View Full Version : A.nets New Rejection Tool

2005-07-28, 02:12 AM
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:


AA 777
2005-07-28, 02:33 AM
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.






2005-07-28, 03:44 AM
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.


2005-07-28, 04:05 AM
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.

2005-07-28, 10:56 AM
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.


2005-07-28, 01:02 PM
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!

2005-07-28, 01:24 PM
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!

2005-07-28, 06:48 PM
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:


2005-07-28, 08:38 PM
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!! :)


2005-07-28, 09:35 PM

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.

2005-07-28, 09:42 PM
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.


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.


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:

Mr Smith
2005-07-28, 10:22 PM
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 (http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/SYDD2326.jpg) with Sams shot the difference is also evident.


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.

Mr Smith
2005-07-28, 10:26 PM
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!

Eric Daniel Smith
2005-07-28, 11:30 PM
Some of my rejections have been beyond ridiculous. For example:


2005-07-29, 12:16 AM
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.

2005-07-29, 12:20 AM
art... it's white. remember the conversation we all had at the last slide show? doesn't this seem like a repeat of just that? by the way, you do have a small dust spot right above the last window in front of the L2 door.

2005-07-29, 12:44 AM
Here's Boeing's definition of the color:

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... 0719g.html (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q3/nr_040719g.html)

Paragraph 4:

On an airplane's exterior, four shades of blue and two shades of white
combine throughout the plane's length as a visual depiction of the
horizon and sky.

And from the linked fact sheet
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/200 ... tsheet.pdf (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q3/livery_factsheet.pdf) )

Six colors comprise the new livery:
Four varieties of blue shades of light, medium and dark along with
a brilliant aqua.
Two varieties of white a standard bright gloss white and a
luminous Mica satin white.
A reflective Mylar clear coat
Mica and Mylar finishes differ in appearance and effect because of the
reflective particles in the paint. The reflective particles in Mica
paint are plastic rather than metal, and are much smaller and more
granular in texture. Mylar contains larger more reflective pieces,
creating a luminous glow when light reflects off the airplane.

Now, in reference to some of the comments here:

Monty, don't worry. I no longer feel that sense of urgency to get those shots uploaded to A.net. In fact, I've been sending them up to JP first. You go where the rewards are and the bull**** isn't :). Haven't you noticed my numbers climb pretty dramatically the past couple of months?

Matt, someone else told me last night I had a dust spot over the "N". I loaded the photo in PS looked at it closely, even did an equilization and I still don't see a dust spot on it. But, that gives the head screener, the almighty Sultan, the chief whachamacallit at A.net an out to reject it on appeal. Which I'm laying odds on they will do. What happened to the days when they would accept a pic with a minor imperfection, send you and e-mail telling you about it and asking that you reupload it? Afraid we've seen the last of those days.


Mr Smith
2005-07-29, 01:16 AM
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.

Art i notice everything...even when someone tries to tell us that snow white is snow white ;) i noticed the stats from the NYC guys have escelated and Derek Pedley has recently submitted a few shots from RIAT. :)

unfortunately Tom they only thing A.net is consistnent at is being inconsistent, i got a reject yesterday for badlevel, the fuken photo was .001 of a degree out or something stupid like that! it was so minor that you needed to look at the photo for about a minute before you "convinced" yourself it was not level! who the **** looks at a photo for that long to judge the snow white of white or the milky white of white? nobody i'd venture to say! just people who are looking to reject photos via a set of guidlines drawn up by a person who know sqaut about photography!

to me all Mike has done on the a.net thread is brighten the photo and adjust the color cast...the color on the upper fuselage is still OFFWHITE allbeit a little brighter thanks to some adjustments, first they tell you not to manipulate a photo in such ways then they tell you that you must do it so the color is supposedly "correct"...no matter how much you adjust it it's always going to be offwhite! my rejects on there no longer get resubmitted, especially when they are ambiguous at best and run the risk of getting the chop a 2nd time for some other reason!

i think this pretty much confirms what A.net is really like! anyone else it's a bad double?!?!


