I need some advice!

[Mellyrose]

Hey, kids...no fighting in my thread! I swear to god I'll turn this car around.

[mirrodie]

oh mommey, will you spank me?

[Mellyrose]

I thought it was your job to spank the Shosh? That's what you said last night, anyway...(I'm not even joking, guys) ;)

[Mr Smith]

well here is a farmiliar photo to most of you...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1018437/L/

suprised it got in actually with the noise on the fuselage. :)

Mel, just mess about and find what method suits you, don't worry if you get rejects, just take it out on Phil! ;)

[PhilDernerJr]

And what's really ****ty, is that I AM a skilled photoshopper. It's just frustrating for me knowing that because of certain personal opinions, my work may not be acknowledged.
:?

A lot of people seem to take on this mentality. I think it's important to realize that Airliners.net, and even JetPhotos.net, is not the be-all-and-end-all of validating your work as good or bad or even existing.

Your work is your work, and everyone needs to be proud of their personal results and realize that photo websites do have their own standards. Getting a rejection does not mean that anyone is a bad photographer, not does it take away the chance for someone to get their work "acknowledged".

And that's a great thing, I think. The fact that Airliners.net looks for different shots than JP is great, because if they all looked for the same stuff, how boring would it be? That's the whole idea of art, different interpretations.

I know that Mel is starting to get used to how we all have dealt with this for a long time now. It's the same hazing that all newcomers go through.

[PhilDernerJr]

oh mommey, will you spank me?

Looks like Mario will be catching an ass-kickin from me AND Shosh tomorrow.

[moose135]

So I think, I've got a bunch of photos on JP.net, let me try one on a.net. I submitted this one, shot from BK during our recent outing:



The rejection message I received said:

These photo(s) do not appear to be level, i.e. the angle of the camera does not seem to be straight compared to the horizon.

Am I missing something here? You know, like the horizon?

I guess I'll have to save it for my desktop.

[jakbar]

I'd appeal that one, Moose. The screener could have made a mistake.

[spacecadet]

I'd appeal that one, Moose. The screener could have made a mistake.

Yeah, but he'd probably get it rejected by another screener for something else. This kind of photo often gets rejected for "badmotiv" because it's not quite a nose shot and obviously not a full body shot. That's really what they seem to want; they want either nothing cut off whatsoever or they want just the nose.

It's pretty common also for shots without a visible horizon to get rejected for bad leveling. I don't think most screeners are dumb enough to *actually* think it's bad leveling, but that's basically their way of saying "there's no way to tell whether this is level or not, therefore I'm going to have to reject it." Everything on the site has to be level, I mean that's the rule; or at least the rule as most screeners interpret it.

I think there's probably a better chance that this would get rejected again on appeal than that it'd get accepted.

He could try rotating the image so the nosegear strut is straight vertically. That would *not* mean the shot is level but it might be a way to satisfy the screeners, at least in terms of leveling.

[NIKV69]

Yeah, but he'd probably get it rejected by another screener for something else. This kind of photo often gets rejected for "badmotiv" because it's not quite a nose shot and obviously not a full body shot. That's really what they seem to want; they want either nothing cut off whatsoever or they want just the nose.

Then what is this?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0915219/L/

Poor generalizations like this is what leads to these pointless discussions about this topic that has been beaten to death. I can't believe after 2 years this topic continues. The screeners at anet have no alterior motives, they don't get their rocks off by rejecting rather than accepting or anything else. Johan has set the bar a certain way and that's it. I think the reason more and more new photographers are being frustrated is not because of their photos rejected, but more because this mindset has been created that the anet screeners have all these little quirks on what they like and what they will accept. I think if you stick to the basics of both taking the picture and editing the picture you will find that all of this talk is complete BS. I take a very basic approach to PS and I get results that anet still accepts. Of course when you attempt harder shots like nose shots and close ups it will be harder to achieve the motive and quality anet accepts. Which is what you would expcect. Don't confuse new and intermediate photographers into thinking anet's screeners won't give a shot a fair shake because a certain shot is not a full body side on or a perfect close up nose shot, because then photographers that are learning are going to have the same narrow minded attitude and instead of trying to improve the shot they will just complain about the rejection.

