Опыт Эрлайнерс.нет
Oleg
Старожил
Да чего опускать то - взяли уже
smallbox
Местный
Фото висела в рассмотрении, потом часа два в ожидании, потом ее взял на рассмотрение хэд! Вопрос N1:как долго он ее будет смотреть, вопрос N2:все ли ее видят в очереди или это только у меня какой то глюк??
П.с. Фото за 22е октября
Oleg
Старожил
2012-10-22: 1 photos 1 photos left for the Head Screeners
Сколько будет висеть - не известно.
smallbox
Местный
Только задал вопрос-фотку тут же приняли
Alex Eremite
Местный
, а скринеры м...
долго думали
SergeyL
Старожил
хех, получил quality grainy double за
ну с грейни и квалити понятно, все субъективно, а вот с даблом как быть, ранее была принята эта фотография
считается ли это даблом????????????
ну с грейни и квалити понятно, все субъективно, а вот с даблом как быть, ранее была принята эта фотография
считается ли это даблом????????????
Последнее редактирование:
whiteson
imagemaker
если точно спереди и точно сзади - нет
если с разных бортов - нет
а в данном случае - по настроению.
Fotosamurai
Местный
О! с даблом такая фигня была:
эта первая попала в базу(по первому борту УБ)
а вот по этой тут-же дабл
эта первая попала в базу(по первому борту УБ)
а вот по этой тут-же дабл
B_S_A
Местный
Наболело!
Топик для Анета http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_photography/read.main/377367/
I very often ask myself - do I and all my colleagues deserve the better screening? Should the current screening team be fired?
What happened with the screening process if my colleagues suffering starting from mid 2011 from the fall in the acceptance rate from 95-80% to 30-40%??? I ask myself do they shot worse than in the 2009-2010??? No, in fact they improve their skills, bought new, more efficient equipment… So something wrong on the opposite side.
Why do I ask so? Just because I have numerous examples of the very obvious mistakes made by screeners as a result not paying appropriate attention to our photos. Frankly speaking in many cases the screeners are simply careless and unprofessional.
List of some the awkward rejection decisions made by screeners:
1. This photo №1 got “Distance” while there is no empty space in the photo at all, also photo was granted with “centered” rejection reason, (had to use the ruler to show equal distance to both borders of the photo);
2. This № 2 and this № 3photos got “Info” the screener by unclear reason decided I must provide exact day for military demo (2 different events in the 2011/12) for MofD executives( not public event of any kind) and didn’t bother to check DB which already has a number of photos from this event (including the SAME AC captured at the SAME event);
3. Colour (numerous photos) – just who could the screener know what exact colours were in the moment of shooting?
The decisions made by the screeners including head screeners very often are pretty much controversial, inconsistent and rising questions about double standards. For example the screening team many times stated the next fact about A.net - “This site is intended to work as the D.B”. OK I got it but what about such photos as http://www.airliners.net/photo/Rota...2171238/&sid=4f6d23a3d9f45448fd0aea77271be044 ??? From the AC in this photo just a tiny piece of the wing!
Series of my highly renowned (not in the A.net) for example #4 photos which I made in the snowstorm had been rejected because snowflakes blocking the A/C!!! Needless to say there are numerous photos in the DB which made during snowfalls , for example http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Antonov-An-12BK/2083953/L/ Many screeners simply don’t understand the basic rules of photography and editing in the PS. For example this photo was rejected as “Dark” while the histogram shows opposite. For many photos such unprofessional screeners requires to make AC belly ( which is in shadow area ) artificially lighter!!! In the another case photo got green cast just because spring grass in the rainy conditions looks to vivid for the screeners brain. This screener simply don’t understand what spring grass which just appear is the very much different to the sunburned grass in the August. Many screeners including head’s couldn’t distinguished proper level in the photo. For example in this photo №5 water tower is straight vertical BUT the screening team decided what photo needs CCW!!! In some cases I intentionally left (after crop) some vertical objects to show proper level photo # 6.
After ALL these mistakes I rise the question Do we (contributors) deserve ANOTHER screening team? This NEW Team would treat all of us equally, would thoroughly examine our photos and made honest decisions….
p.s. Now I pretty much tired from the mess on the A.net and switch to the cooperation with leading magazines ( including big names around the world). They are not only published my photos (including photos had been rejected here) but also pay real money ( not A.net hits).P.S. No photos you have to pay $$$ for the examples soYou need to be a First Class (10Mb) or Premium member (2Mb) to use this service. Upgrading is quick and easy, click
Хмм снесли пост объявив его LOW QUALITY POST (forum rule #1M & 1N)
A.net Airliners.net bad screening pour screening team
Топик для Анета http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_photography/read.main/377367/
I very often ask myself - do I and all my colleagues deserve the better screening? Should the current screening team be fired?
