Im recive this mail now for this picture.
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Wizz-Air ... /4872585/L

My sky is not modified, is only a bit dark. In this situation im report this abuse airlines manager. Have a incredibile screener. No proceded like other situation when im banned with no reason. Thanks.
lrcv,

Due to violations of our photo upload rules and guidelines, you have been
temporarily suspended from uploading photos to Airliners.net from now
through March 10, 2018, 11:59 PM (Pacific Time Zone).

You will be able to upload photos again on March 11, 2018, 12:00 AM (Pacific Time Zone).

Because of this temporary suspension, all photos you had in the upload queue
have been automatically removed.

Here follows a personal message from the Screeners regarding this suspension:

"Very poor editing of the sky in your photo of HA-LYB. It was mistakenly accepted and will be removed from the database. In addition, because you should know better by now, a 1 week upload ban will be given. Please be more thorough in your edits next time. Regards"

Sincerely,

The Airliners.net Crew
https://www.airliners.net

Yeah... I had a feeling you would post something, so I saved the image in question. Look at where the sky meets the ground.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/knfg9al3gnsjr ... 5.jpg?dl=0


I rest my case.

The link is not working because the photo is probably removed. Strange that it was first accepted and then removed and you were given the ban. Maybe you can post the photo some other way. But discussions about it on the forum wont`t really change this matter I am afraid. I might be better to email someone of the crew if you think you have been done injustice. Greets

Edit: I just saw a new link after posting this, sorry. It looks like you have selectively darkened the sky heavily (to me at least)

No real case here I'm afraid - you've clearly manipulated the sky in a manner which is unacceptable here - and you've done an awful job of it, if I'm honest.

That said, if it was originally accepted, the screener is as much to blame as you and should perhaps face action of some sort also? What's good for the goose 'n' all.......

I've said many times and will continue to say: the screening here is about as inconsistent as it's ever been, which is why I (and many others) don't bother uploading any more. The screeners are supposed to have trained hawk-eyes; in this case, a novice would surely have picked up on that sky? Again, it tells me that the screeners spend too much time looking for the nit-picky stuff while missing the real photo-killers.

Sorry, guys, I just have to say it like it is - the database is riddled with flawed images lately, and when you attempt to point them out, no-one really wants to know.

Karl

JakTrax wrote:

That said, if it was originally accepted, the screener is as much to blame as you and should perhaps face action of some sort also? What's good for the goose 'n' all.......

Yes, it was a dumb mistake, I overlooked it and another screener pointed it out pretty much straight away. It was corrected within an hour. Not much to about it anymore except feeling silly and keeping it in mind for the future.

JakTrax wrote:

I've said many times and will continue to say: the screening here is about as inconsistent as it's ever been, which is why I (and many others) don't bother uploading any more. The screeners are supposed to have trained hawk-eyes; in this case, a novice would surely have picked up on that sky? Again, it tells me that the screeners spend too much time looking for the nit-picky stuff while missing the real photo-killers.

While I agree that some screenings can be harsh, I don't agree that a simple one-off mistake indicates that we nit-pick too much.

JakTrax wrote:

Sorry, guys, I just have to say it like it is - the database is riddled with flawed images lately, and when you attempt to point them out, no-one really wants to know.

I check each and every photo that is pointed out to us. However, we might not always agree and sometimes deleting the image will be too harsh and we accept that we made a mistake. That's a matter of having a different opinion about a photo and how to deal with it, not about not wanting to know and sticking our heads in the sand as you put it.

/off-topic.

If we are talking about images being carefully screened before being added. Currently there is a photo of the first 787-10 that is the number 1 photo on the front page. There is a dust spot above the right wing. Why was this added ? It is pretty much plain as day.

It was an oversight as well and the photographer has been contacted to fix it.

Kas, fair enough; let me say that you are one of the most up-front members of the team and it's refreshing for a screener to concede having made a mistake. Perhaps in your case it was a one-off but in the grand scheme of things these 'one-offs' are happening way more than they used to, and there has to be a reason.

Since I no longer upload my opinion is perhaps as irrelevant to you as any real change would be to me; I'm just being frank in an effort to help the site find its feet again. A.net was once the pinnacle of aviation on the 'net and it's a shame to see a pioneer become a victim of its own success.

I assume the mistake, I did not notice after the editing, but it seems too much to ban a week. I have reported so many blurred, dark, miserable images that have been accepted, and I have been told that this is, if the scanned user is, accepts and ready, but does not delete it, or cases with double images, but I am banning my account sometimes and without reason, or an erroneous one, and no one pays, and I lose the pictures. I agree with a rejection on overe edited, but a banner seems to me exaggerated, it is an abuse in my opinion. I'll have a good idea if I'm going to get pictures here, and maybe ask me to delete all the images in my database. All the best !!

