Soulman From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 112 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1307 times:
I know some people are probably getting sick to death of helping with rejections, but since I'm only new to Airliners.net, I was wondering if you could perhaps give me some advice as to what to do with this picture?
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1283 times:
Can't tell on the quality of image here on the laptop, but assuming badcentered is the only problem if you crop out that empty right hand side, leaving the wing-tip and nose equal distances from each side, that'll get rid of the baddouble problem - leave the vertica dimension as it. As the photo is already over 1100 pixels wide, a crop won't require a resize so image quality should remain the same.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1281 times:
Hmm. well contrary to almost anything written on composition and against the creative eye of most photographers, Johan has deemed that aircraft shall be centered in the frame, and sod the rule of thirds and all that rubbish
Personally I find this an irritating and inconsistently applied rule (I suspect some screeners allow their artistic sensibilities to turn a blind eye to the rule)
but there it is. Crop the shot to centre the aircraft and you're in compliance.
I should add that the top of the aircraft is a tad overexposed and the titles are a little soft so I think the pic might be considered borderline - it could well be rejected for another reason after you've cropped it.
Soulman From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1272 times:
Thanks for the help guys. So prompt!
Andy - the quality is a little low I admit, but I figure 'I'll never know if I don't have a go', so to speak. Thanks for the tip.
Colin - I can understand where you are coming from regarding the thirds rule, something my father has insisted on. I'm worried that when I centre it, I will be forced to cut the wingtip, which might lead to further problems? As for the sharpening, what do you suggest I do in Photoshop? I'm not all that confident with it, so if you could give me a pointer, I'd be most grateful.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1258 times:
well contrary to almost anything written on composition and against the creative eye of most photographers, Johan has deemed that aircraft shall be centered in the frame, and sod the rule of thirds and all that rubbish
Harsh Colin, harsh. You and I both know the "rules" of photography, and we also know that on occasion it can be difficult to photograph an airplane and still conform to the rule of thirds. However, as evidence that rules of photography such as thirds can be met and still make it into the database, I proffer the following from my recent uploads (plugfest):
Soulman From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
Back to your corners please men...
Now before this turns into an all-in, without wanting to sound selfish - can we return to the original topic? I need help!
You guys have heaps of photos on A.net, how about you help a younger and not-so talented photographer out? By that, I mean share your wisdom, not use it to provoke slang-matches!
P.S > Thanks Luis, I couldn't agree more with you. I have the choices of:
1. Crop it from the left and cut off a wing.
2. Crop it from the right and make it appear to 'crash into the wall'.
3. Just not bother and drive the 330kms back to the airport just to get the shot.
4. Re-submit it just like this - what do you guys think?
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1248 times:
I'm not bothered by any compositional rules ... what works, works. What I object to are rejections based on an arbitrary aesthetic ruling which doesn't even have the support of widely accepted composition theory.
Some shots do work with the subject centered. Some don't. Some screeners use their eyes (thank you) some follow the rule. But anyone who has had a shot rejected becuse they deliberately left leading space in front of an aircraft in flight has, IMHO good reason to be peeved.
There should be no RULE regarding composition at all. AFAIK all the screeners are decent photographers - I am happy to leave the matter of my picture's aesthetics to their honest opinion, provided it IS their opinion of the shot and not the interpretation of a rule.
If I sound harsh - or even aggressive on this point, then so be it - it is not aimed at any screener but at a flaw in the system. To some extent the screeners can hide behind Johan's rules, but it is also true that collectively you can (eventually ) sometimes cause changes to be made.
If you were all to agree that the badcentered rule was a silly rule and instead agree to rely on your own instincts, the rule as stands would effectively disappear.
And please note - I am not asking that high compositional standards not be applied ... quite the opposite, I am asking that a photographer's judgement be used to make the call.
(rather cunning intermix of criticism and flattery don't you think? )
SurfSlade From Guinea, joined Oct 2003, 124 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
I agree with you guys, every photographer learn about the rule or third. I was taught never to center the main subject.
In this case Soulman left so space in front of the aircraft showing its going somewhere. Great composition. If he had left the same space behind instead of in front the composition wouldn’t be that great anymore.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
"There are no rules to photograpy, plain and simple..."
Sorry Luis, but I think there are - many great thinkers through the ages have spent a lot of time understanding why X works and Y doesn't ... and I think any serious photographer really should have a basic understanding of these rules.
What I would say, and actually is what I think you mean, is that photographers shouldn't feel constrained by the rules - bend them or break them to express your view as you see fit.
Sadly there are very few gifted individuals who can instinctively and consistently create perfect compositions so the rules are there to assist us in that direction - but no, we musn't be slaves to them.
Soulman From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1178 times:
Thanks for the replies guys.
Luis - I passed on the compliments to my father, and he was honoured to say the least. Like me, he takes time to search A.net fairly often and after your compliment, he too would like to compliment you on some of your fantastic shots from Faro (he loves the sunset shots, especially the DC-10 with the simple remark of 'Yes!')
Pascal - thanks for the compliments. I thought I had cropped it fittingly (gives it a sense of flying, not stagment). I'm not terribly fussed that it didn't make it into the database, but it would have been nice!
Colin - nice reply, but I have one question. When you say "we musn't be slaves to them." - it makes me think that instead of calling them rules, perhaps they are just guidelines? There is a fine line between the two - but think about how boring photography would be if people didn't cross the line and experiment? Not just A.net, but photography in general. I am a keen believer that to experiment, one must break the rules/ignore the guidelines. In the end, they will only be a better photographer for it.
Sure there are rules/guidelines to keep us conformed - but photography is an artform and an artform demands creativity. Think outside the square you live in - there's a whole new side to photography. But I guess in the end, it all comes down to impact. Impact drives society, and that includes the arts too.
I am not trying to start a debate or disrespect you in any way, shape or form. I know from what I have seen, you are an excellent photographer and I respect you. This is simply my opinion.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
Soulman - no disrespect taken ... "rules" is perhaps the wrong word, but "guidelines" isn't right either. I'm thinking about are those things which are fact ... ike the laws of physics.
For example, it is a fact that red coloured objects in an image appear to advance while blue/green colours appear to receed - this is based on how our eyes percieve colour. If you know and understand this principle (ah! perhaps "principle" is the right word to use!) you can use it to your advantage in a consistent manner. If you are unaware of this principle, then your use of colour to aid composition may be a bit hit & miss.
Similarly, the famous rule of thirds can be scientifically demonstrated to have value by measuring eye movement when a picture is viewed.
I'm not advocating that people follow artistic principles, simply that they should understand them. When 2 shots are being compared and you say "this one works, that one doesn't" it is helpful to be able to go beyond instinct and actually explain, in quantifiable terms WHY one works and one doesn't.
While much of this often seems instinctive and self evident, it is perhaps because most of us here are above average in terms of our natural perception of visual media - probably why we've chosen photography as a hobby. A quick glance through most people's holiday snaps demonstrates that this is not the norm ... the most basic principles of composition are ignored and there is nothing to hold the eye's attention.
but photography is an artform and an artform demands creativity
which is true, but all artforms (well any that have lasted at least ) work within sets of conventions - think of classical poetry for example, or a movie - the amount we take for granted in films is astonishing. A simple scene cut to a new location seems natural to us, but we have learned what this means - a primitive tribesman exposed to a movie for the first time will simply not understand it, he has not aquired the language of films.
Many photographs are NOT art. They are simply a record of what was seen. I think that art emerges from using the subject within the constraints of the chosen media to show something new, more clearly, or elicit an emotion.
Think how the frame of the image and a shallow depth of field can be used to isolate a figure in a crowd - commonplace stuff these days, but imagine the impact of the first photograph like this ... I don't think painters blurred backgrounds prior to the invention of photography. DOF is a convention unique to photography, and we must understand it in order to use it effectively.
Ultimately we all use the principles of composition/photography - either deliberately or sub-conciously. All I'm suggesting is that increasing our awareness and understanding of those principles can do no harm.
Sorry for rambling on but thanks for providing a chance to talk about photography (as opposed to equipment!)
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1135 times:
Remember too that while you may not be constrained by "rules" in your personal photography if you want to display them somewhere, Anet comes to mind, you must play by that sites rules. I have some photos that I really like and am very proud of, but for one reason or another they don't fit the rules of ANet, so they have either been rejected or I just have not uploaded them.
I agree with Colin that you need to understand the basic "rules" of photogrpahy before you go off trying to get creative. I think if you look back at Luis' early photos there are many many static side on shots. Not "creative" but technically very good to perfect. He knows the basics of framing a photo. Then as time went by we saw more and more "creative" shots that are both technically perfect, but the composition, involving airplane and surroundings and light are just beautiful
Soulman From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1125 times:
Thanks for the replies guys - they do make a lot of sense. I'm not for one saying that I'm an expert photographer (Who is? Nobody.), but I do understand the basic rules - i.e thirds and depth of field.
Having a father who is a professional has helped me (The only downside is that he hasn't photographed planes enough for my liking!). I can still remember getting my Pentax K1000 for Christmas about 5 years ago. For the next 6 months I had my head buried in a book that came with the camera, which explained things like compilation, focus, depth of field, creativity, boundaries and how can I forget - principles!
Tony - I know the feeling about having a treasured photo rejected on the terms that it doesn't fit A.net criteria - and to be honest, I'm not really that phased. It appeals to me, but I realise it might not be everyone else's cup of tea.
I know that before you can run, you must learn to walk and before you can walk, you must learn to crawl.
Photography is an adventure to me - make the most of it and you'll no doubt be rewarded.
And yes, even though I'm new to the forum, it is good to have a chat about photography in general, not just who has the latest 300D or a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x... Because when you think about it - it mainly comes down to the user, not just the equipment. I think I could safely bet that I could take a better shot with my K1000 than Joe Bloggs' D1. Experience and knowing your limits.
God, I could ramble on forever! Better save some for my next reply.
And you wouldn't believe it - Dad has just dumped a copy of 'Canon - EF Lens Work II" on the table.
P.S > Colin - I covered light and colours in Physics earlier this year. It wasn't one of the most interesting topics, so please, don't bring back those ugly memories. i.e red has a wavelength of 780nm and violet has a wavelength of 390nm - exactly half that of red. Blah blah blah...