Why this guy no recive reject for bad info ? Hre is not BBU/LRBS Bucharest Baneasa. Im recive reject for bad info, but other peaple no. I do not say he has accepted pictures that are underxposed. If I comment again, I'm jumping on other people in my head that I'm going over the pictures of others, but rightfully the screening criteria are not the same for everyone. If you want to give you examples, I'll give you underxposed pictures of this guy.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Slovakia ... /4592369/L

Hi,
i don't know if this place is BBU/LRBS or not but these things always happen i think and i think is reasonable. Not everyone know every airports so they don't know what it looks like and maybe the screener(s) who screened your photos know that airport and he recognized it is not the airport that you filled so he rejected for Bad Info. But maybe this screener didn't know about it so he accepts it. Besides, it would be also reasonable to the photographer(s) too. I made this kind of mistakes sometime when i upload lots of photos that took in one place and then upload one which is not take there and gave the wrong info and then it was accepted. I found this mistake after accepting. What we can do is to correct it although it is not your photos but you know that is wrong you can correct it. I always help some photographers correct the airport information that i know is wrong.

screening criteria are not the same for everyone.

Well, for this problem. I have to say that different people have their different standard or criteria but every screeners are trying their best to make them as same, and they it can't be 100% i think.

Cheers,
Harry

Catalin81 wrote:

Why this guy no recive reject for bad info ? Hre is not BBU/LRBS Bucharest Baneasa. Im recive reject for bad info, but other peaple no.

We all get rejections for 'bad info' and often it's because of a simple mistake made when uploading. If this isn't BBU, then most likely the photographer made an honest mistake (he does have a lot of photos from BBU). Unless the screener knows the airport, they'll most likely accept the photographer's word (which is perfectly reasonable).

Out of interest, how do you know it isn't BBU?

To be honest, I can't help feeling the better way to handle this would have been to use the "Correction" button for the image or to email the screeners.

So you honestly expect each and every screener to be able to identify every airport in the world, and from every angle? Well, I am very sorry, but that's just unrealistic.

If you know which place that is, please feel free to use the correction function on the photo. Or if you don't know, but know for sure that it is not Bucharest, then you can always get in touch with the photographer and ask him to double check.

scbriml wrote:

Out of interest, how do you know it isn't BBU?

Of course I know he's not in Bucharest, it's my country and I know the locations. There are no mountains in Bucharest. Here is not in Romania. Contact the guy and ask where is take a picture with Mig-29 Slovakia Air Force.

Miguel1982 wrote:

So you honestly expect each and every screener to be able to identify every airport in the world, and from every angle? Well, I am very sorry, but that's just unrealistic.

If you know which place that is, please feel free to use the correction function on the photo. Or if you don't know, but know for sure that it is not Bucharest, then you can always get in touch with the photographer and ask him to double check.

Okay. let's say we do not know all airports, but this boy has accepted pictures that are underxposed. Want to show you examples?

Sliac, in Slovakia, at the SIAF Air Show.

Same plane last year.

Catalin81 wrote:

Of course I know he's not in Bucharest, it's my country and I know the locations. There are no mountains in Bucharest. Here is not in Romania. Contact the guy and ask where is take a picture with Mig-29 Slovakia Air Force.

I'm afraid that's not obvious to many outside Romania. Fine, you believe it's not Bucharest. If it's not BBU, then the photographer made an error when he uploaded the image. You seem to have mistaken me for someone who cares.

Catalin81 wrote:

Okay. let's say we do not know all airports, but this boy has accepted pictures that are underxposed. Want to show you examples?

Why do you care? You raised the issue of this image not being identified as the correct location, what have any other images got to do with this? This is your standard MO, isn't it? Complain about other photographers and how unfairly you're treated compared to them.

If you knew the location was wrong you should have used the "Correction" button or emailed the screeners, not tried to publicly shame the photographer and complain about other images of his. You really don't do yourself any favours.

, but this boy has accepted pictures that are underxposed.

