Psych wrote:

P.S. Maybe I am having a bad day, but the more I think about what Gavin has said the more upset I feel. I care about A.net and want to shout loudly from some rooftop that A.net must address the issues raised by his post. As a fan of aviation photography, do I really care about perfection in sharpening (or whatever it is) when I can see such fantastic images that he produces? The short answer is a definite 'no'. I just don't believe that Gavin's 'standards will have slipped'. I fear a slavish demand for near perfection is going to deprive the site of some really good contributors (who will doubtless pop up elsewhere in the internet - which cannot be in A.net's interests).

It's already happened and will continue to happen as the ratchet goes forward.

A.net is like Skype. It's the standard everyone uses, up until they don't (and they migrate to Discord or Telegram). Don't be like Skype.

First of all, I consider Gavin's collection of photos as one of the best that we have to offer. Hands down, Air-2-Air master. And I do have an opinion on this, but I'm quite hesitant to write it as it would involve giving an example by using a user's photos. I'm not sure if that will be appreciated.

Psych wrote:

A.net really needs to closely look at itself if it allows the loss of photographers of Gavin's calibre.

I am willing to help (which he knows), but it was kinda clear to me that the decision has already been made. Nevertheless my offer will always stand.

Hi all
A really nice and important discussion.
The identity crisis has never been more apparent than now. So many are up for 'more creative' photos to be accepted. Sort of changing the balance of this site towards the creative. I consider myself to be at least moderately active in 'the scene' of sharing photos over a different channels, and firmly believe that making A.net 'more creative' is just something that is not going to be succesful, because:
-there are sites that are waaaay ahead in this and were created from the beginning with creativeness in mind
-changing the 'culture' here will take waaaaay too long, and losses will during that time overcome gains, to make it an effective suicide
-there is a need for this site and what it stands for still, although it may well turn out to be economically unviable..

At the same time I think that standards need to be relaxed here in many areas, as they are just plain killing enthusiasm. Screening times, although much improved lately (thanks screeners), need to be cut dramatically still. I just don't have it in me to wait and hope for a photo to be accepted for multiple weeks amidst the normal grind of family and worklife. The positive side is, it makes me realize why I do my hobby every once in a while; for the love of the hobby, not the exposure on a site...

Reflecting on this thread I think I agree with much of what's been said; certainly in that the less important rejection reasons tend to be the most tenaciously enforced. If a photo is slightly soft, or slightly over-sharp, so what? Who's really looking? Now level and colour are much less subjective, and almost instantly detract from a photo (often being noticeable just by the thumbnail).

A lot of images seem to be getting rejected for truly trivial reasons, and a lot accepted that suffer serious (and obvious flaws). I gave up uploading here frequently because it was like playing a lottery - how many of you (please be honest) reuploaded a rejected photo unchanged and had it fly through when it previously got done for umpteen reasons? I've done it countless times!

I know screening is subjective, blah, blah, blah, but there does have to be some kind of consistency, otherwise photographers will go elsewhere. Paul and I predicted this mass departure 5/6 years ago but A.net seemed so sure of its place at the top back then. Complacency. Now it seems whatever can be (and is being) done will simply be too little, too late.

Not so much now, but not so long ago, the site considered itself bigger than those who make/made it what it is. It thought photographers needed A.net whereas, in truth, A.net needed photographers.

Finally, to address Barbro's point about creativity, part of the problem is just how much of aviation photography is considered creative these days. Taking a photo of an aircraft accelerating down a wet runway, kicking up spray, is not creative. Nice effect maybe, but not creative. It's quite irrelevant anyway, since he's right in suggesting that this site has fallen too far behind in that department. What could have been discussed and decided upon in hours as usual had to go all round the houses, from pillar to post, before finally being approved. Spontaneity has unfortunately never been this site's strong point.

I won't be uploading images to any other site its just not what I want to do.
Pulling out now means I know I an up to date as of the end of 2017 so if I end up back in a couple of years or longer I will know where I am at.

I think it is important for the site to have standards like it does, I have been offered some help but after 700+ photos in the database I should have it figured out but something is not right.
Sometimes I am so short of time and are pushing to get photos uploaded while I have a moment so that will not be helping, my computer is getting old and maybe the screen is not what it once was, and we all make mistakes so it is a combination of things.
Rejections just mean we sit back and take stock as to where things are at, I am not where I need to be so have to walk away from it.
In a few years when I have slowed down (if that ever happens) I may have the time to take more time but for a while now I just haven't.
The site has helped me realize that and to me it is a good thing, I need to get back to where I was a couple of years back and rather than waste my time and the screeners time I need to step back.

JakTrax wrote:

If a photo is slightly soft, or slightly over-sharp, so what? Who's really looking?

