C72 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3601 times:
Today I tried to upload a pic of an AA 757 that I had put on a high-resolution photo cd at the time of development at the local photo shop and was rejected. Well, 3 days ago I saw a few pics that were worse than mine that were uploaded by a photographer who I will not name who has work pulished in many magazines.
Is the admin. of this site partial to people like him? I think that the admin. never though this site would get as huge as it is and had to start these strick standards, "Only the best...." so it won't get out of control.
Danny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3514 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (14 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3014 times:
I totally agree with you, but there's another post here that (to wrap it up) says that we can complain all we want, but the rules won't change. And I understand that too - it is for the best interest of the site.
But I recently saw a couple of pics that I'd like to have explained to me.
Now, the planes on the photos aren't rare at all, they are grainy and there are lots of white dots and lines (dirty scanner glass?) on the pics. And the light conditions aren't the best...? NOTE! I'm not thrashing the photographer - the pics are great! It's just that I've had pics with better quality and really not too much to complain about rejected. What's going on? Is it that you guys at airliners.net don't have the time to look at all the pics, so you'll just pic a couple and discard the rest? If that's the problem, "hire" more people. I know that there are loads of volunteers.
Anyhow, keep up the good work! But make it better!
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2859 times:
I believe, as you, that the photos I send and are rejected are good enough to be added.
I understand that they only accept the very best but it's hard for me to accept that I need an expensive camera with expensive lenses for my photos to be displayed here.
This is a site where amateur photographers can display their images not a site where planespotters with professional equipment can display their work.
I use an expensive scanner already and I edited the images the best I could. I can find worse pics than mine in the database and I believe that they throw away the real air enthusiast by raising the standards so high.
I don't suggest that they should accept any image no matter of quality, I suggest that they should lower the today's standards so the real air enthusiast (not the wealthy planespotter) can contribute.
I sent my opinions to the admin as well, I wait for the response, if any...
Brick From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1589 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2869 times:
I have used camera equipment. I am not a "weathly" or "professional" plane spotter. I have moderate quality zoom lenses and a really old SLR camera. In all, I spent less than $300 for my current camera setup.
I have over 500 photos on this site in 12 months of posting photos on here. My accepted rate is between 95% and 98%. So don't give me this bullshit about only the wealthy and professional can get photos posted on here because it isn't true.
To the people who have done all of the complaining: Grow up and QUIT BITCHING ABOUT YOUR REJECTED PHOTOS!! Learn how to take better photos instead of demanding that everyone else lower their standards to match yours....
FastGlass From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 0 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (14 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2829 times:
This BS goes way beyond just TAKING good pics. The scanning technique is involved 50% at my best guess. A great pic that is properly exposed and developed may look excellent, but if it is scanned poorly - a good pic suddenly becomes a bad one, for upload.
Take good pics, scan them well, and the problems and whining will vanish...
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8904 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (14 years 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2715 times:
First of all, I would like to say that Brick is correct. You don't have to be rich, etc. I have an old camera (15 years) and it still works fine. All you need (I am guessing) is patience with scanning your shots. It can seem frustrating to those of you who don't have a scanner (like me), but at least try your best. Also, Gary Watt said in another thread to scan you photos and then don't look at them for a day or more. Then, go back and look at them and see if you should upload them or rescan them.
Ake0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2719 times:
maybe I should add my comments to this topic as well, as I was the " lucky one ".
I was surprised that the SR M-11 was uploaded as the pic was not 100% sharp, but what someone already mentioned and thanks for that, neither the Airline nor the aircraft is rare but the angle, the time ( was shortly before sunset ) and that brings atmosphere into the picture and I would image this is one of the criteria how the judge a photo and why the pic is where it is.
So for all out there I had better pictures, not added to the database for some reason.
I accepted it, turned around tried harder and it works.
Bellcore From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (14 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2693 times:
I think many of you people don't understand the difference between the quality of the image and the quality of the "photo".
I'd say almost 80% of the photos in this database are "just photos" of planes.
But there's something true. This is a personal site, and the author/moderator follow his own rules. If we don't like it, go to another site, or create your own gallery.
I did a "test" some days ago with one of my latest photos, and was rejected. I don't care, but would like to know (only curiosity) to know why, but the admin didn't answer. No problem, as I said before, he has the reasons, and I have to understand it (but not necessarily to agree).
And sorry, I'm not an amateur. A work daily with photographs (in advertising), and know perfectly what's good or not, in terms not only of image quality (noise, bright, saturation, etc, etc) but "look and feel" (angle, perspective, environment, etc.. ).
USAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (14 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2674 times:
Another thing: maybe 1% of all photographers can go outside the terminal to the ramp, at least that's how it is here in the USA. I tried asking to go out, and it just didnt work. I don't know if I can set up an appointment or what, but I don't have access to the ramp currently.
Lawrence Feir From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 39 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (14 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2664 times:
I've been reading the posts here on this topic and thought I'd put my 2 cents in.
First I'd like to say that we are all guests here and the admins do put in a lot of time and effort to make this a place we can all come to and enjoy. I don't always agree with them either but do understand it's not an easy job and that not everybody is going to be happy with the decisions they must make.
My views on picture "quality".
I learned a long time ago when I was in school that just because a photograph isn't sharp or it's not in perfect focus doesn't make it a "bad" picture. I'd have to say the same for small bits of dust and scratches etc.
What is important is LIGHTING, & composition. Scanning is also important but I'd have to say that for 95% of the problems I see with poor scanning are not due to the scanner but to the operator. I have a $79.00 flatbed scanner we use for faxes that will do more then the quality requested on this server. It's a learned skill to scan photographs properly. This is especially true of under or overexposed prints. My suggestion to those who can't get the hang of scanning or would rather leave it to the pros is to have your film put on photo CD when it's processed.
The same holds true for cameras. You can get a camera for under $100 that will give more then adequate quality. If you want to shoot subjects in the air or over a distance then you will need to spend more, but again, good photos are a combination of good lighting and good composition. A good photographer with a disposable camera will take better picture then a poor photographer with a new Nikon f-5 any day of the week, all day long.
Well, I've had my rant,
Go easy on the admins guys, focus on improving you photos and it you still get rejected pics then post them someplace else and we can look at them and talk about it.
JMOD From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (14 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2639 times:
I understand that talking exsessively about rejected photos in this forum can lead to admonition by the more experienced photographers, but for the time being I cannot think of a better place to discuss my frustrations.
I have submitted about 25 pictures and have had 1 accepted. In MY OPINION this picture was not my best. It was not the sharpest, or the best scanned. It was not the best composed, and it was not taken in the best light conditions; it was an overcast day with flat light conditions.
All of the rejections came with the caveat "image quality is low". I have downloaded some of the photos of establised airliners.net photographes and compared my photos side-by-side with these photos and I cannot see that my image quality is low. The image quality of my photos is comparable to many existing airliners.net photos.
Are photos rejected because there are too many pictures of American Airlines 757s? Or because there is a fence in the forground? Or because the aircraft wingtip is blocking the logo on the tail? (These are all things that I try hard to avoid). If this is the case, I would sincerely like to know how I can improve my photos. Again in MY OPINION (which is only my opinion) I cannot reconcile the "low image quality" rejection with my work.