How did this photo get accepted?

[Kevin]

Hi,

When I saw this picture I was rather shocked by the fact that it got accepted into the database.



http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7477257&nseq=4

The pole is obviously covering part of the aircraft, and not to mention the foreground and heat distortion on the wings and cheatline.

Kevin

[brianw999]

...and the proper way to go about your observation is by way of a private email to the crew, not the way you have done it by embarrassing the photographer in public.
You don't score any brownie points from me for the way you have gone about this.

[Kevin]

I don't think it is the photographer's fault and therefore shouldn't be embarrassed at all. Everybody gets rejections. It was the screeners' problem for letting it in. It is a problem about the standards of screeners that we all need to be aware of.

[brianw999]

You're not getting the point Kevin.
You say it's a screener consistency problem ? Fine.....then bring it up with the screeners.
It is considered very inappropriate to pick on someone else's work and criticise it in public. It's just not acceptable.
I can guess that the image was accepted because of the intake fog and the other issues were missed.

What makes me really smile here is that photographers are happy to knock other people's work .......

.......but they never, ever say "why did you accept this shot of mine when it's got XYZ wrong with it "

[Mr Fly]

Hello, same issue here:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7555446

Little but distorted, oversharpened and grainy and... ok im not judging anyone, but why the hell it got accepted into database?? oh yes the colours and aircraft they look so beautiful.. my backyard looks beautiful in the early morning too.. There are many pictures being uploaded daily with little bit of sharp being too much or grain and being rejected. JP screeners if you really want to make quality take it seriously. and it does not matter whether photographer has 100 photos or 3000. if there are rules then everybody should obey them..

[LX-A343]

What a way to introduce yourself, first post here and already dragging other photographers work in the mud ... not bad.

Nevertheless, nice colors and panning make the photo interesting enough to be added to the db. A daylight side-on with such noise would instantly be rejected. If you can do better, feel free to upload your photos. And rest assured, we don't check the number of photos in the db when screening.

[chris78cpr]

Originally Posted by Mr Fly

Hello, same issue here:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7555446

Little but distorted, oversharpened and grainy and... ok im not judging anyone, but why the hell it got accepted into database?? oh yes the colours and aircraft they look so beautiful.. my backyard looks beautiful in the early morning too.. There are many pictures being uploaded daily with little bit of sharp being too much or grain and being rejected. JP screeners if you really want to make quality take it seriously. and it does not matter whether photographer has 100 photos or 3000. if there are rules then everybody should obey them..

Yes some might see this as a little grainy or see it as a little bit oversharpened but the photographer has gone out of his way to push himself and the limits of his equipment and it has resulted in a shot that is fantastic to look at, hence the number of views it is achieving.

If you would like to question our decisions then feel free to email us directly. As it stands we have standards that we screen by. This photo in my opinion would meet the criteria i look for when screening an image and when you add in it's fantastic presence and creativity then i think it is rightly in our database.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we ask you do it in a more discreet way by talking to us directly.

Chris

[Richard M. A. Wood]

Originally Posted by LX-A343

What a way to introduce yourself, first post here and already dragging other photographers work in the mud ... not bad.

Nevertheless, nice colors and panning make the photo interesting enough to be added to the db. A daylight side-on with such noise would instantly be rejected. If you can do better, feel free to upload your photos. And rest assured, we don't check the number of photos in the db when screening.

My comment would have been along these lines. Considering the conditions and the end product...I believe that a right decision was made.

Also, considering how this thread was started and how the screeners said situations like this should be handled, post #5 was definitely in poor taste.

[brianw999]

Originally Posted by Mr Fly

Hello, same issue here:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7555446
....... ok im not judging anyone, ............... but why the hell it got accepted into database?? ........

Not judging anyone ?

Yes you are because the second half of your comment says so. Not only that but you are judging one of the most respected photographers that I know of on this site. Tony Woof regularly steps outside of the parameters of normality in producing some outstanding images. When you can come halfway to producing this kind of an image then you can start to become qualified to comment. Of course, hopefully by that time you will have learned that your first post here was entirely unacceptable.

[Soaring1972]

Sorry guys, I do not know why it is "political" incorrect to discuss if a picture is worth to be accepted at this db or not???

To be honnest, for me it is also amazing, that this particular picture of the A380 was accepted, although it is a "very known" photographer to this db!

For me it is too grainy, unsharp/blurry - the colors are discussable!

And I know, I am a "well known" appealer, because a lot of my pictures need to do be "discused"!!!

[LX-A343]

For you it is a grainy shot, for the involved screeners it was one of those exaples, where a photographer tries to push the limits. Remember, that photography is not only to get a technical perfect picture. I personally would prefer this "too grainy, unsharp/blurry photo with discussable colors" over a gazillion perfect side on shots. But that's photography.

