Photo screening decisions, opinions please.

[corkspotter]

Evening Andrew,

Totally agree with you on that photo. However, that photo was added 4 years ago when the site was fairly new, and even I had a few dodgy photo's accepted. Now I could stand corrected on this but Frank has only taken over the site since 2007, and since then has tried to raise the quality of photo's on the site. Of course, no offense again to the photographer of the photo in question, but by the standards Frank is trying to outline, that photo would not get passed nowadays. And I'm sure if you looked at all photographers photo's from the oldest addition to the newest addition, you would probably see a vast improvement of their shots online, I know mine have improved.

I think it's a bit unfair to point out photo's that have been accepted years ago to make a point about  inconsistency on the website nowadays. Now, if you can find a similar photo added in the last 3 years when Frank has taken over and tried to make the site known as a site with good quality photo's online, then I stand corrected.

Best Regards,

Paul

[Frank]

Hi Andrew,

I cannot see a problem with the picture that you are referring to. Yes the picture quality is fairly poor but I accepted the picture as I'm fairly lenient with older pictures.

How can you say that the picture was altered? I thought that decals had blown off between overhauls / paint jobs but maybe you're right.

There's nothing stopping you, or anyone else for that matter, setting up your own website, that's what I did. Yes there are inconsistencies in the pictures that I accept, human nature I suppose, that and the fact that I never really had defined rules in the early years.

In saying that, if you are going to submit pictures to a website that has a screener between your upload and the public then you have to accept the fact that the website has certain standards and that some shots will get declined. With every email I've sent out declining a picture there has been an invite at the bottom for you, the photographer, to contact me to appeal a decision I've made.

What I'm trying to do now is put together a document of standards that screeners & photographers can work from, that way the photographer uploading will know what's expected of them.

----------------------

Paul, I've always owned the site, I set up WorldAirPics.com as an offshoot of IrishAirPics.com about 3 years ago but you are right in one respect, I have been trying to improve standards as the years have gone by, I've been accused of being too harsh and I've been accused of being too soft, trying to find the happy medium is a problem.

I've been a lot more gentle on photos over the last few weeks and accepted photos I would not normally have taken. For example, Andrew you uploaded a shot today of EI-WXB where the wheels & fuselage bottom are not visible, but the "new me" accepted the picture, partly because I've trying to be more flexible and partly because the picture is of Irish interest.

I have to accept the fact that other photographers see things slightly different to me and until the rules are finally decided upon that's the way it'll have to be I suppose.

I'm not throwing all my standards out the window, just being a bit more lenient.


Regards,

Frank.

[Andrew Martin]

Hiyas,

The picture I linked of the Dan Air BAe 146 displays a known problem involving the use of Digital ICE software to remove 'dirt' from old slides during the scan. If the software identifies the letters of the registration or part of the logo as dirt it will remove it during the scan. This would appear to be the case in the example I linked to. There are a number of other shots by the same photographer that are similarly affected. Personally I feel that these images should be re-scanned with the dirt removal option switched off and any clean up done in Photoshop.
Like I said, I don't have the hump about having shots rejected, I uploaded my first shots here in quite some time today, I just happen to prefer the way I can arrange my photos in fotopic.net. I have a few shots on ABPic but haven't uploaded there in about a year and I have just one shot on airliners.net! I uploaded a couple to airliners on the weekend but they haven't been processed yet...
I think this is a great site with many amazing pictures that I'm thankful to be able to view any time I want and I appreciate the amount of time that goes in to maintaining it... just one suggestion... does every Ryanair Boeing 737-8AS delivery have to go up, each one looks just like the last one! 

[Frank]

Now having never ever scanned slides or prints I never knew about Digital ICE. I have to say I have noticed what you are referring to but I always put it down to decals blowing off.

The thing about a website like this is that you need some kind of standard, otherwise it can turn into a free for all but like I said earlier every photo is taken on it's merits and I have eased off on declining pictures (but utter rubbish is still not welcome). Older pictures are generally treated very leniently, grain and all, maybe too lenient though now that I know about Digital ICE. Some questions must be asked in future I suppose.