Moose,

I would email the screeners and try to find the one who rejected the shot. The rejection reason doesn't sound right, that is a great shot and I wouldn't give up so easy.

[jakbar]

Poor generalizations like this is what leads to these pointless discussions about this topic that has been beaten to death. I can't believe after 2 years this topic continues. The screeners at anet have no alterior motives, they don't get their rocks off by rejecting rather than accepting or anything else. Johan has set the bar a certain way and that's it. I think the reason more and more new photographers are being frustrated is not because of their photos rejected, but more because this mindset has been created that the anet screeners have all these little quirks on what they like and what they will accept. I think if you stick to the basics of both taking the picture and editing the picture you will find that all of this talk is complete BS. I take a very basic approach to PS and I get results that anet still accepts. Of course when you attempt harder shots like nose shots and close ups it will be harder to achieve the motive and quality anet accepts. Which is what you would expcect. Don't confuse new and intermediate photographers into thinking anet's screeners won't give a shot a fair shake because a certain shot is not a full body side on or a perfect close up nose shot, because then photographers that are learning are going to have the same narrow minded attitude and instead of trying to improve the shot they will just complain about the rejection.

I am in absolute and total greement with every word of your post.

[NIKV69]

I am in absolute and total greement with every word of your post.

Thanks Josh, I wasn't going to touch this topic but you read statements like this and it makes you wonder.

I wouldn't really worry about getting acceptances to a.net... they've got their stable of photographers that the screeners are used to accepting hundreds of photos from a week and you basically have to emulate them to have any chance at this point. They're locked into sort of a tunnel vision about what aviation photographs are supposed to look like. (I was told by a screener once quite specifically that their idea of proper composition has nothing to do with proper photographic composition. Their position is that aviation photography and other forms of photography are mutually exclusive.) That said, even if you do a good job at emulating the right style, they'll still pick random things out to reject you for pretty often.

This is especially alarming, there is a reason these so called "stable" photogs get hundreds of pics accepted. They are good! Furthermore the anet screeners do not have tunnel vision, your so called tunnel vision is actually Johan's guidelines. I also doubt very highly this theory that a screener will pick a random thing to reject your picture for even after you have "emulated" one of the photogs from the screeners "stable" has any truth to it whatsoever. It's adds to this hysteria and paranoia that newer photogs do not need. Moose is a prime example, he is a good photog who took a great picture and could use some advice on how to #1, evaluate the rejection and #2 possibly improve the shot since he has the original and can make changes and edit again. Let us not forget that a rejection is not a death sentence. With some patience and an open mind you can surprise yourself. I hope Moose pursues it because looking at the pic I feel it can get into the DB.

That's pretty much when I gave up even trying to submit things; it was a situation similar to this, I guess. But I believe at that time there were many people complaining about the same thing; I do know there were a lot of newbie screeners that had just started up, so maybe it's better now

I think if you visit anet now you will see that this is not the case. You also have to remember that any new screener is overseen by a senior screener while they train so the level of accuracy is not effected, you also get notified that your pic was screened by a screener in training so you can always appeal and a senior screener will look at your photo.

I would hope that if we are going to post in this thread, a thread that upcoming photogs like Mel and Moose are in need of good advice that we would give good advice, it's not fair to give them the famous "anet screener conspiracy theory"

[spacecadet]

This is especially alarming, there is a reason these so called "stable" photogs get hundreds of pics accepted. They are good!

They are good at what they do. Other people are good at what they do too. Yet one photographer's photo is accepted and another is rejected. There are reasons for that; it has nothing to do with how good somebody is generally, as several other people have said already.

Furthermore the anet screeners do not have tunnel vision, your so called tunnel vision is actually Johan's guidelines.

I never said anything different. That doesn't change the fact that they have a very specific subset of traits that they look for in images. (I specifically mentioned the nose shot/full shot distinction - one of the traits that they look for is that an image fit into a pre-defined category on the site.)

I have gone through all of the guidelines on the site many times and have talked to several of the screeners looking for clarification on some of them. So I'm not unfamiliar with what you're saying, nor am I even denying it. I don't think you're arguing with me on the points you seem to think you are. The reasons why they have tunnel vision are kind of moot; they don't matter. The fact is they have a set of things that they look for and if your photos don't have those things - even if you're freakin' Ansel Adams doing a weekend of shooting at JFK - you're not going to get your photos accepted.