Catalin81 wrote:

I assume the mistake, I did not notice after the editing,

Mistake? Did not notice? This is clear photomanipulation and is not the first example of such doctoring from you.

Catalin81 wrote:

I have reported so many blurred, dark, miserable images that have been accepted,

And what you've done here is much worse than any slightly blurry or dark image.

Catalin81 wrote:

I'll have a good idea if I'm going to get pictures here, and maybe ask me to delete all the images in my database. All the best !!

If it means we don't have to deal with your antics anymore than please do. Please.

Because of my own mistake as well, I have given you the benefit of the doubt (not realizing) and lifted your ban. That said, be more thorough and don’t let it happen again, as you’ve built up quite a history of poor editing.

@Karl, understood your posts. All opinions are listened to and this includes former uploaders as well.

Kaphias wrote:

Catalin81 wrote:

I assume the mistake, I did not notice after the editing,

Mistake? Did not notice? This is clear photomanipulation and is not the first example of such doctoring from you.

Yes, it is a mistake because I did not notice that I was wrong with the edits, if I saw it we did not load the image, and we would edit it again. That's why I say it's my fault that I did not see what happened to the editing. I have another without those traces.

airkas1 wrote:

Because of my own mistake as well, I have given you the benefit of the doubt (not realizing) and lifted your ban. That said, be more thorough and don’t let it happen again, as you’ve built up quite a history of poor editing.

@Karl, understood your posts. All opinions are listened to and this includes former uploaders as well.

No like this. I want to see other picture reported delete on the website, no accepted, and you assume mistake and done but picture reported is on the website. you said some pictures were mistakenly accepted, and you take it as a mistake, and the image will not be deleted from the database, why is it mine if it was accepted by mistake not to remain? delete the other pictures with various problems and mistakenly accepted not just my picture. If you forgot when you said that, I would be looking for the post to remind you when you said that.

Because clearly poorly edited images (such as cloning and what your Wizzair image displayed) will always be removed.

Why are you criticizing him, the photo looks fine to me.

I've also uploaded a special photo which wasn't accepted.
>> https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.flyert ... c72c9.jpeg

Alphazone wrote:

Why are you criticizing him, the photo looks fine to me.

I've also uploaded a special photo which wasn't accepted.
>> https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.flyert ... c72c9.jpeg

Maybe I shouldn't be complaining about my inability to understand some of my rejections...

Alphazone, are you so surprised your photo wasn't accepted? Since you chimed in, I'll put it straight: your 747 image captures a nice moment but is nowhere near the quality required here - it's soft, blurry, noisy, badly lit and has a cyan cast. If you think that's acceptable, I can see why you also think Catalin81's image is fine......

Karl

Some screens are extraordinary. I reject good pictures where only they see some imaginary reasons. Boys, wake up..!!!
I uploaded a picture that was rejected for bruises, and I edited again. If this is also blurry, it means that this screener does not have anything to do with aviation pictures. Probably he wants to read from 200 m distance and writing on rubber in clear. That already outranked the measure. Please delete all my pictures from the database, this can not be, it's incredible !!!

I have said and I repeat, such major decisions can not be taken by a mere screener of his head, he can see double, erroneous, he is asleep, why suffer people who do not misuse because of these individuals. Your opinion is that these decisions are taken at the level of leadership, not by a simple screener, and that he should report above and make a good analysis before making such a decision.

https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4881717

lrcv,

Due to violations of our photo upload rules and guidelines, you have been
temporarily suspended from uploading photos to Airliners.net from now
through March 11, 2018, 11:59 PM (Pacific Time Zone).

You will be able to upload photos again on March 12, 2018, 12:00 AM (Pacific Time Zone).

Because of this temporary suspension, all photos you had in the upload queue
have been automatically removed.

Here follows a personal message from the Screeners regarding this suspension:

"Please do not re-upload photos without addressing all rejection reasons first. You were warned about same offence few weeks ago, now you get 1 week upload ban. I-HIPB refers as same with #4598321."

Sincerely,

The Airliners.net Crew
https://www.airliners.net

This image triggered it: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f8ed5099cb

You've attempted photos of this aircraft a whopping 20 times and in all 20 cases the image was blurry. In some cases, you didn't even change a thing and uploaded the exact same image again. At some point you need to cut your loss and accept that the image won't get you anywhere. And we get tired of having to reject similar images over and over. Blurry is not fixable.

Please delete all your images from the database. It is enough .... Thank you !!

Catalin81 wrote:

Please delete all your images from the database. It is enough .... Thank you !!

I'm not going to delete all my images from the site just because you say so.

