Rejected photo

[Colin Parker]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=4341715

This was rejected then rejected again on appeal. "Very backlit" apparently.
It is JP's loss in my opinion and I do not think that it would get no views if it was accepted. In fact I dare say that it would make it to the front page of the website proving its popularity.

So I ask the question, what guidelines do screeners have for accepting photos which are not 100% perfect in terms of lighting etc, but have an interesting subject? User views are obviously not in the forefront of whoever rejected my photo. What is the ultimate goal of JP, to have a database full of photos 'perfect' from a rules perspective or to have interesting photos which people might actually enjoy seeing?

Given a backlit but otherwise ok shot of something interesting or a perfectly lit and composed photo of say a United 737, I certainly know what I would want to look at and it aint the 737.

[brianw999]

Not "very backlit apparantly". Extremely backlit with the tails in full shadow. However, you are very correct in what you say. We would much prefer to look at a correctly lit shot rather than a backlit one. For instance, I personally would much prefer to look at a better lit shot like this.....

[photoid=7671823]

Taken on the same day....

By yourself !

[seahawk]

The main problem is, that for every user his personal photo usually shows an interesting subject. So we can only go by technical requirements, and this is simple. "If the tail casts a shadow on the fuselage that is strongly visible, it is backlit".

Obviously we will lower the requirements for old photos (scans typically) which were taken long before jp.net even existed.

[Colin Parker]

Thank you for your replies. I have a thread about this ongoing on my own facebook with a coupleof screeners which has become quite the debate.

So just to get your two opinions, even if you know a photo would garner significant views on this website from the users/viewers of this website because of the interesting subject matter, you would still reject it if it was a bit backlit? You would rather not have that photo in the database at all, rather than have a photo not 100% technically perfect but one of interest to viewers?

[brianw999]

Thank you for your replies. I have a thread about this ongoing on my own facebook with a coupleof screeners which has become quite the debate.

So just to get your two opinions, even if you know a photo would garner significant views on this website from the users/viewers of this website because of the interesting subject matter, you would still reject it if it was a bit backlit? You would rather not have that photo in the database at all, rather than have a photo not 100% technically perfect but one of interest to viewers?

But Colin !..... We do have such a photo that garners significant views on this website from the users/viewers of this website because of the interesting subject matter. The views currently stand at 4,120. I refer to the one linked to in my post# 2.

Not to mention of course...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7522347&nseq=13

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7522336&nseq=14

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7522306&nseq=17

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7476202&nseq=23

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7462743&nseq=31

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7033150&nseq=58

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7033149&nseq=59

None of which are backlit ?

[Colin Parker]

Thanks for the reply Brian.

You forgot to answer this part of my question:
"So just to get your two opinions, even if you know a photo would garner significant views on this website from the users/viewers of this website because of the interesting subject matter, you would still reject it if it was a bit backlit?"

Thanks also for the links to those other photos. All lovely, but apart from being taken at the same airport, they bear zero relevance to my photo. Surely you're not suggesting that different planes taken at the same airport are a reason for "similar upload" rejection?

[Alex - Spot-This !]

"So just to get your two opinions, even if you know a photo would garner significant views on this website from the users/viewers of this website because of the interesting subject matter, you would still reject it if it was a bit backlit?"

Colin I have a very simple answer for that

YES and ReYES.
(and please stop saying it's a bit backlit, it very clearly is, no doubt about that)

Sometimes we perfectly know that we do reject shots that would get tons of views but if we want to be able to have some kind of understandable standards then we do need to take that kind of decision.

And on a more personal note, do you really care about us (JP) getting attraction with a popular picture, or you getting hits ?
I ask that because not a single second would I even think about uploading such a backlit shot and the other shot shows the same scene with a way better light.
...And yeah I also do have quiet rare shots from really remote places and rare planes, but as they're backlit I keep them in my personnal collection, simple as that.

With best regards

Alex

[brianw999]

Thanks for the reply Brian.

You forgot to answer this part of my question:
"So just to get your two opinions, even if you know a photo would garner significant views on this website from the users/viewers of this website because of the interesting subject matter, you would still reject it if it was a bit backlit?"

Thanks also for the links to those other photos. All lovely, but apart from being taken at the same airport, they bear zero relevance to my photo. Surely you're not suggesting that different planes taken at the same airport are a reason for "similar upload" rejection?

I'm sorry ? Where the hell did Similar ever come into it ? We're talking about backlit here.

And to answer your question....Yes.

[brianw999]

Just to make it quite clear what happened here.

