A.net Screening Annoyance

Have an issue with the policies or inconsistencies of a certain website? Received a ridiculous request for your photo? Post about it here.
Post Reply
Len90
First Class
First Class
Posts: 689
Joined: Feb 07, 2014

A.net Screening Annoyance

Post by Len90 »

Had this one rejected for dark, contrast (less contrast needed), centered, and common.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 6750r1.jpg

To me this image is being nitpicked for centering and is far from being anywhere near as bad as the accepted examples we have seen lately. Also for the dark and contrast is also being a bit critical. Appeal was returned with everything stating screener correct. Screener is correct for about 20 pixels of centering? :crazy:

I also tried to explain that the lighting conditions will cause this as it was a sunset shot, but seems like it was not read by either the screener or HS
View my photos: Airliners.net | Flickr
User avatar
Cary
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 1737
Joined: Dec 22, 2013
Contact:

Re: A.net Screening Annoyance

Post by Cary »

I do somewhat agree with the Dark. I've had a few rejections for that, when the underside of the wing is that dark. Not much you can do, when the light is coming from a bad angle that doesn't illuminate the underside. Typically, if you start fudging with less contrast, it will wash out the pic. With the Common, they're going to nitpick everything, because they only want a perfect shot of the frame. But of course, they have no standards for "Common", so sometimes it's after 50 pics of the same reg, sometimes after 150 pics. I even had the Boeing 787 demonstrator rejected for Common when there were only 25-30 pics of it in the newer scheme.

I had this rejected for Overexposed the first round, Overexposed + Soft the appeal round and now Soft on the second round:
http://avptalk.com/uploads/APPEAL_20140825.jpg

The Overexposed was ridiculous to start with (I adjusted with -0.10 exposure and suddenly it was not overexposed), but the Soft is even worse. The soft light on the fuselage and front half of the tail gives off a soft appearance, but if you look at the details like the nose gear strut, engine warning labels, static port boxes, etc...they are all sharper than other pics of the aircraft in the database. Plus, it's with my 5DmIII + 70-200 f2.8 IS II, tack sharp on a 5,000px+ image from 350 feet away. Give me a break...I'd like to compare my "Soft" pic against some of the screeners' sharpest pics at full resolution. If they reject the appeal, I may stop uploading for a while (and I have plenty of 10-20,000 view photos just stored up). Or, I guess I was at a 96-100% acceptance ratio for around 2 years straight and suddenly forgot how to judge my photos.
AeroPX on Instagram - https://instagram.com/aeropxdotcom

View my photos: Airliners.net | JetPhotos.net | Flickr
Len90
First Class
First Class
Posts: 689
Joined: Feb 07, 2014

Re: A.net Screening Annoyance

Post by Len90 »

Cary wrote:I do somewhat agree with the Dark. I've had a few rejections for that, when the underside of the wing is that dark. Not much you can do, when the light is coming from a bad angle that doesn't illuminate the underside. Typically, if you start fudging with less contrast, it will wash out the pic.

I had this rejected for Overexposed the first round, Overexposed + Soft the appeal round and now Soft on the second round:
http://avptalk.com/uploads/APPEAL_20140825.jpg

The Overexposed was ridiculous to start with (I adjusted with -0.10 exposure and suddenly it was not overexposed), but the Soft is even worse. The soft light on the fuselage and front half of the tail gives off a soft appearance, but if you look at the details like the nose gear strut, engine warning labels, static port boxes, etc...they are all sharper than other pics of the aircraft in the database. Plus, it's with my 5DmIII + 70-200 f2.8 IS II, tack sharp on a 5,000px+ image from 350 feet away. Give me a break...I'd like to compare my "Soft" pic against some of the screeners' sharpest pics at full resolution. If they reject the appeal, I may stop uploading for a while (and I have plenty of 10-20,000 view photos just stored up). Or, I guess I was at a 96-100% acceptance ratio for around 2 years straight and suddenly forgot how to judge my photos.
They have been doing that a lot now where rejecting images that are properly sharpened but appear soft due to lighting. I had one of those as well that came off my 6D (not as good as your 5d :D ) with my 70-200 f4L IS (also not as good as yours). I honestly understand your reasoning for taking a break, but I for one thoroughly enjoy your work. I personally thought my picture yesterday would attract a 1,000 plus views but only got 330 as of right now... a huge disappointment for a shot that is pretty rare to pull off. I'm sure if I was on staff, that one would have been shared on fb and attracted thousands of views.

I think both of ours are nice examples of how there are different standards for different people.
View my photos: Airliners.net | Flickr
User avatar
Cary
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 1737
Joined: Dec 22, 2013
Contact:

Re: A.net Screening Annoyance

Post by Cary »

Len90 wrote:
Cary wrote:I do somewhat agree with the Dark. I've had a few rejections for that, when the underside of the wing is that dark. Not much you can do, when the light is coming from a bad angle that doesn't illuminate the underside. Typically, if you start fudging with less contrast, it will wash out the pic.