It's adds to this hysteria and paranoia that newer photogs do not need. Moose is a prime example, he is a good photog who took a great picture and could use some advice on how to #1, evaluate the rejection and #2 possibly improve the shot since he has the original and can make changes and edit again.

I'm not going to get into these "hysteria" issues. I'm simply giving an opinion. The people who seem to get so bent out of shape on this sort of thing always seem to be the people on your side of it. I have no emotion whatsoever on this; a.net has no influence at all over my life (except for all the time I spend in the general discussion forum there!).

The advice I gave is to straighten the shot. The example you posted was straighter than the one Moose posted. I then said don't get your hopes up, because it's likely it will be rejected again, which is the truth. I say this from experience; I've had enough photos rejected for things other than the original rejection reason on appeal enough times to know that it does happen, and probably a good percentage of the time. Different screeners see different things. They're human beings, not robots. (That doesn't always mean they make mistakes, either; just that one may see a badlevel, one may see a badmotiv, one may see both, one may see neither.)

I just don't understand this obssession with getting photos on a.net. If you submit a shot and they reject it, I mean jeebus, forget about it. There are more important things in life to worry about. Is that one shot being on a.net going to affect your life in any tangible way whatsoever? Worrying about it will affect your life a whole lot more.

I would hope that if we are going to post in this thread, a thread that upcoming photogs like Mel and Moose are in need of good advice that we would give good advice, it's not fair to give them the famous "anet screener conspiracy theory"

A "conspiracy theory" would be to suggest all these screeners get together and actively try to thwart new photographers. I don't think anybody has said anything like that. What we, and specifically I, have said is that the screeners are doing their best to adhere to a specific set of style guidelines that has evolved over time since the start of the site and that they now have a set of photographers that understand those guidelines and that they trust. While those guidelines are rigid, photos are not, so borderline photos from new photographers will be judged differently by different screeners, but when all is said and done it is the screeners' job to look for reasons to keep photos off the site. That is their mandate. They are trained to look for leveling issues, or contrast issues, or motivation issues, or whatever. So the judgement of a screener is not the judgement of the quality of a photo; it is simply the judgement of the photo's suitability to being on the a.net web site. Those are two different things, and even some of the screeners will tell you that (and I know that because one of them did tell me that).

You and me both are trying to encourage these new photographers, we are just doing it in different ways. I am trying to do it in a more general way that looks at the big picture. I don't care about a.net. I care about helping someone be a better photographer, and helping them to feel good about their work even though it has been rejected by a.net. a.net is a great resource for airliners, but ultimately 99% of the photos on it are disposable; they are just a documentary record of particular airliners in particular places at particular times. I am just saying this is not the ultimate goal that any aviation photographer should be striving towards. Set your sights a little higher. Try to take photos that have some lasting impact and just don't worry about what the screeners at a.net think of them. Because that's not ultimately what matters.

(I will say there are also some fantastic shots on a.net, some of which were probably taken by people right here. But I remember one day I went through trying to prove much this same point and managed to pick out around 75 nearly identical photos of a Continental 757 sitting on the ground at an airport in identical lighting conditions and with nearly identical backgrounds. I posted them all in one post on the photography forum there, and it was kind of hilarious seeing them all together like that. Oh well, I'm easily amused, I guess.)

Of course, I don't always practice what I preach and I've got plenty of boring photos on my hard drive of airplanes sitting on a tarmac somewhere. But that doesn't mean I don't strive for better. And I don't even bother uploading shots like that to a.net, because to me, there's not really any point in even looking at them more than once. (I am basically a beginning aviation photographer too; my background is more general photography and, actually, motion picture film.)

[Mr Smith]

well JP has it's purpose, you'd never see this shot on a.net...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5694104

[mirrodie]

sorry if a debates been sparked....


I'll stand by my points though. Photography should be fun. ONce it becomes tedious and frustrating, its no longer photography.



And seriously, as I stated most early on, look at Mel's two version of hte same shot. both beautiful...

but b/c some one individuals perception of perfection, all this chit chat. not worth it. rahter be walking, drinking wine, snowboarding, loving, wathcing a movie, misspelling, ****, you name it...I'd much rather be doing something else than that.;)