2005-07-29, 08:43 AM
Art and Matt, I can't believe those photo's where rejected, it's a real shame about all the negative vibes coming out of that site, it is almost as if there is that glass is "half empty" way of thinking going on there. I have recently reduced my uploading significantly instead trying to concentrate on JP where I still get rejections but at a 'MUCH" lower rate and there are some very friendly and helpful people involved with that site from CK on down and that means something to me. One of the things that really bugs me about a.net is you get no credit for having photo's that would probably be very popular with visitors to the site, it does not seem to play a part on the screening considerations. Art, Matt and Eric's shot's will do very well if they get uploaded again thru the appeal or resubmit process. As for me my current acceptance rate is 26 pct, however of my last 6 uploads, 3 where rejected and 3 made it to #1 of the last 24 hours and where on the front page of the site. 1 of the 3 rejections made it #1 of last 24 at JP and the second made it to number two. But it seems as far as the screeners are concerned that means nothing as far as my credibility as a photographer is concerned. I will stop rambling now, maybe some day things will change.


2005-07-29, 12:24 PM
Hey look it's just like the picture that Art took. Yet there it is on A.net.

I'm no expert but color and sharpness look the same.
I think this must be A.net's way of trying to keep the amount of uploads down. Unfortunately they don't want to say that so instead they make up some baloney story which obviously by the pic is easily seen for what it is.


Eric Daniel Smith
2005-07-29, 01:26 PM
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. :)

My workflow is posted on a.net? Where?

Edit: Nevermind, I found it. Sweeeeeet...

Darren Howie
2005-07-30, 10:13 PM
G'day All!!
Seems like Anets badqual rejects are the flavor of the month all over the place.
Some of the shots above like Eric's Citation,Matts LAX shots and Art's MD11 show clearly how far they have gone at looking for things to reject photo's by.
What i would like to know is exactly who if anyone is calling for these type's of shots to be rejected?
Anet is being flooded by side on taxi shots with the occasional stunner that sneaks through the gauntlet.
I went through 400+ images the other day and couldnt find one shot i would call a good photograph.All where side ons or parked aircraft.
What was really funny was that i accidently reuploaded a shot of a NW 744 i took which was already up as i had two similar.
The shot i already had up got rejected for badqual when i accidently reuploaded it.Just shows how consistent they are.
Here's my contribution to the badqual reject file.

2005-07-30, 11:25 PM
Well, Darren, the fact that I just looked at your badqual shot is enough to make me cry...it's freakin' fantastic! Well done.

The fact that you shot it on a crap day probably had a lot to do with the rejection; I got badquality for the following shot , and the only explanation I got in the forums was that it was bounced because the weather sucked.


Well, as far as I'm concerned, that's not the only thing that sucked!


Darren Howie
2005-07-30, 11:45 PM
You have got to be kidding.
I dont think they seam to realize that you don't normally get lots of moisture in the air on days when the wx is 8/8ths blue sky!!
Great shot Brian.Its one of the few shots i have seen from a wing view with some nice moisture effects.
Their loss again.
This one got done for
http://myaviation.net/search/photo_sear ... size=large (http://myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00411399&size=large)
Sometimes they just dont see what we are trying to do.
Great looking pastel clouds,nope we dont want to see those in the frame.
Is it a photography site???


Eric Daniel Smith
2005-07-31, 12:24 AM
There is a serious question that needs to be asked: What is airliners.net for? Is it for looking at browsing amazing airplane photos or is it a catalogue of photos of aircraft? It used to be the former, which is why I used to go. Now I think it's becoming the latter.

2005-07-31, 12:40 AM
No, Eric, it's just becoming stupid.

Mr. "747 coming out of the bush" repled to a request I submitted for priority screening today.


I have uploaded three photos of Air Canada's new E175, and would like
them to be considered for priority screening:

[email protected]
Upload ID 1624638
Upload ID 1624634
Upload ID 1624625

Thank you,
Brian Futterman

He sent a simple reply...


And I laughed.

Peter, what are you trying to say? My request most definitely
satisfies the prerequisites for priority screening, primarily the
following (excerpted straight from the thread):

Priority Screening
* New types
* New colour schemes
* Combinations of the above (e.g. first of new type with existing airline)

This is an entirely new aircraft family, the FIRST Embraer 175 in
commercial service (so obviously a new type for the airline). The
fact that it is new to LGA, while I note that in the remark, is hardly
the driving force behind my valid request for priority screening.

Brian Futterman

I think it's time the Head Screeners actually got a head.

Eric, note that I said "a head, not... ;)

Darren Howie
2005-07-31, 12:41 AM
I agree Eric its become a DB for aircraft and has totally drifted away from anything to do with real aviation photography.
WIth such tight boundaries for what is acceptable and what is not any artistic freedom is totally restricted.
I have in fact been pretty surprised that some of my Tokyoshots still got through as i figured theywhere way past moisture effects.
Anyway enough rambling and great Citation shot mate it should be in a calender.

