Screening: Fair - Process/Method:Inconsistent

[wlyster]

I am pleased that JetPhotos.net has stringent requirements for their photo submissions. It enhances the quality and professionalism of the site. I do wonder if the method or process in screening photos is fair.

First, screeners have massive amounts of photos to screen as anyone can see in the queue - it takes days and each one must be looked at with human eyes. Second, after sitting and viewing photos for a certain amount of time, anyone could get bored and want to just get it over with.

I recently submitted digital photos that were rejected due to 'bad quality'. If they were truly bad quality, I can accept that but what exactly is 'bad quality'? It seems to be a quick response for rejecting a photo for any reason.

The photos were very sharp, excellent lighting, no blur movement, true-color, and reduced from 2560x1920 200dpi to 800x600 200dpi (I could have made them 1024x768 but decided against since jp.net accepts at minimum 800x600). One of these photos actually made it in - and it was the worst of the bunch!

So is there a Standard Operating Procedure for screeners or is it more of "who you get and what kind of day they had?"

This photo - the worst of the bunch was accepted:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=136834

The photo shown below (modified by JetPhotos.net) was rejected . . .
<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/N330AC.jpg>

[fallingeese]

I'm sorry but to me that BIG orange thing, is really distracting as is the object in the bottom left corner.

[mikecweb]

Just curious why you would choose a lower quality?
Edit: Looking through your rejections I would have to say that the once accepted was definetly not the worst. The overall quality of all of the shots is bad. There is at least one thing wrong with each of them. The one of the helo I would appeal.

[Greg]

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/N330AC_2.JPG>

I feel the screening is consistent and professional. And as Mike said why would you go for lower quality?

[indian airlines]

I think it still somewhat depends upon the mood of the screeners when they are screening.

Look at these pics. They were rejected once. Then I got some biiiiig help improving them, they were rejected again! I'll post one of the new rejects below.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=47329

:roll:

[wlyster]

I lowered the image size soley to reduce upload time considering the numbers of photos I was uploading. From here on out I will spend more time and upload the entire 2560x1920 image and let jp do the rest.

Every photo was rejected do to 'bad quality'.

What is 'bad quality'? Did I take a bad shot? Was it grainy? Was it blurry? Was the dpi off? Poor saturation? Overexposed? Poor angle? Was it just too easy to keep hitting the 'bad quality" button?

I even thought the Helo pic was pretty good and figured it wasn't even worth the appeal.

I am not stirring things up here, these are the first photos I have sent and do not know if others have had similar circumstances. I did not want to continue sending photos that may get rejected on a whim, or if there was some other feedback than . . . 'bad quality'

[mikecweb]

Of course there is a human element to all screening decisions but trust me you'll find the fairest judgements here at Jp.
Tanuj. I don't know about oversharpened but you can definetly tell about the sudden addition of the full vertical stabilizer to your pic.

[indian airlines]

Yeah, it's been cloned in - I thought that was allowed?

[mikecweb]

I'll be nice...I'll leave the smartass stuff to the professionals like Jeff.
No cloning of adding parts to an aircraft.

[JeffinDEN]

T- Mike is right, never add anything that was not originally there to start with.

wlyster- Try not to take those shots at "high Noon". The contrast is miserable. Also, just resize to 1024 x 768 or around that size and they will be fine. Also, the shots are not sharp. Focused, just not sharp.

Jeff

[AIRLNRGUY]

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.

[Leftseat86]

I lowered the image size soley to reduce upload time considering the numbers of photos I was uploading. From here on out I will spend more time and upload the entire 2560x1920 image and let jp do the rest.


You mean you dont edit your photos? :skeptic:

Tanuj, instead of dismissing all of your rejections as "It was the screeners fault, I take absolutley stunning photos" maybe you should try and take advice and produce the photos your camera is capable of...much better.

-Clovis

[indian airlines]

Clovis,

I never said any of that.

I didn't know that only cloning out was allowed, and cloning in was not allowed.

Nowhere have I said that it's the screeners fault, or that I take stunning pics. Don't misquote me.

All I'm saying is that the site started off as trying to differentiate itself from airliners.net. I don't see it like that anymore. The screeners are setting their standards waaaay to high.

[AIRLNRGUY]

I think clovis is having a bad night.

