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 »

Love the "I've made it 1600x1067 for the ultimate viewing experience." comments with Craig's photo. Shows how much photography has evolved.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Meanwhile, that Chinese fighter photo still hasn't been corrected for info :roll:
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

And another one on FB....this one with a comment from Paul that it is Top of the Day! If that’s not a message for people to pull their heads in and let him rule his empire as he sees fit I don’t know what is.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:And another one on FB....this one with a comment from Paul that it is Top of the Day! If that’s not a message for people to pull their heads in and let him rule his empire as he sees fit I don’t know what is.
And once again oblivious to the fact that the FB crowd is tired of seeing bikini shots from the same photographer, from the same location, from the same angles. A new promotion an hour ago already has double the views as Andy's shot, even though that's been up for 3 more hours. I don't know how much more telling it could be that the past two bikini shots have been the least liked promotions of their respective weeks.

Image
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Well just check the comments under his neweset marvel.

I saved them, before Paul Jong-Un's censorship sets in:

Image

I'd exclude "fra-spotter" as he's obviously just 12, but otherwise execept Jason Xu (surprise: he's a screener, one that screens two shots a year that are both from his brother and otherwise uploads a lot of blurry shots) ONLY CRITICAL COMMENTS. Just 97 likes on Facebook? How more obvious could it be that people are tired of this and DO NOT wish to see that *?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

-I love reply #10 from user Kaphias here.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... 02b3fba518

Also love how the headscreener team is supposed to review rules for wide-angle shots. LOL!
First, I trust the current headscreener team a lot.
Second, the rule is pretty easy: "If your name is Andrew Hunt anything goes, if not your shot will be rejected."
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Well just check the comments under his neweset marvel.

I saved them, before Paul Jong-Un's censorship sets in:

Image

I'd exclude "fra-spotter" as he's obviously just 12, but otherwise execept Jason Xu (surprise: he's a screener, one that screens two shots a year that are both from his brother and otherwise uploads a lot of blurry shots) ONLY CRITICAL COMMENTS. Just 97 likes on Facebook? How more obvious could it be that people are tired of this and DO NOT wish to see that *?
Yes, looks like it's down to just one comment and a reply to that comment.
Guest wrote:-I love reply #10 from user Kaphias here.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... 02b3fba518

Also love how the headscreener team is supposed to review rules for wide-angle shots. LOL!
First, I trust the current headscreener team a lot.
Second, the rule is pretty easy: "If your name is Andrew Hunt anything goes, if not your shot will be rejected."
The issue of the dark band of sky with the use of wide angled lenses is under presently under review and discussion by the Head Screening team.
What in the world? Am I reading this right? Are the screeners completely unaware of how the sky gets darker higher up? So, fake vignettes for certain photographers are accepted (and it's extremely obvious they are fake, because the sky transitions to dark very quickly and with a smaller field of view), while real-world darkening of the sky with a wide field of view gets rejected (unless your initials are AH)?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Quoting Paul's last answer here:
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1426225

"The last 12 posts in this thread are all in relation to Phuket Beach images. Primarily by members who do not actively upload or in the case of CPD deleted all his images years ago and only posts what is perceived to be popular opinion. More posts than any uploads and it is not to improve his, or others, experience as a contributing photographer like this aviation photography forum should be for. Others like ChrisKen747 have only 1 image uploaded in 2 years and make repeated "me too" posts here. How does that improve his, or others, continuing contributions? That is what this forum is for. It doesn't and to be heard only one post is required."

Easy to say that after you remove three screeners that disagree on the matter, others stopped uploading due to reasons stated in the topic "Airliners.net behind the scenes" and other photographers that still upload but are afraid to say something and received that "special treatment" later.
If only Paul realized there are A.net screeners who have not uploaded in over two years. Specifically the same one that accepted a photo where half of the tarmac was very-obviously cloned.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

For me, the screening team used to be photographers who you could look up to. People who took interesting photos from far-away places. People you could learn things from (and I did).

Just look at the quality of the photos the HS upload now. Terrible. Looking at the exif data they post shows they have no idea how a camera even works. And, these are the same people who now reject images with perceived flaws, all the while uploading their own garbage.

Science even had a name for it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

What? I think Paul's ISO 800 1/8.000s settings on a 50D for a birght sunny day is perfectly fine.
Of course such a knowing person interferes with Photos!

Otherwise you are completly right. Some of them don't have a great clue. Take our favourite Phuket shooter, not only he is a bad photographer (I mean quite an accomplishment to do so many blurry shots with the high-end gear he is using for an experienced photographer), he's also a bad screener. Typically he would name just one out of many rejection reasons. I remember a very blurry shot / grainy / colour cast shot of an Olympic Dash-8 landing in Athens not a long a go. He rejected it for "low contrast". What happened? The guy uploaded the sam subpar shot that had no chance from the start with more contrast.