As for Ryanair deliveries... I'm an equal opportunities screener!

[Andrew Martin]

I think in those days that some of those shots were taken the only things that carried decals were model airplanes! But hey, you're totally right about maintaining a certain standard and after all, it's your site so you have ultimate say on what goes up or not as the case may be.

Just for the record my shot of the Korean Boeing 747SP that went up earlier was taken back in '98 when I was shooting Kodachrome K64. I scanned the slide using a Nikon Coolscan, did a bit of post production work in Photoshop but the clever stuff is the noise/grain reducing software that I use, Nik Dfine 2.0. I find that really cleans up an old slide nicely!

Cheers,
Andrew

[Irish251]

As someone who has been scanning slides for several years with no problems of the sort depicted, I agree that there must be some sort of equipment or settings problem if parts of the image are being missed out.  I find that digital ICE works fine on all but Kodachrome slides but it is well-known that you can't use it for Kodachrome.  It's only when you scan a Kodak slide that you can see the scores (or even hundreds) of microscopic dust flecks that can find their way onto slides - and which have to be removed from the digital scan.

[Andrew Martin]

The problem with Kodachrome is that the emulsion is quite sticky compared to others like Fujichrome and as a result it tends to be quite a job removing dust and dirt particles that have accumulated on the slide over the years. One solution is to use software to eliminate these dust particles, ICE apparently does a pretty good job but it isn't clever enough to discriminate between what is and what isn't dust. It would appear that the picture I linked to used some kind of automatic dust removal but also removed other fine detail in the process.
As Frank has already pointed out he wasn't aware of the issue having never scanned a slide. When I started to look into the whole process of scanning slides I learnt quite a bit along the way. I started using a Canonscan 4400 flatbed scanner which used an insert to mount the slides, four at a time, into the lid. This gave reasonable results and a couple of images using this method are on this site. I wasn't entirely happy with the results so I then tried to shoot the slides on a lightbox using a macro lens attached to my Canon 40D. This too gave reasonable but inconsistent results. I then bought a Nikon Coolscan slide scanner and I wish I went with this option from the outset! It gives consistently good results and although the scan takes about 30-40 seconds it is by far the best method for scanning slides at home. For dust removal I normally increase the size of the scanned image to 20000 pixels in Photoshop and use the Healing Brush tool to remove any dust or imperfections. When I'm happy with that then I edit the image as normal i.e. brightning, contrast, sharpening etc. and save the image as a copy.
It's a learning curve scanning old slides but it's very rewarding to see old images come to life on the PC!

Andrew

andrewmartin.fotopic.net

[Frank]

Hi lads,

Sorry to cut across the thread on scanning slides (I can create a separate thread if you want) but I'm really anxious to get feedback on the screening process, that's why I started this thread.

I appreciate that this diversion started as a discussion on screening but I really need to get this one back on thread, I'm trying to be a better screener and I need as much feedback as possible.

Thanks!


Regards,

Frank.

[SteveRendle]

Hi

I wonder if Frank is getting the response he is looking for on this thread?

Why Am I Posting All This?

Well I need to get user feedback, I need to know what you think of my screening decisions, am I too harsh, am I too easy, am I too inconsistent?

I need your help guys, I want to attract new photographers & keep the ones I have, I don't want IrishAirPics.com / WorldAirPics.com to be seen as the website that it harder than Airliners.net to upload to while at the same time I don't want the website to be seen as the place to go if Airliners.net won't take your pictures. This is probably one of my more important posts so I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to reply with your thoughts.


Thanks in advance,

Frank.

I think he was asking for guidance not just it's your site Frank carry on.

Generally I do not have a problem with most of Frank's upload criteria although I must add that I do see a few images on IAP/WAP that I personally would have rejected if I had screened them and some of those even made it to Editors Choice!

The two reject reasons I have a problem with are the following.

Aircraft Not Centred
The aircraft is not centred in the picture. The aircraft is either too high, too low or too much to one side in the picture, the picture appears to be un-balanced. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.

