Airplane Pictures home

Home » Forums » Civil aviation » Highly inconsistent screening

Highly inconsistent screening

Adam Tetzlaff 

Member
Joined in December 2015
Posts: 35
Posted 1 August 2016 - 19:48 CET

I want to preface this with an apology for being "that guy" that goes on the forums to complain about screening, but I thing things are getting to be ridiculous. I have recently hit a string of what I deem to be absolutely baseless rejections, all from the same screener. It seems that this screener is rejecting everything I put forward for the sake of rejecting them. I feel that really quite good images are being shut down for absolutely no reason. Anyone, feel free to take a look at the attached link and tell me what you think. I am absolutely fuming right now, id love to hear form some other opinions, it is difficult to evaluate a situation in such a mental state.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2016-7/757597.jpg

Daniel Expósito 
Member
Joined in January 2016
Posts: 6
Posted 1 August 2016 - 20:20 CET

Totally agreed, things here are being weird relationated with the screening progress.

Thomas Ranner 

Full member
Joined in September 2014
Posts: 62
Posted 1 August 2016 - 20:48 CET

Hi,

I know that some rejections can be really annoying, but when looking at your picture I would say that there is some digital noise (especially in the sky) and that it is a bit oversharpened in the front and a bit soft in the back...

But it is interesting that another picture of you with a bit more digital noise (http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/716617/n311fe-fedex-federal-express-mcdonnell-douglas-md-10-30f/) got accepted....

So you may be right when it comes to inconsistent screening but you should see that the screeners are no machines and every screener is seeing things a bit different and 100% equal screening isn't possible at all. You still have the option to appeal, then only the senior admins will look at it, so there shouldn't be any inconsitence anymore as they are the ones screening it the right way...

I hope you can somehow understand what I am trying to say...

Best regards

Thomas

Adam Tetzlaff 

Member
Joined in December 2015
Posts: 35
Posted 1 August 2016 - 20:54 CET

Of course there is some noise in the frame, that is the nature of shooting at night. What I have an issue with is the fact that there are photos on this site with massive amounts more noise. This is pretty clean if you ask me. There was no mention of sharpness int eh editors notes, again, I really feel like the image is sharp, and that is not an issue. Bottom line, there is some noise in the sky, but that is trivial compared to many shots on the site (from screeners too ill add).

Its become such a bad situation, I am ready to delete my account.

Thomas Ranner 

Full member
Joined in September 2014
Posts: 62
Posted 1 August 2016 - 22:18 CET

Well, I don't know to which shots you are referring, but of course it should be a no go that screeners (or Full Members) add picture which do not fit the standards of this site...

However I do not think that this occurs that often and I also do not think that this is a reason to delete your account but its your decision obviosly... Would be sad though.

Ricardo Hebmüller 

Full member
Joined in August 2014
Posts: 85
Posted 1 August 2016 - 23:59 CET

Hi Adam,

First of all I must say I am neither a full member nor a screener. As an aviation enthusiast I am a great admirer of your photos, I think they are very inspiring, clean and sharp. And in opposite of me, you are very young, you have begun very early and have a lot of room to grow while I am going down the hill (this year I turned 50…).

Sometimes I really get mad with screeners. Some days after a rejection, and less passionate, I tend to analyze the reasons that led me to receive a no go and I must say that in most cases (not all, but most, in my opinion) the screeners were… right! I will give you an example which happened to me.

I had the attached picture rejected. For me it was just perfect but it was not considered so (over-sharpened). I got crazy because it gave me a lot of work to edit. I started again and submitted a new copy with corrections provided with a less aggressive sharpen, in the overall structure and in the fuselage, tail and windshield and it was accepted.

If you compare both pictures you will see a lot of difference. Well this worked for me, I am not saying this fits for you, that’s your call. I will refrain from judging this specific picture of yours, since this is not my business and I really do not feel myself able to do that. But I also would like to state that sooner than you think you might get the desired full member status and it would be a great pleasure for me if you keep sharing your pictures.

Best regards,

Ricardo

Attached photos:

Jump to the top

Log in to post in the forum.

Terms and Conditions | About | FAQ | Photo Use | Privacy Policy | Online 1205 (81 members)
© 2006-2019 Airplane-Pictures.net | E-mail us: Team@Airplane-Pictures.net
All photos are copyright © to their respective photographers and may not be used without permission.