-Your image was screened and rejected on the basis of being very backlit. (almost 45 degrees backlit)
-It was then appealed and rejected on appeal for the same reason.
-It was then taken to the senior forums for further discussion. This is a very rare event. Very few people get that amount of attention

After discussion it was agreed that the image should be judged on its own merit.
-The image is very backlit (not "a bit".."Very")
-We have to maintain our requirements and standards to be fair to all the other photographers here.
-The photo doesn't have any additional value for JPnet
-We therefore decided that the rejection should stand.

[Colin Parker]

Thanks for the replies.

My facebook thread on this is approaching 200 posts and I have what I think is a healthy debate over there. I don't want to repeat myself too much but I will write a little as there is a wider audience here.

Firstly, and this is my opinion, the photo is not "VERY" backlit. That term should be reserved for sunset photos where the plane is sillouetted. Where you cannot even see the details on the aircraft because the camera has underexposed the plane. If mine is already "VERY" backlit, then what term do you use to describe those sillouetted planes? I would call mine toplit and slightly backlit. (After all the part of the roof closest to me is lit too).

Secondly, the debate on my facebook has moved away from my photo to a discussion in general about accepting photos which are interesting.

Just to reiterate a few points made not only by me but a bunch of JP users: Please feel free to refute any of this which I am sure you will.

* The goal of the website is to provide a place for interesting photos to be shown, thereby generating 'clicks' and revenue income for the owners through advertising.

* The end user or customer is the general public who comes to view the website. Is it these people who the website should, and does cater to.

* The only way to really judge whether the end user finds a photo interesting is by the number of views it gets. Users simply do not click photos if they do not find them interesting.

* The most popular photos in the history of JP are ones that do not meet the normal technical requirement of a photo for acceptance here. Yet they have been accepted mostly because they have been judged to be of interest to the end user. Stefan has said that standards are lowered sometimes if photos are judged to have interest in the local media. Seems to me a roundabout way of admitting that some photos are allowed if screeners think the end users would be interested.

* Airliners.net recently came out with a statement to basically say that photos would be judged not only on their technical correctness but also on their interest. JP have yet to issue such a statement.

In answer to some of your points:

Alex, I think all users here upload photos because they want to share them with other users. Hits is a way to judge how interested other people are. If you uploaded 1000 photos and all get less than 100 views, it would be demoralizing and you might stop uploading because evidently no-one cares to see your photos. On the other end of the stick, making the front page because your photo is popular is something to be proud of. JP even send out an e-mail congratulating the potographer on this event. Views and popularity is clearly important to JP as well, because the best photos of 24hrs, 48hrs, week etc etc are showcased proudly on the front page for all to see. So in summary, hits are a way to judge how popular and well liked your photos are by the general public. It is their vote of confidence in you as a photographer partly in your technical ability, partly in your 'eye' for an interesting photo.

Alex, if you have photos in your own collection which you think JP users would love to see, then why not upload them? If the end user is interested, then you should definately share them. I would say that you are proud of having those shots no? Screeners should not deny JP users of seeing photos that they would be interested in. I do not believe it is the screeners job to deny this. A screener's job should be to give the user photos that they want to see, not dictate to the user photos that screener think they should be seeing.

Brian, you say my photo does not have additional value for the website. Your statement can open a whole can of worms here. One can argue that another photo of a United 737 adds no value to the website. Every day there are plenty of photos uploaded which do not gain many views. Clearly the end user is not that interested and hence they provide no additional value to the website. As I have mentionned on my own Fb thread, my personal belief is that if uploaded, my photo here would do fairly well. A JP screener even said it could get 4000 views. So, 4000 interested people looking at the photo. More interest equals more happy customers equals more advertising revenue. How can that be no additional value?

As I posted on my FB to Stefan (To which he did not directly address back to this point but moved on with other points) - a cut and paste.
_____________________
Average uploads this week have been around 750-800 photos per day. If you accept my photo, I am willing to bet that my photo even backlit, will come within the top 10% of those viewed in 24hrs. I am even willing to suggest that I might make it to the top 4 of the day. If I am right, I do not see anyway that anyone can say that this photo is not interesting to JP users.
If I am wrong, and the photo is in the bottom part of those 750-800, then it proves that my photo was unpopular, and I will offer my sincerest apologies and shut up about this matter.
______________________

I am not trying to manure-stir here. I think there should be a healthy debate on the goal of JP, who the JP end user is, what they want to see on this website and how screeners should go about facilitating what the end user wants. There will always be a grey area, this is a given, however with screeners as enthusiasts hopefully they are like-minded with the end user and will accept what the end user wants to see.