[AIRLNRGUY]

I don't think its like a.net . Not that you don't edit your photos, but they could use a little more editing.

[Leftseat86]

All I'm saying is that the site started off as trying to differentiate itself from airliners.net. I don't see it like that anymore. The screeners are setting their standards waaaay to high.


Maybe you're setting your standards waaaay to low? I left Airliners.net because they reject good photos for being soft when it is barely noticeable, they reject a photo for bad quality when there are much worse in the database, and because Johan thinks he owns the internet aviation world. Over here it is NOT that damn hard to get a photo accepted. Since the beggining I've always tried to emulate the greats. Paul Paulsen, Tony Silgrim, Chis Sheldon, Don Boyd, Philippe Noret come to mind... And you dont have to have a 10D or a D100. Good photos are possible from scanned prints, scanned slides and almost any digital camera over 2MP if you know how to work within the limitations of your medium and utilize your camera to its fullest.
I hate...seriously hate to do this...but I dont think my shots are half bad for a 3.2MP 550$ camera. I've learned my equipments limitations and how to work around its faults to produce the best images it is capable of.
Tanuj, you dont become a photographer overnight. It takes practice, perserverence, failure and time. If you keep at it you should improve. Your latest shots are much better already...but you have to go further, because your camera is capable of better, I know that as a fact. Once you've gotten to th point where your camera will not produce any better...then you can sort of call yourself a photographer :) (Thats also when its time to upgrade :P )

-Clovis

[AIRLNRGUY]

I hate...seriously hate to do this...but I dont think my shots are half bad for a 3.2MP 550$ camera.


I got a 3 mp for $437 and it works great, my shots are clear and sharp.

[Leftseat86]

I got a 3 mp for $437 and it works great, my shots are clear and sharp.

That UA 744 certainly wasnt clear and sharp.

-Clovis

[AIRLNRGUY]

That one was with the SLR

[LX-A343]

OK, a few comments from another screener, just to balance out a bit.

Q: Wyll Lyster asked, why his shot was rejected.
First of all: I don't fully understand this: "The photo shown below (modified by JetPhotos.net) was rejected . . . " What did Jetphotos.net edit?

Anyway, the pic is not as bad as many others we get to see, but 1) it shows dull colors / low contrast and 2) that orange thing and the gas bottle in the lower left corner are disturbing. Some screeners may have accepted it, others not. There are no clear standards regarding such topics. But if we see, that a picture can EASILY be improved (i.e. in one or two minutes), than we rather reject. Look for example, what Greg made with this picture. It's looks MUCH better already. Of course, every screener handles such pics and rejections differently.

Q: Why did the screener only write "bad quality"?
If there isn't a clear reason to reject, sometimes it's better to just select "bad quality", instead of misleading the photographer.

I think it still somewhat depends upon the mood of the screeners when they are screening.

IT's the same, when you're on your job, isn't it? :wink:

Look at these pics. They were rejected once. Then I got some biiiiig help improving them, they were rejected again! I'll post one of the new rejects below.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=47329

A help doesn't mean guaranteed acceptance, just a help, nothing more.

The UPS picture is still bad quality. You did a good job cloning in the tail (some may be against it, but if I don't know, it was "faked", so what :wink: ), but not good enough. Look carefully and you'll see some weird artifacts around the tail. Add to that the jaggies for example in the UPS title on the fuselage.

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.

Sure, we need to look more closely at the info, but sometimes mistakes happen. If something wrong is added, then TWO mistakes happend, one of them beeing a wrong info submitted by the photographer. BTW, that's why we have a "submit correction" feature, which works very good.

I lowered the image size soley to reduce upload time considering the numbers of photos I was uploading. From here on out I will spend more time and upload the entire 2560x1920 image and let jp do the rest.

I suggest you crop, rotate, resize, adjust colors/level/curves and sharpen the image before uploading ANYWHERE. Otherwise don't come after, because your pics are rejected.

All I'm saying is that the site started off as trying to differentiate itself from airliners.net. I don't see it like that anymore. The screeners are setting their standards waaaay to high.

Try to upload your pics to A.net, and then tell us, how many were accepted. Do you really think, the UPS B747 shot would have been accepted at A.net? We have lower standards, than A.net and probably also as PP.net. But this doesn't mean, we accept everything. And - again - if we see, that a picture can EASILY be improved, then we rather reject with the possible solution for a 100% sure upload.