I think you've nailed it, as Pysch did before too. Just a shame. I looked at a heap of Gavin Conroy's images and clearly if he can take that standard of images, then I can't believe the rejected ones would be so much different. I don't think his standards have slipped (as per his reflection), it seems more like he has just been beaten down and has just had enough of it. When you can take those kinds of photos, you don't just forget overnight how to do that. It seems clear that it's more than that and he just wants to move on and do other things. That's understandable too.

JakTrax wrote:

how many of you (please be honest) reuploaded a rejected photo unchanged and had it fly through when it previously got done for umpteen reasons? I've done it countless times!

Not "countless" times; but about four of my 80 odd photos on the database were accepted in this way. Didn't bother appealing; simply resubmitted unchanged and they were accepted. It makes something of a mockery of the screening process.

I did appeal this one today, which was initially rejected for "low contrast" and was accepted on appeal. Be interested to hear what you think. I personally feel the low contrast rejection was ludicrous.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/American ... O2bQeXxCt1

Gasman wrote:

Be interested to hear what you think.

Looks fine to me.

I think there has to be more of a buffer zone for what is acceptable and what is not - mostly to account for differences in screener monitors, which is a factor currently not taken into consideration. Gasman's photo is a good example - is the contrast acceptable? I certainly think so. Would it still be acceptable with a touch more contrast, and even a touch less? Again, I think so.

Since screening is a human process, I think it's fair to say that some screeners' motivations for doing the task are different to those of others. In the past we were often told that there were no 'rogue screeners' - none that wanted the power trip associated with judging the images of others - however I always asked how the team could be so sure of itself when it is comprised of individuals living thousands of miles apart? Communication is, in reality, at a bare minimum - I can't vouch for someone I hardly know who lives on the other side of the Atlantic!

Now I'm not of course saying that every screener is in this for the wrong reasons, but I think we can be fairly sure a small minority are. It was rejections like Gasman's that lead to me giving up here, coupled with the frequency with which I saw images suffering the same flaws as my rejected examples sailing through.

I've said it a thousand times before: just because one does something for free, doesn't mean that's an excuse to do it sloppily (and again, I'm referring to what is likely a small minority). We all know you devote free time to this, but you presumably do it as part of a hobby you thoroughly enjoy?

Karl

Communication is, in reality, at a bare minimum - I can't vouch for someone I hardly know who lives on the other side of the Atlantic!

When I was on the team, we had a mailing list that had frequent communications. I still have an archive of all those years. Nowadays, I presume they would use something like Slack or Discord for more instant communication, but I don't know what the team uses.

Within the screening team we only use E-mail. I have some guys on Facebook if I need them more urgently (which I assume goes for others as well).

So who makes decisions here about the screening process?? I think there is a critical mass of people who think it's broke. How do we move this forward?

Gasman, the thing is that those of us who think it's broken have already left the site in protest, so moving things forward is probably irrelevant to A.net. If things got fixed I'm not sure I would return as I'm happy having my photos hosted elsewhere now.

Having uploaded very little lately I can't really comment about current screening, but from this thread I understand that some of the rules are still being tenaciously and, perhaps, trivially enforced. From an outsider's point-of-view, I can only go by what I see on the first few pages each time I come here.... and over the past few months that amounts to quite a few images that should have been rejected by even amateur eyes!

Regarding the point Dan made, the sending/receiving of regular emails between people living thousands of miles apart doesn't equate to them being best buddies and knowing each other's motives. My point is that, with perhaps one or two exceptions, the screeners can never be sure that their peers are in this for the right reasons.

Karl

Speaking of image standards, is there a reason why photos with clear heathaze distortion are now being accepted?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... R9PwDSfC9P

No reason whatsoever. One occurence can be human error. Any other examples? Your wording seems to imply that heat hazed shots are accepted on a regular basis.

I will let you know if I come across other heat hazed photos. Until then we can regard this example as human error .

Heat-hazed shots are accepted on a regular basis.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Speaking of image standards, is there a reason why photos with clear heathaze distortion are now being accepted?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... R9PwDSfC9P

There is some heat haze shadowing (not distortion) around the lower half of the engine cowling; and some pretty trivial heat haze distortion on the outer third of the wing. Neither, in my view detract from the visual impact of the photo itself in a negative way and as such I believe the photo was appropriately accepted.

Notwithstanding the fact we are not supposed to post comment in threads about photos which are not our own.....

sausten wrote:

What an interesting read. Always nice to be reminded the screeners aren’t just picking on me!

Really old thread, I guess, but since I'm also late to the spottting party anyhow... Yes, good to realize it's not just my pictures....

Are image standards slipping? Well for me, it’s never been harder to get shots accepted here. Despite experience and increasingly optimized settings for my camera, scanner and photo editor, my acceptance ratio has been a the decline and stayed low for the past couple of years.

Still at the beginning, but the acceptance is abysmal - to the point where I doubt whether a Lumix GH5 is even a good-enough camera, which is absurd.... Should I invest in something "better"? Would that even help?

