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 »

Guest wrote: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
Yes, this one takes the cake. Maybe the screener thought the photographer was Shawn Mendes and gave him preferential treatment? It's even very apparent in the watermarked version:

Image
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Accepted and promoted. I guess they don't have a "distracting watermark" rule like JP:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM-Roy ... er/6116529
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

The majority of those shots with watermarks you couldn’t give away so I’m not sure why they’re so worried about someone stealing them.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:The majority of those shots with watermarks you couldn’t give away so I’m not sure why they’re so worried about someone stealing them.
You're so damn right. But I love people like the photographer who then claim someone could make a business with these images. LOL!! :D
As if there was any market for that? The net is flooded with airplane images everyday and it is very easy to shoot them in most of the countries, there's nothing special about them. A lot of photographers are even giving their images for free.
I'd say only in case of very unique images you might have a point in selling those... At least 95% of all planespotting images aren't really unique (including 99,9% of mine) one has to stay realisitic.


I understand it is not nice to have pictures stolen, sure. But one shouldn't exaggerate neither.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I guess absurd amounts of overediting are okay now:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/America ... 23/6227949
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

A photographer asked for help trying to fix a rejected classic photo, when it looks perfectly fine for being an old slide scan:
Rejected photo: https://i.ibb.co/xs4ZYhz/OO-SGC-020592-BRU.jpg
Thread: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtop ... &t=1456279

On the other hand, today, this was not only accepted, but insta-promoted:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthan ... /6286863/L

Blurry, dark/underexposed, and one of the most un-level photos on the site. Do they seriously not see the double standard in how they screen their own versus how everyone else is treated?
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Nobody cares. Airliners.net is Randy * + the Boneyard Safari clowns.

* photogs uploading * photos on a * website. And they still troll for hits on FB and Reddit.

Pathetic.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

I guess we can’t swear here?

That should read Randy CU|\|T.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Nobody cares. Airliners.net is Randy * + the Boneyard Safari clowns.

* photogs uploading * photos on a * website. And they still troll for hits on FB and Reddit.

Pathetic.

hahah, you got me. I recently had a look at the site (the first time since months) and it was full of that stuff. Boneyard clown stuff all over with them cheering on each other shots how great they were (no matter if the shot was as basic as it gets) and yeah the usual Andrew stuff as well.... Some weird Photographers'choice for the new Team leader D.G. and overall less and less views. The site is not relevant anymore. They have it for themselves... LOL. It is that club for certain photographers, just no one care about it anymore outside of their world.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

The quality of AHs latest scans is simply abysmal! I have no other words.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

He’s obviously ran out of “quality” shots and is now scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Just like airliners as a site. Mr €unt is the poster child for everything that is wrong with Crocodile Dundee and his (so called) management of the site.

The same 7 or 8 guys circle jerking to their own uploads.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Stop wasting time uploading to Airliners.net was a great decision. I wouldn't be able to deal with all this sh*t nowadays. Still access the website once or twice a week for a few good shots.

It only gets worse!

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f6270566a6
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8059110f52
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Stop wasting time uploading to Airliners.net was a great decision. I wouldn't be able to deal with all this sh*t nowadays. Still access the website once or twice a week for a few good shots.

It only gets worse!

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... f6270566a6
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8059110f52
I fully agree with that. Other than that I visit it once every 2 months and I don't feel like I am missing anything.

Those links don't work, Woudl be curious in seeing them,
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:Those links don't work, Woudl be curious in seeing them,
Ops! There you go. They are old scans, ok, but nonsense when you nitpick scans from other contributors with much better quality.


https://www.airliners.net/photo/Okada-A ... 5C/6305317
https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... 36/6303999

Just compare the quality with this one:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Varig/A ... 03/6209633
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Yes, because Randy Punt’s shots are so popular.

What kind of backwards * logic does Paul use to justify his actions? He promotes Andy’s shots at an astonishing rate, they get views, so they are “popular?”

If the guy was really trying to grow the community he would promote shots at random. And, every ex-screener reading this knows that Andy “took a break” from uploading because fellows screeners were (rightfully) rejecting his images. It wasn’t until rejecting his photos resulted in people leaving the team that he started uploading again.

For Paul to call people out for suggestions that some are treated better than others is laughable and offensive. He has no problem lying, even when everyone around him knows the truth. That says more about his character than anything any of us could write.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:Those links don't work, Woudl be curious in seeing them,
Ops! There you go. They are old scans, ok, but nonsense when you nitpick scans from other contributors with much better quality.


https://www.airliners.net/photo/Okada-A ... 5C/6305317
https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... 36/6303999

Just compare the quality with this one:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Varig/A ... 03/6209633

Exactly when I've uploaded some scans they were nitpicked for nonsense, yet these go in despite the quality being far off.
But yeah Randy * made sure everything goes for this uploads..if you disagree, please leave..

And yeah don't believe any word Paul says. But yeah two people believe he is a great Manager: Himself and Randy *. Not even his other "buddies" think so...
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

The subject matter of AHs scans are very interesting and I actually enjoy looking at them. Where the problem is they are very “ lazy “ edits with no effort put into cleaning them or even to level some of them and yet they are still accepted and promoted. I don’t upload scans anymore because I got sick of meticulously cleaning them and reducing the noise for them to be rejected for nit picky reasons. If Paul wants to turn the site into a boutique site for his small group of acceptable people he’s going about it the right way.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Guest wrote:The subject matter of AHs scans are very interesting and I actually enjoy looking at them. Where the problem is they are very “ lazy “ edits with no effort put into cleaning them or even to level some of them and yet they are still accepted and promoted. I don’t upload scans anymore because I got sick of meticulously cleaning them and reducing the noise for them to be rejected for nit picky reasons. If Paul wants to turn the site into a boutique site for his small group of acceptable people he’s going about it the right way.
I barely visit the site these days, but here's another of his recent scans:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/CAAC/Bo ... 1B/6324767

While other photographers get nitpicked to death over minor issues on old slide scans, this one, where the horizontal stabilizer is cut off, and in black & white for no apparent reason is fine -- even though Andy already has a better photo of the same exact plane in the database.
User avatar
Guest

Re: Should Have Been Rejected For...

Post by Guest »

Really? Overexposed, low contrast, and look at how blurry the tail logo is:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... /6374763/L

A.net can't possibly state that the rules are the same for everybody. How does that get accepted, when there are already nice shots of that reg, like this?
https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... /5417317/L
Post Reply