What happened with the screening process if my colleagues suffering starting from mid 2011 from the fall in the acceptance rate from 95-80% to 30-40%??? I ask myself do they shot worse than in the 2009-2010??? No, in fact they improve their skills, bought new, more efficient equipment… So something wrong on the opposite side.
Why do I ask so? Just because I have numerous examples of the very obvious mistakes made by screeners as a result not paying appropriate attention to our photos. Frankly speaking in many cases the screeners are simply careless and unprofessional.
List of some the awkward rejection decisions made by screeners:
1. This photo №1 got “Distance” while there is no empty space in the photo at all, also photo was granted with “centered” rejection reason, (had to use the ruler to show equal distance to both borders of the photo);
2. This № 2 and this № 3photos got “Info” the screener by unclear reason decided I must provide exact day for military demo (2 different events in the 2011/12) for MofD executives( not public event of any kind) and didn’t bother to check DB which already has a number of photos from this event (including the SAME AC captured at the SAME event);
3. Colour (numerous photos) – just who could the screener know what exact colours were in the moment of shooting?
The decisions made by the screeners including head screeners very often are pretty much controversial, inconsistent and rising questions about double standards. For example the screening team many times stated the next fact about A.net - “This site is intended to work as the D.B”. OK I got it but what about such photos as http://www.airliners.net/photo/Rota...2171238/&sid=4f6d23a3d9f45448fd0aea77271be044 ??? From the AC in this photo just a tiny piece of the wing!
Series of my highly renowned (not in the A.net) for example #4 photos which I made in the snowstorm had been rejected because snowflakes blocking the A/C!!! Needless to say there are numerous photos in the DB which made during snowfalls , for example http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Antonov-An-12BK/2083953/L/ Many screeners simply don’t understand the basic rules of photography and editing in the PS. For example this photo was rejected as “Dark” while the histogram shows opposite. For many photos such unprofessional screeners requires to make AC belly ( which is in shadow area ) artificially lighter!!! In the another case photo got green cast just because spring grass in the rainy conditions looks to vivid for the screeners brain. This screener simply don’t understand what spring grass which just appear is the very much different to the sunburned grass in the August. Many screeners including head’s couldn’t distinguished proper level in the photo. For example in this photo №5 water tower is straight vertical BUT the screening team decided what photo needs CCW!!! In some cases I intentionally left (after crop) some vertical objects to show proper level photo # 6.
After ALL these mistakes I rise the question Do we (contributors) deserve ANOTHER screening team? This NEW Team would treat all of us equally, would thoroughly examine our photos and made honest decisions….
p.s. Now I pretty much tired from the mess on the A.net and switch to the cooperation with leading magazines ( including big names around the world). They are not only published my photos (including photos had been rejected here) but also pay real money ( not A.net hits).P.S. No photos you have to pay $$$ for the examples soYou need to be a First Class (10Mb) or Premium member (2Mb) to use this service. Upgrading is quick and easy, click
Хмм снесли пост объявив его LOW QUALITY POST (forum rule #1M & 1N)
A.net Airliners.net bad screening pour screening team
Последнее редактирование:
SergeyL
Старожил
что ж, конечно не в том раззрешении и не в том виде каком хотел, но пропихнул таки
whiteson
imagemaker
вот думаю, как Целый Хэдскринер анета переживет такую публичную критику комментаторов в свой адрес?
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/249043/oh-lpa-finnair-mcdonnell-douglas-md-82/
Fyodor
Летающий фотограф
Я бы не стал сводить с Энди счёты. Он далеко не худший в этой помойке. Тем паче, что фотка хорошая.
Пкк
Старожил
B_S_A,
Хорошее письмо, прочитал, прослезился.
Особенно понравилась фотография с сантиметрами. Туда бы ещё формулу какую-нибудь.
Хорошее письмо, прочитал, прослезился.
Особенно понравилась фотография с сантиметрами. Туда бы ещё формулу какую-нибудь.
whiteson
imagemaker
сюжетно и композиционно - да.
но слать откровенный полуфабрикат, пользуясь своим фуллмемберством, в надежде, что "пипл схавает", будучи при этом напыщенным хэдскринером нашего любимого ресурса, с муравьиным трудолюбием выскивающим блох под микроскопом на чужих фото (объективно на голову лучшего качества) - думаю, он должен понимать, чем рискует.