Overall, I'd say, we have a rejection rate of MAX 10-20%. Some admins could give a more precised info perhaps. Compare this to the rejection rate at any other aviation picture database.....

Cheers
Gerardo

[wlyster]

You mean you dont edit your photos? :skeptic:

-Clovis

I didn't do any editing because the six criteria set up by JetPhotos.net implied that I shouldn't.

General Criteria

1. Only upload photos that you have taken!
2. Photos must be in the JPEG (with extension .jpg) format.
3. Do not upload files with invalid characters in the filename (valid characters in a filename are A-Z, a-z, 0-9, -, _)
4. Photos must be at least 800x600 pixels in size (with the exception of vertical shots). This applies to both the height and width of the image. 6. Images which are overcropped (very narrow) will be rejected.
5. Model photos, digitally enhanced photos etc. will be rejected.
6. Do not upload in masses the same aircraft at very similar angles; pick your best shots.
http://www.jetphotos.net/addphotos/



I figured that digitally enhanced photos meant that I was not to enhance the photo, ie. sharpen, adjust saturation, etc. and that if I couldn't take a photo without a purple sky - don't upload it. Of course later I found this forum and an offer of help from people on tips to enhance the photos.

I agree with AIRLNRGUY when he says:

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2003 1:33 am

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.

[mikecweb]

Digitally enhance meaning cloning in a engine. Or changing the livery of the aircraft.
No matter what they say on there always try to upload at 1024X768. No higher no lower. Thats where you'll get your best results. And use the extra resolution that your camera gives you to crop.
AIRLNRGUY,
Can you honestly say that this site has the same standards of A.net. Try uploading some there that get rejected here. Oh wait. I forgot you were once a screener over there so you would know.

[Chris Kilroy]

Thanks, Gerardo! I was mentally formulating a reply to all of the comments in this thread, but then saw yours, and realized I didn't have to. Right on! :)

[AIRLNRGUY]

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.



AIRLNRGUY,
Can you honestly say that this site has the same standards of A.net. Try uploading some there that get rejected here. Oh wait. I forgot you were once a screener over there so you would know.

Woah, MISQUOTE!!!!! :x I never said that! That was Indian Airlines! And I totally disagree with that statement. I absolutly love this site. :love: LX-A343, where did you get that from?

[mikecweb]

So this wasn't you?
http://www.jetphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=39263&highlight=#39263

I was with airliners a year or so ago until I ticked Johan off. (If I were to make a post about this there would be alot of arguing over what happened.) ....

Yes I did go back and dug that up. And no I don't have anything better to do.

[AIRLNRGUY]

You have really confused me? :skeptic:

[LX-A343]

Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.



AIRLNRGUY,
Can you honestly say that this site has the same standards of A.net. Try uploading some there that get rejected here. Oh wait. I forgot you were once a screener over there so you would know.

Woah, MISQUOTE!!!!! :x I never said that! That was Indian Airlines! And I totally disagree with that statement. I absolutly love this site. :love: LX-A343, where did you get that from?

Airlnrguy, you wrote exactly that, what I quoted in this very topic. Turn one page that and you'll see the following:
Screeners need to look more closely at the info. I am more concerned about accurateness and fairness, not how long my pic takes to get through the queue.

That was the one of my quotes, which you are referring to. The other quote is NOT from me (or in your words: a MISQUOTE :-):-) ), but thanks to Mike, we also know, that you really said, you were a A.net screener.

[wlyster]

So as far as I can see from my original question, JetPhotos will be fair about uploads as long I crop good photos down to 1024x768. I don't know what dpi they expect, but since the ones that they show seem to be at about 72 dpi, anything higher should be acceptable.

I noticed that everyone got off topic a bit, but if anyone has further advice for me, I welcome it - I just wanted to make sure that the screening process had some standards to go by when judging pictures before I spend more time uploading to no avail. Anyone who got a hot head about my question should sit back a bit before responding - it's a forum and I had to ask the question.

I too, have previewed the other sites (a.net, etc) and JetPhotos appealed to me due to the stringent requirements for photo acceptance.

