Airliners.net

Hello. I've uploaded a picture for which my pictures were deleted two weeks ago, and I was unjustly banned. I propose to the boss, as in the case of such suspicions, especially when there is a banning case, to bring together the boss, together to analyze, after which to make a final decision, not to delete images and ban the screenwriter who is he seemed to his suspect. This is no longer a problem of this kind, and users suffer and lose badly and incorrectly pending pictures. It seems to me fair that such major decisions need to be properly analyzed before a decision is made. Thank you !!!

Sorry fella but from what I've seen, you are usually not meeting the criteria or using techniques airliners.net doesn't allow into it's database.
Getting stroppy, throwing counter accusations, trawling up "but this made it ins" and being generally being obnoxious: as a rule, in life as well as here, won't get you very far.

My advice would to quieten down, take on the advice given with good grace and work on making the changes needed to get photos accepted.

Now, I've been well out of this plane spotting/photography thing for many, many years.

But I can't remember many times when I got editing rejections, if I did, maybe it was early on. But not many, surely. It's not tremendously hard to do edit images that would be acceptable for this site. They aren't out to get you, just edit things the right way and be genuine with your editing.

And certainly, never ever go sifting through the site to see "that photo made it, so why didn't". That's not going to go down well. It's not just the people running the site don't like it, but other photographers don't like it either.

Unlike one other individual (I imagine he will turn sooner than later), I won't tell you to "learn how to take better pictures" or "learn how to use a camera", because that's just totally unhelpful and uncalled for. All you need to do is just try out a few different editing workflows from some of the aviation websites around the place (I started off with the one that used to be hosted on this site) and work from there. You'll get images accepted.

I'm not taking sides, I'm neither saying airliners.net is right or wrong, nor if you are right or wrong, just offering some direction.

Maybe we are not talking about normal editing mistakes, but intentional manipulations...

seahawk wrote:

Maybe we are not talking about normal editing mistakes, but intentional manipulations...

Is that an elephant in the room...

It does not matter, normal, abnormal edits, or how you want to tell them. I have only said the opinion of a major decision, namely, banning the account, and not to be taken immediately by a screener, who can make a simple picture, and to gather all the stables, and after a good Analysis, make a decision, not to hurry banning for example (my case) where it was concluded that it was an error, and I suffered, plus I lost all the pictures that were loaded to be Verified, and after the verdict, I had to take it from the beginning. I do not think you would agree to such a situation. I would hardly want a scribbler to see something dubious at your picture, and to put your waiting pictures and be banished to see what it is like. I'm not talking about the fact that one of the screeners is bad, I reject pictures that seem to them soft or bluray, when it is not, and I appeal to the appeal. We are people, we all are wrong, just for this reason to be more careful and to advise, not to take quickly some decisions that can be wrong. I think we have to ask everyone else to make a major decision.

I agree with the principle of the idea, but this is actually what we already do. When someone suspects cloning, he usually leaves it for atleast one other screener (unless it's very obvious cloning). Precisely for the reason you mention, to make sure his eyes aren't playing tricks and the user isn't an innocent victim. If several screeners agree on suspected cloning, then there will be some merit to the judgement. Either it's actual cloning or incorrect editing that fooled the screeners into thinking that cloning has taken place (and you've done both, see below). We don't take bans lightly and don't dish them out whenever we see the slightest thing wrong.

So far during my time on the screening team, I've seen very little wrongful bans. So currently I don't feel the need to change a lot, as your case seems to have been a one-off. First you got caught pants down for actual cloning. And after that, you received a wrongful ban (which I overturned. And while investigating that one, I found out you used a HDR-like technique for editing that photo (so I don't blame my colleagues for misjudging that). Hence my suggestion to improve your editing for A.net submissions.

I rarely upload here now but have been victim myself to heavy-handedness following the screeners' 'suspicions' about me cloning. I wasn't banned but was immediately threatened with it, which I felt was uncalled for since there was no evidence I had done anything wrong. I forwarded the RAW file, after which all was well and I received an apology; but I felt the apology mightn't have been necessary had the situation been handled correctly in the first place.

