Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: A.nets New Rejection Tool

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    97

    A.nets New Rejection Tool

    I think I have finally figured it out. What? Why so many pics get rejected by the A.net screeners. They've got a new "Rejection" wheel that they spin for each picture. On the wheel there are 1,000 slots, each given a rejection reason or an accept. They look at your pictures, spin the wheel and whatever turns up is what happens to the photo. Only problem is out of those 1,000 slots only 2 have been marked "accept the photo" and one of them is on an electrical timer. It blinks on and off. If you land on that spot and it's off, well, they have to spin again. So, now you know the real reason why there are so many rejections.

    Sorry guys, right now I'm pissed to say the least. Pissed and just down right dumbfounded at a few rejections I got tonight. Here's the first one:



    Rejected for: Bad Quality, Bad Color, Bad Personal

    And I even got a personal message from the screener, it stated:

    "Your white curve point and color is off. The fuslage is supposed to be white but on your image it looks more like beige and there is also an overall greenish type color castoverexposed."

    Now, look at this ...



    That's a cropped section of one of the original .jpg files. Right out of the camera before any post processing. Shot with Direct Sunlight and a -.3 exposure adjustment, no other color, tone, sharpness, or anything else. The top of that fuselage can't be a true white. Look at the curvy cheat line, that's white. And look at the Boeing letters, they're more like the top of the fuselage. Sorry, if the top of that fuselage was a true white then it would be white. No way the camera would selectively pic which portions of the fuselage should be white. The late Sun might have played a little role in this and made it a bit more beigy, but I stand by the fact that it's not a true white ... it can't be. And, furthermore, I don't see a green cast to that picture at all. Do you? And, overexposed? They have to be kidding.

    Now, look at this ...



    That poor picture only got rejected for Bad Quality. Excuse me while I roll on the floor lauging so hard I'm pissing in my pants. Bad quality? You've got to be f***ing kidding me. I can only conclude that the flare down the fuselage is what the screener didn't like. Normally I wouldn't upload a photo with a lot of flare, but this one is minimal and I think adds to the shot given the dark clouds in the background. Given how thin the flare line is it, in my opinion, really doesn't detract from the photo.

    And, don't worry, there were about 5 more rejections in the same e-mail, all about the same. I've appealed these two, but don't hold out much hope. My previous experince with appeals is that whoever reviews the appeals pretty much sides with the original screener.

    It's to bad what is happening to A.net. I remember not long ago when you submitted your photos and you waited a day or two, three at the most. You'd get an e-mail showing you your acceptances and rejections together, not the whole batch, but some of them. Mixed msg with both acceptances and rejections, nice. Today you submit your pics, wait a week or longer and then the rejection e-mails start pouring in. One after another, rejected, rejected, rejected. No acceptances. Then finally after they rejected half the batch you'll get an e-mail telling you that something was accepted. Their whole focus has changed in my opinion and I've heard quite a few others state the same thing. It really is unfortunate for what was once such a premier site to go downhill this way.

    Sorry for my rambling. I guess I just had to let off some steam. :oops:

    Art

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    459
    I cant agree more with Art on this. The rejections lately have been "out there" Ive gotten so much of this bad borders crap lately and no one, that I've asked, can see any borders of any kind. Heres some from the latest batch of rejections.











    -Matt
    ATP MEL, Commercial Pilot ASEL & ASES, CFII
    Instrument Airplane
    CL-65
    , ATR-42, ATR-72, LR-JET, LR-60
    AGI & IGI
    http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.s ... entry=true

  3. #3
    Senior Member Tom_Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,193
    Hey Art, my email has not yet arrived, but I see mine is rejected for BAD COLOR and BAD PERSONAL as well.

    I guess both our cameras and both our computers must be "off" LOL

    What a joke. -- although I suppose the screener was trying to be helpful.

    I'll appeal but it really doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to. ... mine have been on Planepictures and Jetphotes a few days already.


    Matt - What can I say? Those LAX images should make anyone proud that took them. I guess you can't appeal all of them. You ought to upload them someplace that'll appreciate them.