Mr Smith
2005-07-31, 07:32 AM
just another day at the office!!


http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.s ... entry=true (http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=F-GSQG&distinct_entry=true)

2005-07-31, 08:53 AM
Though I agree with Brian on those pics being priority, I think what is happening here is that the screeners have become tired of the standoffish emails and threads in av-photo when they reject a pic or deny a request. This over time is just going to hurt you. You also have to remember that anet is not a democracy and that Johan can do whatever he wants. It is a privelege to be on anet and have photos accepted into the DB, not an obligation. If their standards seem high then there are three choices. Keep working and uploading. Upload to JP only, or start your own aviation photo website. I feel that helping each other improve when our pics get rejected and talking about it is great, but when you constantly approach the screeners and voice displeasure at their procedures and judgement openly in the long run you will never get a fair shake from them . I kind of see this happening already. Remember that the workload for the screeners this summer has been record highs and to see emails in their inbox about rejections and the such is not the best thing. Their were two threads Brian posted there, one was the cockpit shot issue with the wall and there was another that got deleted almost immediately that I can't remember the topic. This I feel will just hurt in the long run, especially when Brian uploads.

Eric Daniel Smith
2005-07-31, 09:53 AM
On the plus side, a different version of my citation shot made the cut:

2005-07-31, 04:34 PM
I can certainly understand people's frustrations when it comes to uploading photos at Airliners.net. Many of us got our expensive equipment because of our desire to upload there. Having your photos on Airliners.net as opposed to other sites is also good for business and exposure, as right now, it's the most popular site out there.

Two weeks ago, you all saw my own frustration in a rejection of mine on the forums of Anet. I was upset, even though I did see some faults in my own photo. It was one of the first times that I took such rejection personally, because I had so fallen in love with that photo.

I relate to Art's frustrations with his shots of the very special WordLiner. You get the chance to get something special and when your feelings become involved, it's a lot more aggravating when you can't get to share such work with the world. Not to mention that while I generally side with the screeners, I pretty much concur with the argument in this case.

My posts in the "Is This White" thread do show that I feel some recent rejections are a bit much as well. Though venting your feelings on message board forums like this one and AvPhotography on Anet are understandable, I think our anger is going a bit too far. We need to remember why we do what we do. Aviation enthusiasm is about enjoying our passion for commercial aviation, and for most of us, photography.

Remember when you first joined Anet? Or when you first got your photo accepted? Remember the first time you hung out with a group of more than 10 people at Costco? Our hobby was evolving for us into what it is now, and look at our outings lately. We have a lot of new people coming out and joining our scene that are experiencing these same exciting firsts right now, and they are seeing how big and wonderful this hobby is.

Though the frustrations many of us are feeling are understandable, I think some our behavior can have a negative impact on our new friends that are just getting involved in the hobby. I think we've let our feelings get the best of us to where we might not only misrepresent ourselves, but misrepresent the hobby to our new friends and also misrepresent the New York City scene to the world by letting our local site become a sounding board for our anger against fellow aviation sites.

I look at it like an ex-girlfriend. Sure, maybe the relationship turned to crap. But I remember the good times. Airliners.net will always hold a special place in my heart as the place the Clark brought me to that introduced me to the world of aviation enthusiasm. It all started there. It was the community that allowed me to learn 90% of what I know about the hobby and is essentially what created my passion for aviation. If I were to equate it to a girlfriend, Airliners.net took my virginity and taught me how to love.

While my serious relationship with Airliners.net might be over and I am now submitting my photos with other sites, I'm still going to try to get shots on Anet, because what I get there when I do get acceptances is great.

While I want everyone to speak out about their frustrations and treat this site like home, I hope you all take a moment to consider the consequences on our hobby when tempers flare and our frustrations escalate. We owe it to our new buddies, to our city, and most importantly, to ourselves.

Take care guys,


Mr Smith
2005-07-31, 07:24 PM
it's not a priveledge for our photos to be shown on A.net, it's our photos that keep that site alive...and treating the hand that feeds you with such contempt is quite off putting to say the least! i started uploading there about 3 years ago, the only way i could keep up was to upgrade eqpt, i did it all for the love of taking photos and submitting them to A.net, how quickly things change, it's now A.net and the crew that have put me off submitting anything at all...they should feel privledged to recieve my photos because it's no longer a priority to upload to them!

i read this from Tamsin. ' Your images bring rich variety to the site and are valued highly.' of course they are highly valued, especially when those names are uploading to other sites, i'd say they are even more highly valued than ever before!