I have no idea whether you're guilty or not, however if you aren't I can empathise with your frustration. Screeners can be fooled far more easily than most would like to think, and I can't help but feel a number of them harbour some sort of elitist mentality (judging by comments I've seen in these forums), which actually doesn't help.

From what I've understood from this thread, however, there does appear to be some inconsistency in your editing, so might be wise to address that before kicking up too much of a fuss?

Cloning is far more prevalent than you think and I know that some Screeners do it to tidy up their photos!

Both as an up-loader and well as now a screener, I have (and continue) to use cloning ONLY to remove dust spots and other unidentifiable specks in the sky. Honestly, I do not have the patience nor the time to carry out extensive cloning

Jehan

Catalin,
I rarely post here due to my position on the other site but... I just have read your posts about cloning, your attacks on other members and countless accusations against Anet crew.
Do you actually realize that you're doing again exactly what caused you the life ban on JP ?
It almost looks like you're calling for a ban on Anet too. Why can't you just realize how much your attitude is inacceptable ?
Crew members, I sincerely admire your patience, congrats on that.

Regards
Alex

G-CIVP wrote:

Cloning is far more prevalent than you think and I know that some Screeners do it to tidy up their photos!

It is true, many more complement the corners after alignment and centering. And I said if it were to look for pictures of this kind, it would surely delete half of the pictures on the site.

jelpee wrote:

Both as an up-loader and well as now a screener, I have (and continue) to use cloning ONLY to remove dust spots and other unidentifiable specks in the sky. Honestly, I do not have the patience nor the time to carry out extensive cloning

Jehan

Do you think someone exaggerates? That's what happened to me with a corner where after centering it outstripped the frame. That is, and I forgot about this. However, it is not intentionally, it just happened to be too tight and limited space for a larger frame.

Alex22 wrote:

Do you actually realize that you're doing again exactly what caused you the life ban on JP ?

I do not know who you are, nor do I care. There are no attacks. I gave examples of pictures that had to be rejected for various reasons, nothing else. You are in a total error related to Jp. There we stood for years without problems, until the problems of rejection occurred. Well, how do you explain that the people there did not like that I was appealing to the pictures that they did not think they deserved to be rejected? And I gave examples with other pictures in the same situation, what was I doing so serious there? Not to mention that we did not violate any regulation, and we were entitled to appeal through their rules, but those there felt disturbed by it, although we did not violate any rule, it was my right to do so. Well, if they felt disturbed that I was doing these things, it was normal that there would be conflicts after all, and reached where they were. Do you have the feeling that I can not live without Jp? you are very wrong
And there's something else here, no one complained about appealing to the pictures, because it's normal, and the site gives me this opportunity to take two pictures at a time, but I never complained that I was doing this. They were checked again, and some of them were accepted or rejected with the necessary explanations. Instead of Jp. I was eyed to appeal to pictures, although they offered me the opportunity to do this at 5 pictures simultaneously. Well how do you explain these things? Well, after playing your rules, you're still gonna reproach me why do you play like that? It was a mess they were doing.

Catalin81 wrote:

G-CIVP wrote:

Cloning is far more prevalent than you think and I know that some Screeners do it to tidy up their photos!

It is true, many more complement the corners after alignment and centering. And I said if it were to look for pictures of this kind, it would surely delete half of the pictures on the site.

That is an insulting lie towards many honest photographers.

seahawk wrote:

That is an insulting lie towards many honest photographers.

Wrong !!! There is no attack or insult to anyone. It is my personal opinion, correct or wrong, to be respected. I have the courage to bet that there are enough people who use these methods.

As you say that 50% of the pics at a.net are affected by this kind of manipulation, you are insulting the majority of all photographers using this site.

Catalin81 wrote:

It is my personal opinion, correct or wrong, to be respected.

Incorrect. You're entitled to your opinion but no...
Respect is earned.