I had this rejected for Overexposed the first round, Overexposed + Soft the appeal round and now Soft on the second round:
http://avptalk.com/uploads/APPEAL_20140825.jpg

The Overexposed was ridiculous to start with (I adjusted with -0.10 exposure and suddenly it was not overexposed), but the Soft is even worse. The soft light on the fuselage and front half of the tail gives off a soft appearance, but if you look at the details like the nose gear strut, engine warning labels, static port boxes, etc...they are all sharper than other pics of the aircraft in the database. Plus, it's with my 5DmIII + 70-200 f2.8 IS II, tack sharp on a 5,000px+ image from 350 feet away. Give me a break...I'd like to compare my "Soft" pic against some of the screeners' sharpest pics at full resolution. If they reject the appeal, I may stop uploading for a while (and I have plenty of 10-20,000 view photos just stored up). Or, I guess I was at a 96-100% acceptance ratio for around 2 years straight and suddenly forgot how to judge my photos.
They have been doing that a lot now where rejecting images that are properly sharpened but appear soft due to lighting. I had one of those as well that came off my 6D (not as good as your 5d :D ) with my 70-200 f4L IS (also not as good as yours). I honestly understand your reasoning for taking a break, but I for one thoroughly enjoy your work. I personally thought my picture yesterday would attract a 1,000 plus views but only got 330 as of right now... a huge disappointment for a shot that is pretty rare to pull off. I'm sure if I was on staff, that one would have been shared on fb and attracted thousands of views.

I think both of ours are nice examples of how there are different standards for different people.
Thanks Len. And disaster avoided:



Normally, I wouldn't put up such a fight for a plane I already have 2 shots of in the database, but it was the principal. I don't upload photos that aren't tack sharp at 100%, so theoretically as long as I do my standard post-process sharpen (and I use different settings for my various body/lens combos), I should never be rejected for any type of Soft/Blurry quality issue.
AeroPX on Instagram - https://instagram.com/aeropxdotcom

View my photos: Airliners.net | JetPhotos.net | Flickr
Len90
First Class
First Class
Posts: 689
Joined: Feb 07, 2014

Re: A.net Screening Annoyance

Post by Len90 »

Nice be happy with yours. Mine yesterday came back with all four reasons still and "screener correct". It's like the HS who I appealed to was the one who saw it in the first place. Really do want to institute blind screening where the screener doesn't know the photographer's name until after screening the image.
View my photos: Airliners.net | Flickr
User avatar
Cary
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 1737
Joined: Dec 22, 2013
Contact:

Re: A.net Screening Annoyance

Post by Cary »

Len90 wrote:Nice be happy with yours. Mine yesterday came back with all four reasons still and "screener correct". It's like the HS who I appealed to was the one who saw it in the first place. Really do want to institute blind screening where the screener doesn't know the photographer's name until after screening the image.
Haha, my last 2-3 rejected appeals were "screener correct". How about you address the point(s) I made instead of the easy answer?
AeroPX on Instagram - https://instagram.com/aeropxdotcom

View my photos: Airliners.net | JetPhotos.net | Flickr
Len90
First Class
First Class
Posts: 689
Joined: Feb 07, 2014

Re: A.net Screening Annoyance

Post by Len90 »

Still dark and centering. Now add in the grainy but it is low in frame now. Totally think I have an appeal case on the grain and centering. Now it just comes down to the dark. Is it screener being too critical?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 6750r2.jpg
View my photos: Airliners.net | Flickr
User avatar
Cary
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 1737
Joined: Dec 22, 2013
Contact:

Re: A.net Screening Annoyance

Post by Cary »

Len90 wrote:Still dark and centering. Now add in the grainy but it is low in frame now. Totally think I have an appeal case on the grain and centering. Now it just comes down to the dark. Is it screener being too critical?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 6750r2.jpg
Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with the low also 8-) Like your WN, it measuring equally from tail or wingtip to the top and from gear to bottom doesn't quite work, if the fuselage is that low. In cases of extreme high angle, I like putting the fuselage as close to center, while giving the wingtip a little breathing room at the top. For your picture, I'd put it around where the second thumbnail shows:

Image
AeroPX on Instagram - https://instagram.com/aeropxdotcom

View my photos: Airliners.net | JetPhotos.net | Flickr
Len90
First Class
First Class
Posts: 689
Joined: Feb 07, 2014

Re: A.net Screening Annoyance

Post by Len90 »

Okay thanks for the tip Cary. I can understand. I was under the feeling that you need to have the equal distance between top and bottom. That explains things a lot better!
View my photos: Airliners.net | Flickr
Post Reply