Should Have Been Rejected For...

Note
This forum is no longer automatically anonymous. If you require anonymity, please log out of your account and post as a guest.
Post Reply
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

That Air Canada A320 from AH has got a very loose crop???
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:That Air Canada A320 from AH has got a very loose crop???
Landscapes, backgrounds and clouds always are deemed "interesting" enough to justify weird crops for a very small handful of people, unless it's one of my photos, where I'll get "screener correct -- feels unbalanced" or "aircraft too small" on appeal. This is the problem with A.net...everything is too subjective these days. There used to be hard rules to follow and because they kept allowing stuff to slide for a few chosen people, they've loosened up rules to "interpretation". And don't even get me started on screeners using all different types of monitors/laptop screens, with different levels of brightness, sharpness, color balance, etc. etc. There's no consistency between screeners' setups anymore, so the same photo can be deemed too soft by one screener and too sharp by the next. Or "overexposed", when a screener's monitor is set too bright and "underexposed" by another screener who has their brightness down too low.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Oh hey, and it's a double, too, with one of the dates intentionally or accidentally fudged:

Image

I thought I remembered that one from before. Weird how he always gets this type of stuff past screeners...
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

hahaha. He uploads the same shot twice and then "ACCIDENTALLY" choses another day. What a COINCIDENCE.... MUST HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT ... LOL :D :D :D :D :D :D

Normally people get rightfully banned or ar least warned for that. And in such a case no one would believe that lame "Accident" excuse. I mean if you have 1.250.000 shots online, I can even understand that you might accidentally upload the same shot twice (also personally I don'T like the idea of just uploading as much as one can), but if you then chose another wrong date it makes it obvious that you might be intentionally doing that.
As somehow these guys think they are great dudes for having what ever 20.000 shots online.
I am sorry, but personally I do not respect that at all.. I'd rather be looking at a gallery with 500 good shots then at something xx thousand with a LOT just uplaoded to make up the numbers. u
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I can actually believe in a honest mistake regarding the Air Canada shot, what is the point to upload the same picture again, without changing the crop at least?

That said, this crop is just terrible. There's nothing that justifies it. Soon in your facebook feed :yawn:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Scoot/A ... 32/6049903
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

For anyone who screens or used to screen, does the admin section link to the same reg from the same photographer or warn you in any way? Or do you need to look through all the pics of the reg and check for double manually?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

There’s an awful lot of empty space in the bottom half of the latest bikini shot.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:For anyone who screens or used to screen, does the admin section link to the same reg from the same photographer or warn you in any way?
Yes. There is a link to the other photos of that registration by that photographer. It looks like this: "'By this photographer (1)". The number indicates the amount of photos. It's often forgotten or not checked.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:There’s an awful lot of empty space in the bottom half of the latest bikini shot.
The photographer's creepy shadow justifies all the empty space. /s
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I know JP doesn't have high standards, but come on:
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9684376
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

When you see the photos Andrew can get through screening (even if merely formal), it makes sense to accept shots cropped like this. Just why?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitle ... ty/6053063
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I mean super nice and I can see why anybody would be less strict on that shot, but it is quite blurry allover?! I am aure Tim has a sharp shot from that sequence, maybe not exactly with that background, but still...

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9796369


Cleary blurry all-over and not just a bit soft here and there...
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

It’s a lot more enjoyable to look at than the perfectly sharp boring shots on the other site.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Seriously? I get it's an historical moment, but the crop just looks terrible.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas/ ... ER/6100809?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Seriously? I get it's an historical moment, but the crop just looks terrible.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas/ ... ER/6100809?
Is there an airplane in that shot? ;)
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Just a tiny bit overprocessed:
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9813955
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I really think the annoying mirror in the corner could definitely have been avoided; especially based on the equipment used.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9815163
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:I really think the annoying mirror in the corner could definitely have been avoided; especially based on the equipment used.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9815163
That is not good. Neither is the vignetting.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

For me, this is the worst acceptance of JetPhotos. There's simply no way to miss the huge personal watermark if you look at the photo. I posted this one here a few years ago but looks like no one saw anything wrong :lol:

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8458644
Post Reply