Well, that's your personal perspective right ? As i said before , everyone has different standard to each photo or situation. So maybe this sceener thinks it could be acceptable and maybe another one don't think so. This kind of case always happen it could be reasonable. All of screeners' opinions can't be 100% the same. And that's just your own opinion.

Cheers,
Harry

How is this ? Reject for blury. At that distance do you want to read the perfect little writing as if you were near the plane? I find it unreal, it's 300 mm.


And zoom 100%

Well, since you seem to enjoy romping through the database, picking out every and everything you deem a 'fault' and demanding it's removal..........

the tail on your piper is blurry, even I can see that (and usually I can't see the faults picked up by the screener).

Why this picture no recive reject for dark ? because is screener and have lot picture on the website ? Im upload similar picture but screener send me reject for dark but picture was taken at sunset limit of the dark.

This is taken in a middle day, but is verry dark

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Saudia-S ... /4633555/L

And this is at sunset or sunrise, but is dark.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Star-All ... /4628117/L

Instead of complaining all the time about other pictures on the website, which you deem to be dark why don`t you put your rejected pictures here so others can see them. With all the complaining you do maybe you should get your own pictures sorted out, before moaning about other peoples photos. As for the two images you are moaning about they are not dark.

bombayduck wrote:

Instead of complaining all the time about other pictures on the website, which you deem to be dark why don`t you put your rejected pictures here so others can see them. As for the two images you are moaning about they are not dark.

HA,HA,HA ... I also put my pictures on other topics. If these are not dark pictures you have super-bright eyes.

Catalin81 wrote:

because is screener and have lot picture on the website ?

Screeners are held to the same standards as everyone else.

I agree that the photos you linked are underexposed and I've asked ask the photographer to reupload. That said, I have also told you before that you should E-mail us if you have a problem with photos in the database. So be sure to keep that in mind, as I've had enough of this public questioning from you.

airkas1 wrote:

Screeners are held to the same standards as everyone else..

I know they are the same rules everywhere and for everyone, but unfortunately sometimes people on the site who have thousands of accepted pictures, screening is not done properly, and I easily accept seeing who is the uploaded picture. As far as I know if I do not mislead T Laurent is even a screener

I see photos every day that I think should have probably been rejected.

99% of the time, I go on with my day, quite happily.
The other 1%, I'll shoot an email to, say, Kas, or to a DB editor, depending on what the issue is. I don't ask for the photos to be rejected; I just say, "hey, you might want to ask for a re-upload" or "hey, this photo is in the wrong category". And then I go on with my day, quite happily.

What I don't do is start thread after thread, whining about acceptances.

bombayduck wrote:

Instead of complaining all the time about other pictures on the website, which you deem to be dark why don`t you put your rejected pictures here so others can see them. With all the complaining you do maybe you should get your own pictures sorted out, before moaning about other peoples photos.

I agree with your sentiment.

bombayduck wrote:

As for the two images you are moaning about they are not dark.

I have to disagree, they are both dark IMHO. Quick correction in left half...

vikkyvik wrote:

I don't ask for the photos to be rejected; I just say, "hey, you might want to ask for a re-upload" or "hey, this photo is in the wrong category". And then I go on with my day, quite happily.

What I don't do is start thread after thread, whining about acceptances.

Life's too short.

vikkyvik wrote:

I see photos every day that I think should have probably been rejected.
I don't ask for the photos to be rejected; I just say, "hey, you might want to ask for a re-upload" or "hey, this photo is in the wrong category".

So why not put the issue of rejection when some of my pictures are rejected for this reason? I do nothing, just ask and give examples.

Catalin81 wrote:

So why not put the issue of rejection when some of my pictures are rejected for this reason? I do nothing, just ask and give examples.

Nobody should have an issue if you question your own rejections. What many people find unacceptable is your "public shaming" of other photographers pictures. If you have an issue with a photograph that isn't yours, email the screeners, don't start a thread about it.