    .
    "Keep 'em Flying"

  4. #4
    Senior Member Tom_Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,193
    Art - I had a look at a Sam Chui email with shots of the 777 taken who knows where..but he shot right up at it from the ramp. Again, as you pointed out, the cheatline is clearly white and the rest is not.

    But then again, how many of the New Colors JAL have we seen that are 100% white on A.net.... but of course, they aren't really white either.

    If someone is turning egg shell and beige etc aircraft white in photoshop, no doubt things seem off to them otherwise.
    "Keep 'em Flying"

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    1,139
    I, too, just got a recent batch of rejections on a.net that made me fall off my chair and laugh. They are so ridiculous that it's not even worth getting upset over. This is why I've slowly been moving my entire collection over to jetphotos.net and also uploading all my new pics there first. Not because jetphotos has lower standards or anything like that, but because their screeners aren't hyper critical and extremely inconsistent.

    Matt, those LAX shots are fantastic. Don't let a.net get you down.

    Josh

  6. #6
    Senior Member SengaB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,556
    Great shots there Matt, Art. Anyone that would would reject shots for the reasons stated prove they don't have the skills and the know how to be a effective screener and are looking for the wrong things and should surrender their privilages.

    I didn't know you were moving your stuff over to JP Josh. Glad to hear more and more locals are comming over. It was geting kind of lonely!
    Senga

  7. #7
    Senior Member FlyingColors's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    847
    Just unreal.........................

    For what its worth, way to go Art, nice thread.

    And hats off to Tom for adding to it on A-net.
    From now no your going to be "Lock-n-load Tom"

    All good shots for sure.

    See, we all have to work with a monitor that is and as far a I know (not much) will stay at 72 dpi display. One will never be able to remove all jaggies, ect. Were dealing with little small squares.....

    Not fair, and dealing with the mental case public, patriot ace, authorities, crack pot screeners, its just not fun any more...

    Mike :evil:

    ps --- Art I cant get my FX shots up for crap too!
    "my finger on the shutter button, while my eye is over my shoulder"

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Massapequa - (n.) mass*ah*pee*kwa
    Posts
    3
    Many of the A.net screeners seem to be full of themselves judging by how they "help" out on the photography forum... I find it hard to find an instance where there isn't a sarcastic remark thrown.

    Art, don't worry. The screening process has always been, as they call it, "subjective." Little did we know that the true definition of subjective... nevermind, edited out. :lol:

    Chris

  9. #9
    Senior Member MarkLawrence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    1 Miles NNW of NOVAE - KFLL - Davie, FL
    Posts
    3,910
    I've given up even trying to submit to A.net. I'm not a prolific photographer as much of you are, but, I've had 4 or 5 that I thought were really liked and thought they matched the quality of some of the other pictures. However, each time I've tried, I get this generic rejected message. I was begining to think that it was because I'd never had anything accepted!! :)

    Two examples of what I have taken - and please, anyone has any comments on what could be wrong and how to improve, PLEASE!!...tell me!! :)





    PBI is nothing like NYC area for photography...but...we all try!! :)

    Mark
    Mark Lawrence - KFLL
    Davie, FL

    Community Manager NYCAviation.com
    email: [email protected]

    http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=1538
    http://amateuravphoto.blogspot.com

  10. #10
    Administrator PhilDernerJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    12,470
    Mark,

    The Song is nice, but it is a little overexposed and is a little low in the frame. Try to not cut out small parts of the wing, either.

    The Delta is my favorite of the two. The sun is a little too high so there is not enough light on the bottom, and there seems to be a bit of a blue cast over the photo. It is also a little high in the frame.

    That's a tough angle to get on sites like Airliners.net. I think it's nice and we need to remember to take photos for ourselves anyway. Also keep in mind that there are many other photo sites to upload to, even other than JetPhotos.net like PlanePictures.net and Airfleets.net.
    Email me anytime at [email protected].