[RCoulter]

Originally Posted by LX-A343

For you it is a grainy shot, for the involved screeners it was one of those exaples, where a photographer tries to push the limits. Remember, that photography is not only to get a technical perfect picture. I personally would prefer this "too grainy, unsharp/blurry photo with discussable colors" over a gazillion perfect side on shots. But that's photography.

I wish we had a "like" feature on here, this post is deserving of it! Well said Gerardo.

[YYZPICS]

atleast its not a sideon of an airplane with clouds in the background, enough of that sh1t on here, i like it!

[Darren Howie]

Originally Posted by Mr Fly

Hello, same issue here:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7555446

Little but distorted, oversharpened and grainy and... ok im not judging anyone, but why the hell it got accepted into database?? oh yes the colours and aircraft they look so beautiful.. my backyard looks beautiful in the early morning too.. There are many pictures being uploaded daily with little bit of sharp being too much or grain and being rejected. JP screeners if you really want to make quality take it seriously. and it does not matter whether photographer has 100 photos or 3000. if there are rules then everybody should obey them..

What a tool..
One post slagging someone prepared to shoot low shutter speed hi ISO for a cool shot and a grain nazi appears.
There is another website available swarming with people happy to only accept low ISO geain free images you should go there quickly..with the OP to.
Dont let the door hit you in the butt on the way out..

To the screeners good acceptance!

[Felipe Garcia]

I'm simply amazed (and disgusted) by all these armchair photographers. I wonder if they have ever tried to shoot in low light, let alone what I can only imagine was near complete darkness.

That A380 pic is so bad that it's gotten almost 3000 views in just over a week, go figure.

Darren,

I agree completely with you.

[Soaring1972]

I don´t know why it is now getting personaly with arguments like "armchair photographers".
Sorry! Is it impossible to say "I do not agree" or what ever?

I wonder if they have ever tried to shoot in low light, let alone what I can only imagine was near complete darkness.

Yes I did:

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7543140&nseq=26

And belive me I have a lot of experience with "grain"-discussions! But how ever, this shows me that I can upload some very special photographs in future!

[aceriana]

Originally Posted by brianw999

Fine.....then bring it up with the screeners.

I agree this post is in the incorrect forum - however, screeners, is there some other official way we can inform you of photos uploaded "incorrectly" - or once uploaded, end of the game?

I understand screening is not a mechanized process and is subject to human opinion and error. I think we all have a few photos accepted in JP that were borderline. So let's not throw anymore stones..

Cheers and happy spotting.

[LX-A343]

Yes, everybody is entitled to bring up photos, which they think, it has been wrongly added. Perfect examples are wrong infos or missed clear rejetion reasons (white edge after rotating and cropping, ...) or a questionable motive. Just send a mail to the screeners. The photo will then be discussed within the crew and appropriate decisions will be made.

[brianw999]

..... ^^^

......and for those who don't know, the address is photoscreeners@jetphotos.net

[3WE]

Originally Posted by brianw999

...and the proper way to go about your observation is by way of a private email to the crew, not the way you have done it by embarrassing the photographer in public.

Edit 2- I am going back and adding the word "publically" for the sake of accuracy- the contention is that the screeners and "respected" photographers are too holy to be discussed...such public discussion is blasphemous.

Bullcrap!

I've never submitted a photo here, but this happens regularly. Someone gets a good shot and submits it. But it's subjected to some scrutiny and rejected due to some faults.

Then, someone's sees an accepted photo. It's good, but when you give it some scrutiny, you can see some faults.

Maybe there's some inconsistency? No big deal, throw it up for discussion...ON A DISCUSSION FORUM.

Maybe there will be some grumbling and venting.
Maybe there will be some valuable learning for the poster.
Oooo, maybe there will be some valuable learning for the screeners.

But that's not the rub.

The rub is "thou shalt not question the screeners in any way shape or form in public!"

That is blasphemy!

Let's be clear, the original post here was polite and not flaming. AND EDIT: Does NOT mention the photographer by name.

But no, said royalty must only be referred to in the third person, and any inquiry must be done privately at this e-mail...to speak publicly is verboten komrade!

Let's not forget that we publically scrutinize all sorts of other things on this forum: baggage fees, the role of flight attendants, snowy-day-operational methods, fly-by-wire philosophies, pilot training, aircraft construction materials, the motives of the Russian government in both causing and analyzing the Polish president's crash, and the actions of dead pilots faced with crummy circumstances.

But, one must not publically question the photo screener or photographer Gods, lest you face the wrath of the JP aristocracy!