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. Posts require moderator approval, which may take up to 48 hours.
Post Reply
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Not sure which is more blurry: the plane or the people
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Li ... /5963693/L
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Blurry (as usual) awful banding. Poor quality, motive as posed as it gets..

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Bangkok ... 32/5967769
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

It seems like A.net has now deteriorated into a small core of photographers that constantly dominate the Top 5, FB and PC with few others getting a look in. The front page is dominated now by SG, AH and RSK and others from the PAC NW. Is this real or am I imagining it? The site to me has become very mundane an myopic.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

How can a photographer upload and a screener accept shots like this? Anyone uploading for a month max know you shouldn't crop this way. Is it possible to accept a photo without seeing it?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/TAP-Por ... 1N/5970707
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Mar ... 50/5985361
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Nav ... 0A/5981821

Guest wrote: Is this real or am I imagining it? The site to me has become very mundane an myopic.
Sadly true :(
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Theoretically you cannot accept a shot without seeing it as the screening page automatically opens them in full size. But if you screen for names you can of course quickly scroll under the shot and accept / reject it without really looking at the shot.

And sorry but these are not crops, but accidents. Those were accidentally cut upon shooting and not meant to be a crop! And yes: CLEAR rejections.
Surely Gabor didn't accept the first one, as he rejects all shots from Mr. Valentin, no matter what.

And yes it is more and more becoming and exclusive boys club. Paul is doing his best to support that with his carefully chosen promotions. :clap:
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:How can a photographer upload and a screener accept shots like this? Anyone uploading for a month max know you shouldn't crop this way. Is it possible to accept a photo without seeing it?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/TAP-Por ... 1N/5970707
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Mar ... 50/5985361
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Nav ... 0A/5981821

Guest wrote: Is this real or am I imagining it? The site to me has become very mundane an myopic.
Sadly true :(
https://www.airliners.net/photo/TAP-Por ... 1N/5970707 is egregiously bad. Allowing 1/4th of the winglet to be cut off makes no sense, unless 1) you're a friend of the photographer, 2) you have no idea what you're doing, or 3) both of the above.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:How can a photographer upload and a screener accept shots like this? Anyone uploading for a month max know you shouldn't crop this way. Is it possible to accept a photo without seeing it?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/TAP-Por ... 1N/5970707
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Mar ... 50/5985361
https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Nav ... 0A/5981821

Guest wrote: Is this real or am I imagining it? The site to me has become very mundane an myopic.
Sadly true :(
https://www.airliners.net/photo/TAP-Por ... 1N/5970707 is egregiously bad. Allowing 1/4th of the winglet to be cut off makes no sense, unless 1) you're a friend of the photographer, 2) you have no idea what you're doing, or 3) both of the above.
And the TAP has been magically fixed. How did the photographer have a full shot with the winglet intact and crop it like they did? :?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

This is an interesting picture that would not have been accepted in the prime. A lot of clutter and not a very appealing angle with the extremely off center weight.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin- ... 41/5978489
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I am not a huge fan of the 350 crop, but overall the shot is nice. It has its point.

I love the comment though (ironically speaking) "Good old days". Let me just look at the facts: We have April, it was shot in February. :lol:
I know what happened in-between, but no need to exaggerate.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

The horizon on the latest bikini girl shot needs a massive amount of CCW. Didn’t stop it getting FB promotion though!
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:The horizon on the latest bikini girl shot needs a massive amount of CCW. Didn’t stop it getting FB promotion though!
Yep, that was immediately noticeable. The simplest horizon to level and the simplest to check/screen. But if anyone else is 0.1 degree off, game over.

Image
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Nothing against a good rant on Andrew's shots! :D

And while clearly off-level, that "massive amount of CCW" together with the image under it made me smille! Not exactly what I would call "massive".
Off-level? Yes. Massive CCW needed? At least for me massive is something else.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Nothing against a good rant on Andrew's shots! :D

And while clearly off-level, that "massive amount of CCW" together with the image under it made me smille! Not exactly what I would call "massive".
Off-level? Yes. Massive CCW needed? At least for me massive is something else.
Maybe not "massive" but that is definitely not level, and would have gotten most any other shot rejected.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Compared to what will normally get a shot rejected I don’t think the term “massive” is too far off the mark.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Terrible banding everywhere, maybe a dust spot in the top left corner, vignetting, artifacts. This is a head screener we're talking about. How many regular uploaders would have an image with so many issues accepted?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... ER/5989257
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:Nothing against a good rant on Andrew's shots! :D

And while clearly off-level, that "massive amount of CCW" together with the image under it made me smille! Not exactly what I would call "massive".
Off-level? Yes. Massive CCW needed? At least for me massive is something else.
Maybe not "massive" but that is definitely not level, and would have gotten most any other shot rejected.
Sorry, but does anyone still believe Andrew's shots are actually screened?
I mean of course others would get that rejected, because "others" are likely neither Headscreeners, nor Screeners nor the community Managers buddy. Only in one of these cases I could see that being accepted as well.

It is shameful, yes. But as he has been reinstated in a strong position lately this will stay... Remember what happened to those who tried to fight his and others privileges? Bye Bye. So they have taken the side of the privileged boys club,
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Terrible banding everywhere, maybe a dust spot in the top left corner, vignetting, artifacts. This is a head screener we're talking about. How many regular uploaders would have an image with so many issues accepted?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... ER/5989257
Well exactly our point. Screeners normally should be examples with their images, good ones and not bad ones. In that case a headscreeners has likely mor subpar images added than anyone else. Really a great example.
That 777 is darkish, has banding and compression issues and yes those corners look more than weird.

As you said normally an instant rejection.
Being Andrew's shot. Likely an instant promotion.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

The top left corner dust spot almost looks like from a clone brush. Even the banding in the corners looks very artificial. I'm 100% certain this 777 would have been rejected if it was actually looked at by a screener.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I mean even by Jetphotos being Jetphotos... How could this be accepted?
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9711107

I mean these people can EASILY be avoided.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Just when you think it can't get any worse, we have another outstanding Andrew Hunt beach photo...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Thai-Ai ... 16/5998433

I swear, I am done with them. I haven't uploaded there in ages because of stupid rejections, and the forums are getting to be a horror show. I'll probably check the Civil Av and Military forums, but otherwise, I don't have much use for A.net anymore.
Post Reply