Author | Message |
dcraigwestSee my 82 Photos |
2008-08-24 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 |
2008-08-24 GMT-5 hours |
Hi,
The link does not point to any specific image. |
Author | Message |
adminSee my 107 Photos |
2008-08-24 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 |
Author | Message |
dcraigwestSee my 82 Photos |
2008-08-24 GMT-5 hours |
Quote Oops, I guess you can't link to a rejected image! Thisis the image, if anyone's interested. Quote 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 |
2008-08-24 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 BravoSee my 36 Photos |
2008-08-24 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 |
dcraigwestSee my 82 Photos |
2008-08-24 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 |
TomcatterSee my 562 Photos |
2008-08-24 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 |
Flameboy01See my 61 Photos |
2009-01-16 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, |
Author | Message |
GhostbaseSee my 2,749 Photos |
2009-01-17 GMT-5 hours |
Quote 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 Appears to be thinking... |
Author | Message |
DaPaBrownSee my 9 Photos |
2009-01-18 GMT-5 hours |
Don't get too down, it happens, been there myself.
Dave |
Author | Message |
mark_munzelSee my 952 Photos |
2009-01-27 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 |
GhostbaseSee my 2,749 Photos |
2009-01-28 GMT-5 hours |
Quote 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 Appears to be thinking... |
Author | Message |
mark_munzelSee my 952 Photos |
2009-01-28 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 |
adminSee my 107 Photos |
2009-01-28 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 |
Author | Message |
31 BravoSee my 36 Photos |
2009-01-28 GMT-5 hours |
In general i find the screening process very consistent on here.
|
Author | Message |
stepwilk |
2009-01-30 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 |