On some of the other ones, they feel themselves to be that much above everyone else that they just cannot see any fault in their own images. Any shot of theirs is VERY GOOD. Period.

And then don't forget that quite some are great, rude guys as long as they are anonymous, but when they are visible for other screeners they either pass it on or accept and would never use a bad word. Not a thing I particular appreciated while being on the team. There has to be a middle way, why not being friendly to normal uploaders and tell your fellow screeners when their shots have clear issues?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Paul back to promoting his own shots (at least they are old so it doesn't affect the Top 5). Also, new comments on Andy's latest bikini shot, which will undoubtedly be scrubbed:

Image

Including one uploader who has 2,800 photos in the database and another with 800, so according to Paul's criteria, their points should be very valid as they are valued contributors.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Number of FB likes on A.net promoted shots. Just to make sure they weren't an anomaly, I included all the posts over a two day period. Guess which one from each group were Andrew's bikini shots? "It's what the people want to see!"

May 18/19
Photo 1: 980 likes
Photo 2: 790 likes
Photo 3: 652 likes
Photo 4: 669 likes
Photo 5: 761 likes
Photo 6: 170 likes
Photo 7: 1.3K likes
Photo 8: 2.1K likes
Photo 9: 1.2K likes
Photo 10: 489 likes

May 10/11
Photo 1: 747 likes
Photo 2: 1K likes
Photo 3: 1.7K likes
Photo 4: 938 likes
Photo 5: 238 likes
Photo 6: 2.9K likes
Photo 7: 1.2K likes
Photo 8: 875 likes
User avatar
Cary
Site Administrator
Site Administrator
Posts: 1740
Joined: Dec 22, 2013
Contact:

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Cary »

Well, at least I got one of my old Maho Beach photos accepted under the new rule, which was previously rejected for Motive (posing):

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Insel-A ... 83/6013111

I remember being really upset over that rejection, since the man obviously wasn't posing for me and there was no way to avoid him other than running past him (too late by the time he walked into the frame), or using an earlier photo that didn't have the plane over the beach.
AeroPX on Instagram - https://instagram.com/aeropxdotcom

View my photos: Airliners.net | JetPhotos.net | Flickr
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I was surprised to see that on the front page this morning! Glad you don't need some under-age girl in a bikini to get those accepted!

Moose
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:I was surprised to see that on the front page this morning! Glad you don't need some under-age girl in a bikini to get those accepted!

Moose
:lol:
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

You can tell the horizon is crooked in the thumbnail version....
https://www.airliners.net/search?keywor ... lay=detail
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Two more "only if you're Andy Hunt" acceptances:

https://www.airliners.net/search?keywor ... lay=detail

Anybody else would have gotten distance and centering on both of them. The tiny sliver of beach isn't enough motive for the first one, nor is the cloud extraordinary enough to necessitate the crop for second. For the first one, the appeal rejection would read "Too much empty sky" or "Feels unbalanced" for 99.99% of uploaders.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Two more "only if you're Andy Hunt" acceptances:

https://www.airliners.net/search?keywor ... lay=detail

Anybody else would have gotten distance and centering on both of them. The tiny sliver of beach isn't enough motive for the first one, nor is the cloud extraordinary enough to necessitate the crop for second. For the first one, the appeal rejection would read "Too much empty sky" or "Feels unbalanced" for 99.99% of uploaders.
The offset crop actually ruins the Singapore. If centered that would have been a better looking shot.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Looks like Andrew is abusing the double rule to me....that Qantas A330 VH-QPG is surely a double?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Well for air-2-air photos two shots are allowed when they show siginificant differences. They will say the background is completely different.
Of course this is abusing the rule and nothing else.

Guess for whom this 2 shot a-2-a rule was introduced? Yes, exactly for Andrew. Any more questions?
Otherwise he is abusing the whole page so much, but yeah has all power to do so.

Generally everything is fully arbitrary there these days. Take that shot:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... ER/6058859
Surely somehow interesting (although personally it doesn't give me anything) but what an odd crop? It would have always been a motive rejection, saying "don't cut the engine".


But yeah the other day I visited the page and what did I saw when visiting it: XY Boneyard Safari (with something truly boring and unexciting but ofc cpurse some overexcited comments - how old are they? 12??), Alex Jossi (with an equally unexciting shot) and Andrew Hunt. I decided to immediately leave the site then...
Post Reply