[seahawk]

As I said I have no doubt your photo would reach 4000 views, but the same goes for any photo with good looking women or anything (regardless how backlit or blurry it is) from SXM. if it contains barely dressed ladies. But still jp.net does not accept those "aviation glamour" shots, some other sites accept.

[brianw999]

You know our views Colin. There really isn't a lot more to say. I for one am not going to waste any more time on one poorly lit photograph that has no real news worthiness to make it so special that we should drop our standards, especially when the same photographer has another better produced image of the same scene albeit reversed by 180 degrees.

* The goal of the website is to provide a place for interesting photos to be shown, thereby generating 'clicks' and revenue income for the owners through advertising.

Yes, but within certain upload criteria. Backlit is a stated reason within our guidelines for rejection. Also, just about every generic air to ground shot at Mojave tends to attract higher than usual hits. We accept the best images. We reject backlit images. And.....Your....Image.....Is......Backlit. And I'm getting tired of saying it.

If you accept my photo, I am willing to bet that my photo even backlit, will come within the top 10% of those viewed in 24hrs.

Quite possibly so...... BUT..... Acceptance would also almost certainly generate a howl of protest from other photographers who have had backlit rejections, and quite rightly so. This is why we have our upload rules.

* Airliners.net recently came out with a statement to basically say that photos would be judged not only on their technical correctness but also on their interest. JP have yet to issue such a statement.

We don't need to, we already do that and have done for a long time.

.....and that really is my last word on the subject.

[Colin Parker]

I don't know why I keep flogging a dead horse but I do. I don't think I've ever seen a screener reply here that says "You know what, you are right!"

Stefan says there is no doubt that this photo would receive 4000 hits. As someone else said on my FB thread, "said photo has garnered not only some attention... but major hits. Well over several thousand. NOW you have valid, quantifiable proof that the uploader's judgment about the photo was demonstrably correct, in SPITE of the majority views of the screening team."

Yes there is another photo in the database showing the same aircraft but from a much different angle and zoom. Yes, ONE single shot out of the entire database of that one aircraft.

Now, disregarding my photo, no-one has answered my fundamental comments about how to gauge what the JP end user wants to see, and why you as screeners are dictating what the general public sees instead of allowing them to view what they want to view. "You can have any colour as long as it's black." You guys can't see it but it is happening here.

I know your views Brian. You say 4000+ users being interested in a photo is not good enough for you to let them see it. Better accept another United 737 photo, it may gain 300 views. A photo worthy of several thousand views does not add value to the database. (I still can't understand that part).

I quote:
* Airliners.net recently came out with a statement to basically say that photos would be judged not only on their technical correctness but also on their interest. JP have yet to issue such a statement.
We don't need to, we already do that and have done for a long time.


Actually you have proven that the opposite is true. This photo even Stefan agrees would create interest yet no-one cares. What the customer wants is not important evidently.

[ErwinS]

Colin,

I don't see the point getting all this effort into one single shot which is reject per our rules.
Despite the subject is reasonably interesting it's is not acceptable since it backlit.

If we don't use guidelines to screen than we can stop and become a second myavaition.
Since you are a long time contributor to JP you should be accustomed to our screening process so why you are so surprised to get this shot rejected for backlit is beyond me.

Like Stefan said, if it was a shot from long ago with a/c in the shot which are long gone it could have been accepted.

[Colin Parker]

Colin,

I don't see the point getting all this effort into one single shot which is reject per our rules.
Despite the subject is reasonably interesting it's is not acceptable since it backlit.

If we don't use guidelines to screen than we can stop and become a second myavaition.
Since you are a long time contributor to JP you should be accustomed to our screening process so why you are so surprised to get this shot rejected for backlit is beyond me.

Like Stefan said, if it was a shot from long ago with a/c in the shot which are long gone it could have been accepted.

Erwin,

This isn't really about my photo anymore. I don't care whether it is accepted or not. I know that screeners won't backtrack and now accept this photo....there would be much loss of face.

What I am trying to do it to change your rules and policy. Myaviation is full of bad photos which are not interesting. I am not suggesting you become a second version. I am suggesting, once again, that INTERESTING photos are accepted ahead of your black and white rules. JP users want to see interesting photos. (Any of you argue against that?). You are simply denying the customer of what they want to see. It is as simple as that, I just don't get why it is so hard for everyone here to understand.

When there is a photo that basically everyone agrees would interest your customers, it should be a no-brainer that you give the customer what they want to see. Isn't that why this website was formed?

Does anyone remember why Chris Kilroy walked away from Airliners.net to start this website? Does anyone remember what JP management said that their website was, to try and entice people away from Airliners.net? I sure do but I think everyone else doesn't because quite simply this has become the very website it was trying to escape from.