out of range quality norm?

How is it possible that so many pictures got through screening that are far under the acceptance criteria while some of mine and others are better?

this is really a stunning example:

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/509936/c-fnnh-air-canada-boeing-777-200lr/

of course, northern light is nice and unique but the quality ?

for instance rejection due to too dark sky:

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2014-12/498554.jpg

This post has been edited by Imaging the Light on 14th January 2015 - 23:02

As you know there are no standars as such, or so the staff says, to tell us what is acceptable or what is not, we have to live with that. For example, would the dark band in the upper side that Jan Jasinski uses in his pics (I like the effect btw) be accepted for anyone who does something similar? When does digital noise becomes unacceptable for regular members? etc.

Having said that, in my opinion there are pictures that deserve being here despite of the "defects", like the picture that you linked. Composition and moment and everything is fantastic in that picture except for the digital noise. The picture was uploaded by a full member, so it doesn't go through screening, and I don't know if it could be accepted from a regular member (I bet it would be rejected), but the picture truly deserves to be in here and to be an eyecatcher.

In cases involving spectacular or special pictures like that, I think that those non-written standards should be a bit relaxed. And here is the "problem", I am sure that some spectacular pictures from regular members are rejected with a similar or better image quality as the aurora borealis picture. For example, the url of this eyecatcher shows that it was rejected by the first couple of screeners

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/473922//

and it is funny looking at the list of people who liked the picture, crowded with full members, screeners and even Martin Krupka... The picture has visible digital noise, so what? It is still an amazing picture, as people "clicked/liked".

I'm not saying that amazing pictures with dust spots or something extremely wrong should be accepted, but should spectacular/special/rare pics be rejected with a bit of digital noise? a bit soft or jagged? I don't see the problem, and seems that all the people who likes those pictures either. Sometimes it seems that our pictures are screened to the pixel and that it is the only thing that matters, it seems that nobody look at the picture further than a hand from the screen. From my point of view image quality is not everything in photography.

To sum up, I would not reject any picture as good as the one you linked for not being a perfect bunch of pixels, and I would not accept your picture in the main database (that sky so dark doesn't match to me with a sunny day picture) but I would probably accept it in the Aviation Graphics section. Anyway, I'm not a screener so everything that I've said here is worthless :D

Vincent, I like that shot and style of yours, if that of any help ;)

(Nice touch is the special super ironic BER sticker on the A330...)

As already said, accptance or rejection is of very personal descretion, and I have trouble getting shots through with some very specific screeners as well.

Like I mentioned - I like it - that might not be valid for the given screener. AFAIK there is no rule about that...