You have a long way to go before that happens. Bitching, whining and talking nonsense isn't the way to go about it. As you've repeatedly been told (on more than one forum).

ChrisKen wrote:

. Bitching, whining and talking nonsense isn't the way to go about it. As you've repeatedly been told (on more than one forum).

Which Multiple Forums? I do not use aviation forums. Just here I posted about various pictures, and some reasons. What other forums are you talking about?

seahawk wrote:

As you say that 50% of the pics at a.net are affected by this kind of manipulation, you are insulting the majority of all photographers using this site.

Indeed, I may have exaggerated when I said 50%, even though I was disturbed by some stuff, and it is normal to have such a reaction, so there are other cases you are still.

Catalin81 wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

. Bitching, whining and talking nonsense isn't the way to go about it. As you've repeatedly been told (on more than one forum).

Which Multiple Forums? I do not use aviation forums. Just here I posted about various pictures, and some reasons. What other forums are you talking about?

You say that you do not use aviation forums, this is a forum for aviation photography. So in other words you do use an aviation forum one for photography.

Catalin81 wrote:

G-CIVP wrote:

Cloning is far more prevalent than you think and I know that some Screeners do it to tidy up their photos!

It is true, many more complement the corners after alignment and centering. And I said if it were to look for pictures of this kind, it would surely delete half of the pictures on the site.

If I understand what you are saying is correct, then that's a complete insult to those of us who did do the right thing. Accusing half of the photographers on this site of improprer editing of their images is not acceptable.


I've been pretty measured in my comments toward you thus far. You have been told by heaps of people here to calm down and take on board the advice given to you, yet you insist on prevarications, excuses and throwing insults at others. To achieve what? This is madness.


A starting point for you might be to follow Jid Webb's workflow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACOFhCfeCZI

Catalin81 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

As you say that 50% of the pics at a.net are affected by this kind of manipulation, you are insulting the majority of all photographers using this site.

Indeed, I may have exaggerated when I said 50%, even though I was disturbed by some stuff, and it is normal to have such a reaction, so there are other cases you are still.

No it is not. When I have my pics rejected, I do not attack other photographers, I do not even use the appeal function or bother the screeners. I accept it and move on

bombayduck wrote:

You say that you do not use aviation forums, this is a forum for aviation photography. So in other words you do use an aviation forum one for photography.

Well, just here, but you say I'm using others, which are the ones that I do not know.

cpd wrote:

I've been pretty measured in my comments toward you thus far. You have been told by heaps of people here to calm down and take on board the advice given to you, yet you insist on prevarications, excuses and throwing insults at others. To achieve what? This is madness.

Dude, I do nothing but to answer those who write to me on the topic.

seahawk wrote:

No it is not. When I have my pics rejected, I do not attack other photographers, I do not even use the appeal function or bother the screeners. I accept it and move on

Why not use this feature if the site offers it? It is my right to use it, and in some cases it has been right to me that some images have been unfairly rejected. The fact that I have given examples of other images, that does not mean that I attack the person, and I just gave an example that I assimilate to my case, nothing else, and I had no intention, just asking for explanations. I do not think we were doing anything illegal doing the specimens.

So you think that cloning in the missing part was perfectly ok?

seahawk wrote:

So you think that cloning in the missing part was perfectly ok?

It was not. I have contradicted because I know they do not do that, but there is a lack of space left out of space and I did not keep the perfect level device, straightening the image and focusing correctly, which I filled with content aware. But my unfair bet for 3-4 days and the deletion of 15 pictures that had already been waiting for 13-15 days in which you seemed ok?

Catalin81 wrote:

[...]which I filled with content aware. But my unfair bet for 3-4 days and the deletion of 15 pictures that had already been waiting for 13-15 days in which you seemed ok?

Seems fair and OK to me, as that is the standard 'punishment' for such practices. You can complain all you want about the fact that the above happened, but it's in the past and nothing is going to change it. Nor will we change the procedure. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Everyone has had a chance to have their say now and I think I made the situation quite clear with this reply. Thread locked.