Aircraft Too Small
The aircraft is too small in the picture and cannot clearly be seen, there is too much empty space around the aircraft or the aircraft is too far away. Please try to have the aircraft fill as much of the picture as possible. If you can edit the picture so that aircraft is bigger in the frame please upload that instead.

If I screened any image I personally would put Aircraft Not Centred over Aircraft Too Small every time.

When Frank screens I sense he favours it the other way around.

Aircraft in flight I feel need a little bit off space in front of the nose especially when not side on and when the tailplane is pronounced i.e. 3/4 view.

This first image was my last rejection for Aircraft Too Small and Frank asked me to resubmit with a tighter crop. I refused to do so because I felt this would unbalance the image. The second image is how I perceive Frank wanted the image to look like.

Please give Frank what he is asking for honest constructive views. Please don't worry about my feelings I have plenty more rattles in my pram.

Steve

[Frank]

Steve,

I don't look for a reason to decline a picture, I look for reasons to keep a picture. And as for older uploads... all I can say to you is to disregard them really, I've been improving standards as the years have passed so older pictures could have lower standards than I have now.

There's no point de-selecting them as Editors Choice just because they wouldn't meet the standards I expect now.

And regarding the picture you attached to the last post, I didn't expect you to crop the picture as tight as you did, I would have been happy with the picture I've attached to this post.

Feedback to this thread is slow in coming, and I certainly don't want people to think that it's a case of "my site, my rules", user participation is definitely welcomed.


Regards,

Frank.

[SteveRendle]

Frank

In response to your last post

I don't look for a reason to decline a picture, I look for reasons to keep a picture. And as for older uploads... all I can say to you is to disregard them really, I've been improving standards as the years have passed so older pictures could have lower standards than I have now.

When I mentioned Editors Choice I only looked at the first 3 pages and found 3 images I would have rejected.

There's no point de-selecting them as Editors Choice just because they wouldn't meet the standards I expect now.

I did not ask or expect you to

And regarding the picture you attached to the last post, I didn't expect you to crop the picture as tight as you did, I would have been happy with the picture I've attached to this post.

So if I had edited it with a tight crop would it have received a rejection for 'Aircraft Not Centred

Feedback to this thread is slow in coming, and I certainly don't want people to think that it's a case of "my site, my rules", user participation is definitely welcomed.

That is not how it appears. I tried to get some response from other uploaders but I feel that I am wasting my time despite what you say I get the opinion it is your site and your rules and mine of anyone's opinions will not change anything.

Steve

[Frank]

Steve,

How about we agree to disagree on "my site, my rules" because I don't believe that is the case. However, as I have been the only screener, and still am, in fairness it has been my opinion versus the photographer's opinion up to now.

A lot of people have appealed over the years and I have re-considered my decision in many of those cases.

If it was indeed a case of "my site, my rules" I wouldn't have taken on screeners. Joe & Paul see things differently to me and I have to accept that.

And no, I wouldn't have declined your picture for the aircraft not being centred.

Other people have continued to upload to the site since I started this thread, maybe they are happy with my decisions in the past and are happy to continue uploading, maybe they haven't read this thread, maybe they are taking their chances, who knows? I thought this thread would have had more replies up to now.

The site is still ticking over, I'm trying to be as consistent as possible, I'm also being a bit more lenient. I'm just trying to strike a happy medium and keep every one satisfied.


Regards,

Frank.

[corkspotter]

Good evening Steve,

I in response to ur request for opinions on the BMI Baby shot, as a future screener I have to say that I would have declined your 1st photo also. To be honest I am quite surprised that you would argue this one as I thought it was obvious the aircraft was not centered and given that you have over 500 shots on the site, I would have thought you wouldn't upload it as is, never mind argue that it was rejected.

Just my humble opinion,

Regards,

Paul

[SteveRendle]

Hi Paul

Thanks for your comments, I have now got a rejection for not centred has well!

Oh well Bang goes another Rattle

Goodnight

Steve

[Frank]

Well it could have been declined for either centre or aircraft too small, those 2 reasons are fairly close together, at times it can be hard to figure which one to go for.

Either way, a slight crop would have fixed the picture without ruining it, in my humble opinion of course.


Regards,

Frank.