How did this photo get accepted?

[brianw999]

You don't upload photo's here, that is correct, isn't it ?

Then butt out of a subject that you know nothing about and don't subscribe to.

[Mr Chips]

Originally Posted by 3WE

Bullcrap!

You missed the point which Brian made. It is considered rude, and unnecessary to embarrass a photographer publicly on a forum regarding one of their images. And this applies on all aviation websites, not just jetphotos.net. In the two cases in this thread, the photographers have essentially had their images dragged through the mud through no wrong doing of their own.

By all means, raise an issue with the crew and someone will be happy to get back to you. We screeners have thick skins, which is needed from time to time to deal with some members venting about rejections, so contrary to belief, we can take criticism. Normal uploaders though should not have to see their images criticized, hence any questions or queries about sub par images being accepted should be directed at the screeners, and the screeners alone (via private email).

Dave

[Darren Howie]

In general the armchair photographers miss the point entirely.
The majority of whining about rejects occurs from guys shooting side on blue sky shots degree of difficulty..0.
Guys who upload hi ISO low shutter stuff in the hope of an acceptance pretty much accept a hi reject rate without dramas...degree of difficulty..10.
So someone using a modern camera pipes up whining about a reject thats clearly unlevel and dodgy colors then immediately cracks it over a photo a thousand times more difficult to shoot gets accepted with the slightest imperfection.
All photos where not made equal..

[3WE]

Originally Posted by brianw999

You don't upload photo's here, that is correct, isn't it ?

Then butt out of a subject that you know nothing about and don't subscribe to.

I know nothing about photography?

Umm, yes I do know something about photography: A little training, a little experience and even won a rinky dink contest once. AND, I find public dicussions about photos kind of interesting. It's quite the challenge to get the perfect shot.

And your reponse totally dismisses and totally sidesteps and does not address my criticisms... That's a pretty good sign that I probably hit on some valid issues.

As I said, and you clearly confirm: "Thou shalt not publically question the photo screener royalty."

[StMawganE14]

Originally Posted by 3WE

I know nothing about photography?

Umm, yes I do know something about photography: A little training, a little experience and even won a rinky dink contest once. AND, I find dicussions about photos kind of interesting. It's quite the challenge to get the perfect shot.

And your reponse totally dismisses and totally sidesteps and does not address my criticisms... That's a pretty good sign that I probably hit on some valid issues.

As I said, and you clearly confirm: "Thou shalt not question the photo screener royalty."

What your posts have in common with the original criticisms of photos accepted in the database is a simple lack of manners. There is a mechanism for contacting the screeners to question the screening decisions - email them privately. What you don't do is show downright disrespect to photographers on the site by damning their work in a public forum. If I were one of the two guys I would be 'spitting feathers'. There are ways of doing things and there are ways of saying things. It is quite obvious that you don't understand that.

[3WE]

Originally Posted by StMawganE14

What your posts have in common with the original criticisms of photos accepted in the database is a simple lack of manners. There is a mechanism for contacting the screeners to question the screening decisions - email them privately. What you don't do is show downright disrespect to photographers on the site by damning their work in a public forum. If I were one of the two guys I would be 'spitting feathers'. There are ways of doing things and there are ways of saying things. It is quite obvious that you don't understand that.

So, it's ok to publically question dead pilots who made very slight mistakes when faced with incredibly bad circumstances, and that is not in poor taste and does not insult their surviving family members, but you mention that there's some distracting elements in a photo (a photo taken in an enviornment that everyone with a little photographic knowledge would know was a challenging environment due to distracting elements) and it's a horrible feather-spitting insult?

...and let's restate for the third time- that no one named names.

I know it's a lot to ask, but think about it.

[StMawganE14]

Originally Posted by 3WE

So, it's ok to question dead pilots who made very slight mistakes when faced with incredibly bad circumstances, and that is not in poor taste and does not insult their surviving family members, but you mention that there's some distracting elements in a photo (a photo taken in an enviornment that everyone with a little photographic knowledge would know was a challenging environment due to distracting elements) and it's a horrible feather-spitting insult?

...and let's restate for the third time- that no one named names.

I know it's a lot to ask, but think about it.

This post gives a whole new meaning to 'going off at a tangent' or was that 'losing the plot...' I give up!

[Leftseat86]

People bringing up things like these would do well to remember that screening is in no way some exact science, and that there are humans making these decisions with thousands of photos almost daily. They make a judgement call, and I'm glad they do, because it would be unfortunate that we miss seeing the original photo in question, a BA 773 departing from the outboard runway at LAX with condensation filling the engines on a hot day (a rather rare occurence), or that of the A380 landing pre-dawn because of someone strictly interpreting the upload guidelines to a fault. The fact that the screeners have the leeway to make these calls is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Sometimes you will not get lucky and maybe your shot will not make it in even if you thought it had artistic merit or it was sufficiently interesting that the rules could be bent slightly in your favor. But you don't make that call, they do, and this is still a privately owned and operated website.

I want to add that I don't think the original poster was being impolite or rude or trying to shame the photographer of that shot, I think he was just trying to understand the rules better, there's no need for anyone to be rude in return.

[3WE]

Originally Posted by Leftseat86

People bringing up things like these would do well to remember that screening is in no way some exact science, and that there are humans making these decisions with thousands of photos almost daily. They make a judgement call, and I'm glad they do, because it would be unfortunate that we miss seeing the original photo in question, a BA 773 departing from the outboard runway at LAX with condensation filling the engines on a hot day (a rather rare occurence), or that of the A380 landing pre-dawn because of someone strictly interpreting the upload guidelines to a fault. The fact that the screeners have the leeway to make these calls is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Sometimes you will not get lucky and maybe your shot will not make it in even if you thought it had artistic merit or it was sufficiently interesting that the rules could be bent slightly in your favor. But you don't make that call, they do, and this is still a privately owned and operated website.

I want to add that I don't think the original poster was being impolite or rude or trying to shame the photographer of that shot, I think he was just trying to understand the rules better, there's no need for anyone to be rude in return.

Exactly. Your last paragraph really nails it, and let's acnknowledge that he brought it up on a discussion forum, probably hoping to get some discussion.

[3WE]

Originally Posted by StMawganE14

This post gives a whole new meaning to 'going off at a tangent' or was that 'losing the plot...' I give up!

In other words, 1) I refuse to think about it (a weak attempt to misdirect a valid comment) or 2) I am incapable of thinking about it.