2005-07-31, 09:02 PM
I think one has to remember that both A.net and Jp.net are privately owned companies that can run their sites how they see fit and include or not include material as they like. I'm sure A.Net and JP.net are very happy to have our pictures on their sites, but we have to remember we don't pay any membership fees to upload our photos; its their capital that allows us to spotlight our pictures.

If you feel A.net does an unfair job at screening then you have the right to leave, take your photos off their site, not upload anymore, use another site, or start your own website to spotlight your pictures. Lets not use this site as a sounding board for our complaints when our pictures get rejected. We are much better then that and NYCA and its intended purpose was not created for that reason.

Let me be frank, its a hobby for most of us, and nothing more. When you start letting your hobby stress you out or you start chasing your hobby around like its your entire life then you need to take a step back and reevaluate if you need to find a new hobby. You know what your picture got rejected, who gives a crap move on. If you can fix the rejection then fix it but if you can't then oh well such is life. I don't take pictures so I can put them up on some web site for all to see. Its a privilege to have sites like A.net and JP.net that do all the leg work for you by advertising what they're about, why you should visit their sites, give you the web space, and allow people from around the world to view your work all for no-charge. So lets all take a step back and remind ourselves why we enjoy the beauty of aviation as much as we do.

2005-08-01, 04:42 AM
[quote="Mr Smith"]it's not a priveledge for our photos to be shown on A.net, it's our photos that keep that site alive...

Actually, its everyones photos that keep that site alive. If you pulled your photos believe me the site would not go down. They are not biting anyone's hand and this fantasy everyone has that the screening process is a conspiracy to reject pics first and accept second is sad. If this is how you feel then I suggest you leave the site. At this point the more you call the screeners out the worse your situation will get. I advise eveyone to accept your rejections and celebrate your photos that make it into the DB. I think you would see your treatment improve.

2005-08-01, 12:03 PM
If we are going to use photo statistics as a measuring tool for ones opinion I thought I would register to this fine website and chime in.

My first thought would be for you to change your name to Mr So What.

My second thought is to remind you that you don't have to upload to Airliners.net. I am quite sure if you were to stop you would A) Find something else to be miserable about, and B) Not be missed.

Who cares if people are "seeking alternatives." What they should be seeking is a good therapist. Taking airplane pictures and uploading them on the Internet is a hobby. For people to get so angry over such a benign matter is something that should be studied by psychologists.

NIKV69 has provided his point of view. Who cares if you agree with it or not. Calling him an A.net *****? Come on.


2005-08-01, 12:31 PM
Hey Royal....glad to see you here. I encourage you to participate in some of the other forums/threads, where you'll find much more productive and enjoyable discussions. Take care.


2005-08-01, 12:33 PM
The fact I only have 11 photos in the DB has nothing to do with my ability to pass judgment. I have been on anet for enough time to get sick to my stomach from all this talk of a flawed screening process. I can go out and shoot a picture of an aircraft and get it accepted on anet. If it gets rejected I take it in stride and move on. Just bacause I don't agree with you and Futterman's crusade to overhaul anet I am an anet *****? Does that make everyone on anet that behaves the same way I do is the same? You guys are sad. In fact this will be my second to last post here. I have grown tired of the constant anet conspiracy crap which has become prevelant. I chose to patronize anet because of the simple fact it's tops in it's field and it has helped me improve as a photog rather quickly over the last year not to mention I find my photos a little more than "miserable" I have plenty of anet friends around this country and overseas I can spot with here or at IFP, LAS, LAX and IGM, or wherever else I travel. Good luck with your plan to overhaul anet, you will most definately need it.

2005-08-01, 01:45 PM

I've deleted one post from this thread because it was blatantly abusive and took an uncalled-for swing at another member. I have no tolerance for that.

Like I said earlier, I want this place to be where you can discuss all kinds of things. While I refuse to censor any of you, I also can't allow name-calling or insults to be tossed around, especially when all the other person offered was a varying opinion.

People disagree, that's life. But to shut someone out just because they disagree with you is shockingly rude to me. I'd cite examples from world history, but you know where I''m going there.

One of the goals of this site is to promote aviation enthusiasm. When a person has 11 photos on Airliners.net, it's probably because they are new to the scene. That means we should make that person feel welcome, even if their feelings about something as petty as a website differs from yours to where you feel the need to send blows to that person.

You're all my good friends and I don't like making posts as an "administrator".

Let's be more friendly, diplomatic and welcoming in the future.