I had no idea what requirements were after uploading, since the photos I uploaded when pretty good and got rejected for what appeared to be a generic excuse.

I will resubmit the photos in 1024x768 and see what happens after that.

[mikecweb]

Don't expect much. And don't let this batch of uploads determine your future uploading to the site. Upload another batch and see what happens. And learn from what people tell you in the forum and see if you can improve. If you were here longer you would see how much people have improved with help of the members of this forum.

[AIRLNRGUY]

LOOK!!!! I am not talking about that!
<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/iddidi.JPG>
<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/never.JPG>

[LH764]

AIRLNRGUY, way to express yourself!

[AIRLNRGUY]

Thank you.

[LX-A343]

Airlnrguy, NOW, I see, what you mean. Your first post about my misquote was a bit misleading, as it seemed to have been quoted by mike.

Sorry for that. Cancel that part, but leave the rest. :wink:

Cheers
Gerardo

[AIRLNRGUY]

No problem, I just didn't want evryone to get the impression I don't like jetphotos and i think its like airliners.net, which it isn't even close to them.

[PolishAir42]

I read the first page and the first half of the 2nd page but after that I got so terribly confused Im just going to go watch some TV... :P

[rydawg82]

Amen Peter! Cya == Ryan

[Gerry]

So as far as I can see from my original question, JetPhotos will be fair about uploads as long I crop good photos down to 1024x768. I don't know what dpi they expect, but since the ones that they show seem to be at about 72 dpi, anything higher should be acceptable.


Wlyster, forget about the 'dpi', it doesn't matter when uploading pictures.

Other than the fact this thread went off on a wild tangent, I am quite surprised that your Shorts 330 was ditched at JP.net. Okay, it has an 'orange obstruction' but I don't find it that obtrusive. It doesn't cover any vital parts of the aircraft (eg: the nose)...that's my opinion....and I LIKE SHEDS ! :nod:

But, if you had taken a photo of that same aircraft with the wheels 'cut off' or virtually missing/buried in long grass, or positioned behind a fence with hundreds of vehicles in the foreground (my pet hates!)....then I would reconsider.....but you didn't, so I like it.

A quick edit sequence.
Take your photgraph.
Rotate it, get the horizon level (if it isn't)
Apply some UnSharpMask filter (read up about it/experiment)
Resize to (range) 1024 x 660 >> 1024 x 768 pixels
Apply just a little more UnsharpMask, because resizing will 'soften' the image.

Save and then send.
Keep it simple...

Gerry

[LX-A343]

TO end Gerry's list:

and correct colors and contrast!! No digicam and no scan whatsoever produce 100% perfect shots. There's always something to correct in a photoediting software.

Gerardo

[Leftseat86]

To add to Gerardo's post, you can also bump up the saturation by 20 or so points :P Makes everything look crazy bright :P

-Clovis

[BA747-436]

To add to Gerardo's post, you can also bump up the saturation by 20 or so points Makes everything look crazy bright

-Clovis

We call that "Doing a Clovis" :lol:

[screaming_emu]

I know a lot of people edit their photos, but I for one am one that tries to avoid it. It is possible to get pictures accepted without photoshop, and playing with the colors and such. The only editing that I do is cropping/leveling and maybe resizing if necissary, that is it. I still get very few photos rejected (mostly because I do a lot of pre-screening). For example, if you look at my photos that I took while spotting at Narita, I took 180 photos that day, and I only uploaded the better ones. I figure why upload something that will get rejected anyway (because honestly, uploading pictures isn't exactly the most fun thing I can think of). Its not that I have a great camera either, only a Fuji Finepix 2800z (2.1 megapixels and 6x zoom).

[LX-A343]

That's a false pride in my opinion. A camera won't never produce top pictures. EVERY picture can be improved in a photoeditor. In a photoeditor you will bring the best out of a picture: colors, sharpness, level horizon.

The same applies to films, BTW. Why do some people only use Fuji Provia, or only Kodachrome? The films has lots of influence in the result. By picking a certain film, the photographer improves his shot already. Why not doing the same AFTER the shot has been taken?

I'm not talking about cloning out things, and such, but only improving colors and sharpnes.

