 Consistency In Screening |
  |
 Oct 4 2009, 08:09 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Advanced Member  Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 24-July 08 Member No.: 52  |
I am sorry to bring this up but it appears that screening is not consistent. I have just had image 64406 rejected for a couple of barely visible dust spots. However, the latest eyecatcher, image 64113, has dust spots into double figures on my screen. I admit it is a superb shot, but come on guys!
-------------------- Tony Scruton
|
 |
 
|
|
Oct 4 2009, 08:57 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Full member Posts: 48 Joined: 5-July 08 From: Prague, CZ Member No.: 34 |
QUOTE (Tony Scruton @ Oct 4 2009, 10:09 AM)  I am sorry to bring this up but it appears that screening is not consistent. I have just had image 64406 rejected for a couple of barely visible dust spots. However, the latest eyecatcher, image 64113, has dust spots into double figures on my screen. I admit it is a superb shot, but come on guys! No problem Tony - no one will complain that you speak loud about the screening. Yes, the 64406 was an evening silhouette shot, and I found the dust spots disturbing. In general - in case of shots where the sky is heavily involved, checking for dust spots should be the first thing to do. At least I would do that always in such cases to reduce the chance of a rejection. The eyecatcher you mention - though I was not screening it, I was rating it 5 once it appeared on the homepage.... The spots were the last thing I saw (I have to admit, I saw them later... I was too impressed by the photo to even check for such flaws). Yet you are right, it may look as inconsistent approach. The screening decisions are subjective indeed. And may be inconsistent in cases, sometimes. I believe once you clone out the dust spots, the shot becomes a nice addition to the db. Oldrich |
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2009, 09:08 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Administrator Group: Root Admin Posts: 451 Joined: 19-June 08 From: Edinburgh, Scotland Member No.: 1 |
Tony, I'm sorry, I screened the photo and haven't noticed the dust spots. I have sent an email to Calum to re-process and re-upload the photo.
Consistency is desirable, but not fully achievable as we all are humans. Additionally, we are happy that our screeners use their individual skills and experience in screening, which is somehow in conflict with machine-type consistency everybody (including us) would like to see. Cheers, Martin This post has been edited by Martin Krupka: Oct 4 2009, 11:16 AM -------------------- A-P.net Head Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4 2009, 02:03 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 24-July 08 Member No.: 52 |
Thanks for the replies guys.
Of course, I realise you are human like the rest of us, and I sincerely appreciate the job you all do. Keep up the good work. -------------------- Tony Scruton
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st November 2009 - 05:46 AM |