However, if you want to have your images deleted, you can contact support[at]airliners.net for that.

spompert wrote:

The link is not working because the photo is probably removed. Strange that it was first accepted and then removed and you were given the ban. Maybe you can post the photo some other way. But discussions about it on the forum wont`t really change this matter I am afraid. I might be better to email someone of the crew if you think you have been done injustice. Greets

Edit: I just saw a new link after posting this, sorry. It looks like you have selectively darkened the sky heavily (to me at least)

You are quite right, look at the glow around the lights and how it abruptly stops with a hard edge. That's bad manipulation of the photo. And note, I said manipulation, not editing.

I don't get why anyone would even do that, it just adds work and time and doesn't look good.

I could say more, but I've said all I have to say before on this and would just be repeating myself. It's just a photo on a website. There is more to life than crying over proverbial spilt milk. It's also getting far too serious. Look at this discussion as proof of that.

Catalin81's photo with nice angle, lighting, and contrast is much more interesting than 50% of the database comprised of countless plain photos with boring blue or grey backdrop.

Alphazone wrote:

Catalin81's photo with nice angle, lighting, and contrast is much more interesting than 50% of the database comprised of countless plain photos with boring blue or grey backdrop.

Really, look at it: https://www.dropbox.com/s/knfg9al3gnsjr ... 5.jpg?dl=0

You cannot upload a photo with those sorts of adjustments. Look at the trees on the right side. That has always been forbidden.

In your opinion, Alphazone. Many come here to look at those 'countless plain photos with boring blue or grey backdrops'.

Besides, it's a static shot of a Wizzair 320 - hardly super interesting.

It breaks A.net's rules, which are clearly laid out on the site. Whether it's uninteresting or not is totally irrelevant.

Alphazone wrote:

Catalin81's photo with nice angle, lighting, and contrast is much more interesting than 50% of the database comprised of countless plain photos with boring blue or grey backdrop.

And if he had just followed some very simple editing guidelines, it might be sitting on the front page right now.

vikkyvik wrote:

Alphazone wrote:

Catalin81's photo with nice angle, lighting, and contrast is much more interesting than 50% of the database comprised of countless plain photos with boring blue or grey backdrop.

And if he had just followed some very simple editing guidelines, it might be sitting on the front page right now.

I`m reupload again this picture.

Four months away and I return to the same person still doing the same thing old thing.
It's one thing repeatedly uploading the same old edited guff, it's quite another to continually keep attacking other photographers work (90% of which wwasuploaded under older rules).
Why is he still here?

Nice copyright bar by the same guy:-P

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... /2779353/L

ErwinS wrote:

Nice copyright bar by the same guy:-P

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... /2779353/L

During the site migration, some photos suffered from copyright bar duplication. We will ask for this one to be re-processed so one of them is removed. Absolutely nothing to do with the user, if you are wondering (or accusing).

Miguel1982 wrote:

ErwinS wrote:

Nice copyright bar by the same guy:-P

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... /2779353/L

During the site migration, some photos suffered from copyright bar duplication. We will ask for this one to be re-processed so one of them is removed. Absolutely nothing to do with the user, if you are wondering (or accusing).

Just suspicious it happend to the one guy who is banned from almost every site except here.... And how did his username changed while its duplication.

Good luck with old Catalin/lcrv, paul dandea etc....

ErwinS wrote:

Just suspicious it happend to the one guy who is banned from almost every site except here.... And how did his username changed while its duplication.

Good luck with old Catalin/lcrv, paul dandea etc....

What are you talking about, dude? On what sites am I banned from? I change what name I want that is the problem? I have the right, the sites can offer me this possibility, which is your problem I do not understand? I've been uploading pictures for 4 years at 4 sites, and I have the same name everywhere, I do not see what your problem is with me and what you're talking about. Here are the 4 accounts on the 4 sites where I upload photos. Show me where I'm banning on all sites except on airlines. net. You would not be ashamed !!

https://www.airliners.net/search?user=193708

https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo ... hp?p=18536

https://www.planespotters.net/photo/sea ... apher=LRCV

https://www.planepictures.net/v3/search ... ame&srng=2

Because I received a ban on the site that I uploaded a photo that was rejected on the ground level, although it says the same reupload, although the picture is edited after the date of rejection of the previous image, on this occasion publicly request the head, to delete all photos and account on this site. A good day !

Catalin81 wrote:

Because I received a ban on the site that I uploaded a photo that was rejected on the ground level, although it says the same reupload, although the picture is edited after the date of rejection of the previous image, on this occasion publicly request the head, to delete all photos and account on this site. A good day !

This was the initial rejection: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8c7064af8f
This was your upload afterwards: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 78bf163ab1

Open both of them, put them in 2 separate windows and flick through them side-by-side. ZERO change. Justified ban.
If you want your photos removed, you can contact editors[at]airliners.net for that.

That's the dummy well and truly out of the pram, then.........

Karl

But...but....He just made a mistake and uploaded the wrong photo!

We should get a pool going on how long before he posts another complaint about a screening decision, having never actually gotten his photos removed.