  11. #11
    Senior Member NIKV69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    IFP, ISP, JFK, IGM, SAN, VCV, LGA, LAX, SEE, LAS
    Posts
    4,258
    Hey Art,

    Saw your thread on anet and figured you would have a post here. I loved the Fed Ex shot! As for the screeners well here is an example on how there is no rhyme or reason. This shot I took of a TW Tristar got accepted into the DB even though it's backlit.

    http://www.airliners.net/open.file/852511/L/

    Now the landing gear is partially blocked out as well so this picture has flaws and got accepted. This second one taken same time same area has even more of the landing gear blocked out and got accepted.

    http://www.airliners.net/open.file/804777/M/

    So much like Art has said sometimes it seems like a spin of the wheel is the way they screen. I hope not, but in the end it's their house. Any pic of mine that they take gets hosted for free on a popular site so I am a happy camper. Or more like an "anet *****" right Futterman? :mrgreen:
    'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol

  12. #12
    Senior Member Mr Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    layin low
    Posts
    198
    thought i would chime in from a screeners POV...Art, firstly it's like i told you all...A.net is looking to reject our photos not accept them! so you know the alternative site and we're glad to host them! as for the photo it's white BUT it's not snowwhite like the cheat line! to me it's a milky white, definately a shade of something in it!

    now if you look at Royal's shot
    http://www.airliners.net/open.file/877131/L/ look at the engine cowls, there is no light on them yet they are 2 distincly different shades of white!

    http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... DD2326.jpg with Sams shot the difference is also evident.

    http://www.airliners.net/open.file/887448/L/

    Norberts shot at 10am with high sun and the different shades are even more evident, i'd even say that the tail has a different shade of white to it also! if you look closely at the white on the airline label boxes near the 2nd door you can see they are closer to the color of the cheatline.

    honestly it should NEVER have been rejected...with Royals shot it is clearly evident that the plane is white but one part is a milky shade, probably 90% snow white and 10% something else mixture, looking at my bedroom wall it looks closer to that color and thats certainly not 100% snowwhite.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Mr Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    layin low
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
    Art - I had a look at a Sam Chui email with shots of the 777 taken who knows where..but he shot right up at it from the ramp. Again, as you pointed out, the cheatline is clearly white and the rest is not.

    But then again, how many of the New Colors JAL have we seen that are 100% white on A.net.... but of course, they aren't really white either.

    If someone is turning egg shell and beige etc aircraft white in photoshop, no doubt things seem off to them otherwise.
    Sams shots were taken i believe at about lunch time at the GA ramp in Sydney, it is as you said Tom, the cheatline is snowwhite but the fuselage is a milky/off white to say the least, white would be the base and probably 90% of the mix but something has definately been added to it because it's not 100% snow white!

    in my opinion it's closer to eggshell cream or creamy white. but nowhere near snow white. just had my mum look over the photo, the Boeing on the plane is snow white, the cheat line is a lighter shade and the fuselage is a pale milky shade of white...dunno if it makes sense of not but it's defo an interesting subject!

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Parker, Colorado
    Posts
    57
    Some of my rejections have been beyond ridiculous. For example:


    Bad****ingcenter
    I can join the mile high club without being in an airplane, you got nothin on this.
    http://www.jetspotting.com/logos/xjspotlogox1small.jpg

  15. #15
    Senior Member Tom_Turner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,193
    Welcome to the boards Eric. Nice shot, but perhaps too "radical" in a sense for what they (usually) want. But I'm sure you saw that coming.

    I did notice your "workflow" is incorporated into the site now though. Thats a pretty good acknowledgement at least someone of importance over there thinks highly enough of your work. :)

    Monty - yes the paint on the Dreamliner is an interesting subject. But I shouldn't need an electron microscope to examine it to know how it looks from any reasonable distance to the naked eye.

    I see now an image on the first search page for the Reg search on A.net, where it looks like somone poured a few gallons of white-out over the entire fuselage... Indeed one could be forgiven in thinking the plane is "all white" from looking at that shot. I always realized my shots were not perfect..I do not aspire to technical perfection or I would not enjoy much of what I do in the hobby... .

    I can take most rejections. I do not begrudge that other shots have been added with flaws..but it seems mean spirited to turn around dole out harsh personal standards and preferences on someone else within days.
    "Keep 'em Flying"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •