2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2094 times:
I think the haze is of two different types...In Phil's photo it is true heat rising from the runway and distorting things. To me the runway lights help to make the photo. What may have been ruined do to the heat distortion comes alive with the lights showing and drawing your eye to the airplane. It is so eye catching that the distortion is acceptable.
The haze on Ryan's photo is of the atmospheric type, almost a fog. I hate shooting in that, but Ryan has obviously been able to overcome it.
In short Phil, you are comparing two different things, but you have a great photo there.
Jofa From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2019 times:
On the other hand it could get pretty annoying if people point out all the flaws with their pics and make "excuses for themselves".
If you feel like you gotta excuse yourself then perhaps it's better to wait until another time when you can take the same shot without the _problem_ in it.
Just a thought
AvroArrow From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2003 times:
I always try to include comments about adverse shooting conditions in the hopes of garnering more sympathy from the screeners. When you're a no-talent hack like myself you need all the help you can get. As an aside, I sometimes get a chuckle from the photo acceptance message: "The following photos were accepted without warnings." Is it possible to get a photo accepted with a warning? I would doubt it.
Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
Eduard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
About 2 years ago (before screeners have taken over screening from Johan) it happened to get a photo accepted with warnings, but nowadays this part of the message doesn't match really and should be replaced. Or, am I wrong, screeners?
Riley From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 173 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1840 times:
Bigphilnyc, a funny/sad story. I was on vacation from October 4-12 and had planned a trip down to Houston to do IAH and look around as I might possibly be transferred down there next year. Anyway, getting up every morning last week and looking outside it was nothing but overcast, rain, fog, haze, poor visibility, and according to the Weather Channel, nothing but rain, rain, and more rain for IAH the entire week. They even had a tornado that did some minor damage.
As for the comments to screeners, I usually try to include something to give the screeners a little better "feel" for the shot, and if pertinent to the image, I will include info in the remarks field to give the viewer a better idea of what I and other spotters were experiencing that day. DFW has been really difficult to shoot lately, and I've been trying a lot of new angles and lighting conditions that I've never done. I mentioned to another spotter one night last week as we were shooting in the dark at slow shutter speeds that I either must be dedicated, desperate, or a little off in the head to shoot as many images as I have lately just to get one or two good ones. Also days are getting shorter and soon the time will move back, putting an end to weeknight spotting and limiting me to weekends only.
BTW, Thanks for the plug on the T7 fog shot above. I try to self screen all my shots and did not hesitate to submit it after I worked it through Photoshop.