Cheers
Gerardo

[BA747-436]

There is no way i would upload my photos direct from my camera, a) becuase they come out at some rediculous size and b) they are naturaly soft. Photoshop is needed to sharpen the photos and occasionaly level the colours. If i had a choice i would not use it, but id rather not sacrifice quality just for the knoledge i didnt use a editing tool to sharpen my photos. I'd say this is the case for pretty much all DSLR users. :)

[Geoffrey]

I'm not sure if I should ask here, but I'll try.
I have just got a few rejections, but some I did not even expected it would be rejected - 'cause of the "Foreground Clutters" too..
Okay, I'm fine with this rejection:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=69149

But definitely not these..
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=69152
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=69159

Do they deserve to be rejected? If yes, how can I improve? (No way to crop more!)
And any comments?

Help appreciated!
Thanks.

[BA747-436]

Geoffrey - The two photos concerned are, in my mind worthy of being rejected. They have fence poles and wire in front of the aircraft in the photo and generaly detract from the quality of the photo. We like to keep our database open to a large variation of photgraphers but we have to draw the line somewhere. As with your two photos the fence in the photo automaticaly means a rejection i'm afraid. If at all possible try to shoot from a higher stand point so you are looking down on the aircraft. Or alternativley wait a bit longer until the aircraft has moved away and shot at a longer zoom so as not to get the fence in the shot. I hope this has given you some ideas for future photographs.
:)

[Geoffrey]

Okay, but I don't feel they affect the photo too much at all.. May be I always look at the plane only! Are those really that hurt? (I know the trucks at airports would be) The 737, in my opinion, is one of my best shots!

[AIRLNRGUY]

I have mixed opinions about those:

The planes are sharp and the fence is sort of blurred out, but it isn't blurred enough, thus, it makes it a distracting object and the eye tries to focus on it because it is so close to being in focus. I hope what I am saying makes sense. I like em' though, not bad, just try to maybe get a few inches higher next time.

[egll]

Geoffrey,

It was me that rejected those shots and I stand by my decision-I think I gave you a personal message with at least one of the rejects from that batch to help you out a bit. I did like these pictures-in terms of the sharpness and the nice light, but the fence totally takes away all the positive points that these pictures had going for them. But the defining thing for me was that you had other shots (very good ones too) of these aircraft taken on the same day, when you already have a decent picture of the Dba 737 accepted why are you worrying about a second shot which is clearly not as good?



Matt

[QuebecAir]

The planes are sharp and the fence is sort of blurred out, but it isn't blurred enough

Airlnrguy:

Are you suggesting that if the fence was more blurred it would be acceptable.......!

I beleive it still would be cluttered and rejected.

[AIRLNRGUY]

The planes are sharp and the fence is sort of blurred out, but it isn't blurred enough

Airlnrguy:

Are you suggesting that if the fence was more blurred it would be acceptable.......!

I beleive it still would be cluttered and rejected.

Not exactly, first, I meant if the object was not blocking the aircraft, such as in the Olympic Aviation pic. The fence to me is distracting, because it is too in focus, so my eye tries to focus on that rather than the aircraft, if it was less in focus, my eye would be less distracted from the plane because it realizes that the fence is not part of the picture.

[Geoffrey]

So there is no cure for the 737? I really miss this shot!
Anyway, I'm getting okay with the rejection so I take what Matt and all other say.

What about the ATR? Do you think I can crop it without further "de-quality"?

Thanks for all your comments guys. I really appreciate. Now you have to convince me not to go to Greece (islands) for the same angle shot with the same nice Sun! :D (I do really want to though I was only brought to there [I'm still a teenager], and I do encourage spotters to go there if you need relaxes!)

[cja]

As another Novice who as had plenty of rejection I have to say that I think that the screeners do a pretty good job. I dont take rejection personally and use it as constructive criticism. If you can't honestly see the point they are making then there are plenty of people who use this site willing to give friendly advice and I have found this to be really useful (and am grateful to all concerned).

I have only looked at the skyvan shot but I would have to say that if I had access to the ramp as it appears you did I would have gone around to the other side of the aircraft to take the shot. That way the obvious obstructions would be out of the picture and you would have the sunlit side of the aircraft. Might have helped ? :)

[Geoffrey]

Can I have more tips? :D
So should I move more to the left (Though it was impossible there unless I have brought a ladder!) so that I could have more light on the aircraft?