Without seeing some examples it is not possible to comment on your reported low acceptance rate. It would help if you would share some examples of your rejected images along with the reasons. I try to be fair in screening to meet the Acceptance Guidelines for a.net. However, there are many excellent images that get rejected since they do not meet the site's acceptance criteria. Some of it is subjective and errors occur on both sides. The Appeal process also helps photographers get another chance to have their images reviewed..

Feel free to use the Photography Feedback forum to have your images pre-screened or to get feedback on rejected images. Several other photographers as well as some of us screeners are active participants.

Jehan

Not sure if this link works. This last rejection (after more than two weeks), for both "blurry" and "oversharpened" leaves me a bit baffled. To the point where I ask myself why even bother, if I can in fact get instant gratification for my rejects on IG.... And yes, there are some terribly bad pictures on that site. But also some good ones.
https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-co ... to/5560519

That link does not work for me. It takes me to my list of images awaiting screening.

Typically blurry/over-sharpened means that there is evidence that sharpening has been applied to compensate for blurriness. Alternatively, there could be a section of the aircraft that is blurry (perhaps out of focus due to depth of field) while another section of the aircraft is showing jaggies. And I can't disagree with your comment about getting instant gratification on other sites such as IG, FB, etc...it's a challenge trying to keep sites like A.net relevant and popular in the current environment. It is definitely an appropriate issue for the title of this thread .

Jehan

Photo in question: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 4e4b579750
I screened that and still stand by it, sorry. It's just not enough quality for 1920px. And as Jehan mentioned, oversharpened to compensate the lack of quality/blurryness.

No reason for that photo to be uploaded at such a large size, and the quality is lacking everywhere

jelpee wrote:

That link does not work for me. It takes me to my list of images awaiting screening.

Typically blurry/over-sharpened means that there is evidence that sharpening has been applied to compensate for blurriness. Alternatively, there could be a section of the aircraft that is blurry (perhaps out of focus due to depth of field) while another section of the aircraft is showing jaggies. And I can't disagree with your comment about getting instant gratification on other sites such as IG, FB, etc...it's a challenge trying to keep sites like A.net relevant and popular in the current environment. It is definitely an appropriate issue for the title of this thread .

Jehan

Could the A.net DB perhaps be linked to another platform, such as a flight logging website or even Flightaware? It seems to me that type of co-operation has worked well for JetPhotos/FR24 as it increases quality and relevancy for both sites.

I'm not sure JP's link-up with FR24 has improved quality. In A.net's defence it has, in my opinion, always been a class above JP. At this time of year, if you look on JP, you'll see page after page of harshly-lit summer shots; and while you will no doubt see similar here they are much smaller in number. To me this indicates that photographers here are probably more selective about what they upload (either that or the screening process is weeding out those hundreds of poorly-lit shots), and in turn perhaps slightly less bothered about views. JP's link with FR24 is a chance for hit-seekers to get those extra views and it stands to reason that there will be a greater push to upload anything that could possibly stand a chance.

The fact is, aviation photography online in general has taken a hit quality-wise. There's a climate now in which people don't take too kindly to criticism — they post (often awful) images and only want praise; the moment someone politely attempts to give them some advice is the moment you'll be lynched by an angry mob accusing you of being nothing more than jealous. What doesn't help is that there are plenty of like-minded individuals who are more than happy to heap praise on, at best, mediocre images. If someone is lead to believe that their images are already the best they can be, there's little incentive to better one's skills.

I think the only flight tracking website with a large enough audience (comparable to FR24) is FlightAware, but they already have their own photo database. So I doubt they will be interested in a co-operation (would be pretty sweet though).

JakTrax wrote:

I'm not sure JP's link-up with FR24 has improved quality. In A.net's defence it has, in my opinion, always been a class above JP. At this time of year, if you look on JP, you'll see page after page of harshly-lit summer shots; and while you will no doubt see similar here they are much smaller in number. To me this indicates that photographers here are probably more selective about what they upload (either that or the screening process is weeding out those hundreds of poorly-lit shots), and in turn perhaps slightly less bothered about views. JP's link with FR24 is a chance for hit-seekers to get those extra views and it stands to reason that there will be a greater push to upload anything that could possibly stand a chance.

The fact is, aviation photography online in general has taken a hit quality-wise. There's a climate now in which people don't take too kindly to criticism — they post (often awful) images and only want praise; the moment someone politely attempts to give them some advice is the moment you'll be lynched by an angry mob accusing you of being nothing more than jealous. What doesn't help is that there are plenty of like-minded individuals who are more than happy to heap praise on, at best, mediocre images. If someone is lead to believe that their images are already the best they can be, there's little incentive to better one's skills.

Completely agree on the quality, A.net is always a step or three above JP in my view. In fact, the only reason I sometimes upload to both is the FR24 link up. And what you say about the current climate is unfortunately true.

... and if I try to reupload a picture that is far, far worse than most of my rejected pictures here, and should probably never have been accepted, screeners will claim there's no improvement, even though there clearly is (sharpness around the fuselage). This is really weird.