recent shots.

While we try our best to be 100% fair and consistent, at the end we're all humans too, and once in a while, a photo or two does get through that perhaps should not have.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

31 Bravo


Gold Members
See my 36 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 197
Location: Halifax
Occupation: Air Mechanic
Age:

#3586 2009-01-28 15:02 GMT-5 hours    
In general i find the screening process very consistent on here.

Author Message

stepwilk


Members


 Online status  

 
Posts: 1
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY
Occupation: writer
Age:

#3614 2009-01-30 17:11 GMT-5 hours    
To me, frankly, the big problem with the shot is that once of the airplanes has eight legs... It's a very disconcerting background.

Stephan Wilkinson

> 1 <
This topic is locked, new posts are not allowed.