Levelling issue

[Hinkelbein]

Hi guys,

I just don't get this pic leveled. When I focus on the building and the cars and make them horizon-level, the plane seems to be climbing a steep hill. When I focus on the plane, the world seems to tumble over.

Help me, what should I do?

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=3678588

Cheers,

Hinkelbein

[coke]

In my opinion, I saw leave it as is. Looks good.

[RingwaySam]

Originally Posted by coke

In my opinion, I saw leave it as is. Looks good.

Agreed

Sam

[LX-A343]

One of the horror locations for screeners .... I would rotate i slightly to the left, as it simply screams "UNLEVEL" ... to me at least.

[Hinkelbein]

Whuhaha, I see different opinions with the screeners.

Yeah, it's a tricky one. I'll just take my chances and see if it'll get rejected or accepted.

It's so weird: on the one hand the buildings look right but the plane seems to be climbing a hill ...

The question is: define horizon.
Is it the skyline, in this picture the parked cars and buildingd in the background, or is the area where the plane is taxiing? Or maybe something else?

Questions ... questions ... questions.

[J.Louwen]

I tryed one and other.
Although I'm not the expert around here!
But when I level on the edge of the runway behind, it seems to me that indeed it makes a little rotation to the left (anti clockwise) and it looks better to me then. The building(s) at the background, are not in an horizontal line but more in perspective vieuw which is confusing.

[pdeboer]

Looks fine to me, the verticals are straight up (though not all, but that is because some of the poles are leaning
I know that spot very well. There is an optical illusion because the runway is not parallel to the horizon, but it comes slightly towards you. The perspective makes it look unlevel.

cheers, Pamela

[LX-A343]

Now I understand the meaning of coffee shops in Amsterdam!!

[pdeboer]

Well that took you some time then

Hello to all,
Forgive me for intruding here... but it happens all the time, and I know that for sure, there is sometimes disagreement between the screeners, so as I've already written in the past and I suggest again:
In borderline cases, where each one thinks otherwise, In my opinion you should not to be more strict, and you can accept these photos.

Just my 2 cents...

Best regards,
Erez.
.

[LX-A343]

Erez, how on earth do you want a screener to know, that somebody else could perhaps judge differently, when I get a photo to screen? A screener opens a photo, screens and goes to the next photo. Period.

Originally Posted by LX-A343

Erez, how on earth do you want a screener to know, that somebody else could perhaps judge differently, when I get a photo to screen? A screener opens a photo, screens and goes to the next photo. Period.

Gerardo, Following your explanation how it's works, I have another suggestion:
If a photographer sent an appeal, and then the senior screener is saw that there was controversy between the screeners, in these cases I think that you should accept the photo.
That's how I think.
(And again, my apologies about my bad English).

Best regards,
Erez.

[LX-A343]

Well, it won't be that way and that's it.

Originally Posted by LX-A343

Well, it won't be that way and that's it.

Excuse me again, but it's stubbornness, and certainly you can change the line of thinking and think outside the box.
All the best to all.

[Felipe Garcia]

Originally Posted by LX-A343

Erez, how on earth do you want a screener to know, that somebody else could perhaps judge differently, when I get a photo to screen?

That's what the blue site is for.

[LX-A343]

Originally Posted by ErezS

Excuse me again, but it's stubbornness, and certainly you can change the line of thinking and think outside the box.
All the best to all.

Not stubbornes, but your idea lacks some basic logic.

Assuming, a photo has been rejected with 2:1 votes (2 votes rejection and 1 vote add), your idea is, that it should automatically be accepted on appeal?

In that case we could get rid of the appeal feature. It only takes 1 vote to accept a photo and the photo is accepted, period. With that logic photos, where the first screener votes to accept, are directly accepted. Photos with two votes to reject don't need to be appealed anymore. Now, think about that again: is that the solution? I don't think so.

[LX-A343]

Originally Posted by Felipe Garcia

That's what the blue site is for.

Sorry, I don't understand that line. Could you please elaborate?

[Felipe Garcia]

Originally Posted by LX-A343

Sorry, I don't understand that line. Could you please elaborate?

It is my understanding that Airliners.net screeners can either instant add the photo or "high quality" it, which means that they like it but would like a 2nd opinion, and then if the 2nd opinion disagrees then they send it to the head screener or something like that.

[LX-A343]

We have a similar system then. A screeener can either direct decide on a photo, vote to add/reject a photo, skip it (i.e. pass it on to another screener without a vote, but a remark) or send it directly to senior screeners.

[brianw999]

Actually, I would accept it. (whispered quietly)


Fixed background building verticals, i.e. not poles, are vertical. I see nothing physical in the image to warrant a rejection on horizon. We cannot and must not allow a visual perception to override a physical fact.