Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Little Bit Disappointed...  
User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1749 times:

I started taking aviation photos a little over a year ago

My rejection rate must be some 95%. An example:

I uploaded a few photos about three weeks ago (some 6.000 photos were in the queue before mine) and after only 7-8 days received an encouraging email from a screener that rejected all my photos:

"FANTASTIC SHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - can you USM sharpen with a lower radius "

I thought sure, why not, I USM sharpened with a lower radius,and re-uploaded (some 8245 pictures were ahead of mine in the queue). I only waited about 2 weeks and got this:

"Badblurry, The image quality of these photos is low, etc... If you think you have been able to improve the quality of the photos, please re-upload them etc..."

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20040208_lxd320.jpg

Well, looks as though I can't use the unsharp mask in Photoshop, no worries, I have other photos, I'll upload them.
Meanwhile I'll see what other photos have been uploaded:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Joe Corrigan
View Large View Medium

Photo © Manuel Marin - IBERIAN SPOTTERS



These are both great photos and I applaud the photographers, they deserve the high viewcounts, they deserve to be at Airliner's.net, but I don't think mine is much blurrier. Or is it?

Actually, I don't take any of this seriously and think the screeners are doing a great job. If anything, I'd like to see the above process happen in a day or two and not take a month.

So if you think a photo is worth getting into the db after a little retouching, could you appoint 1 screener to screen the re-uploads in a separate queue?

-Peter Fagerström-
















[Edited 2004-02-27 23:29:43]

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1711 times:

Peter,
that photo is blurry, and in my view, a little too dark. It's obvious that the camera metered only the light from the panel and nothing else. How was it taken? Hand held? Tripod?


User currently offlineWoody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1701 times:

First - great shot, I like it.

I just sharpened your photo using USM 200%/0.5/00 and it seems to bring out the detail in the gauges etc.

When you re-uploaded the photo did you write in the comment box that it had been altered as suggested by first screener...? Not sure it would help but worth a try.

Best of luck and keep those cockpit shots coming.

Ian.



If I could just get the afterburner working...
User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1686 times:

Hi Jeff (in Denver)

It is dark, but it was dark when I took it. I had to meter the instruments, otherwise they'd be overexposed. It's a 6 sec exposure and taken on a tripod.

But that's beside the point. What I'm suggesting is a second queue for shots that the screeners think will make the db after a little retouching. 1 screener could be appointed to be in charge of such a queue. And you wouldn't have to queue twice with the same picture.

Most of my shots deserve to be rejected, but I've just started this hobby...

-Peter-



User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2826 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

Peter, there are a couple of things I would point out to you.

First off, a little bit of USM is needed, and this helps the sharpness. But unfortunately that isn't the only issue that IMHO resulted in the rejection.

The photo is basically boring. It is a mass of glowing lights and instruments without any frame of reference. By this I mean that the panel really isn't visible, nor the crew at work, nor any outside detail.

The two other photos you post as example shots by both Joe and Manuel tell a story. They show the crew at work, the instruments in the panel which you can clearly see. Also they show some detail outside the windows to frame and reference the photos. Your photo on the other hand is simply glowing dials floating in a basically black hole.

As I said, the difference isn't just sharpness, but story information conveyed. Yours is a good effort, but it needs just that bit more to make A.net standards. Don't be discouraged, just keep plugging.

Steve


User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

Steve, I tried the crew at work thing already, also the detail outside the windows thing:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=200311_22.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20040124_166.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20031217lbx.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20040124_lzd1.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20040124_lzd8.jpg

That's why I tried the the floating glowing dials thing Smile

Next time I'll try something different. I'm not worried about my rejects, I'd just like a separate queue for nearly-approved shots.

-Peter-


User currently offlineAirhead711 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 249 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

I think maybe you need to use a wider angle lens?
Most of the photos seem to get cutoff on one side.But nice shots anyway.

S.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A Little Bit Disappointed... posted Fri Feb 27 2004 23:20:28 by Pepef
A Little Explanation posted Thu May 31 2007 21:03:28 by Stu1978
Having A Little Trouble With These 2! posted Sat May 26 2007 07:52:28 by Damien846
A Little Tired Of Those Rejections. posted Sun Dec 10 2006 17:38:14 by B076
A Little Advice Please? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 15:22:20 by Chachu201
A Little Surprising Motiv Rejection posted Fri Oct 6 2006 13:44:28 by Aero145
A Little Flare Could Be Acceptable? posted Thu Aug 31 2006 19:53:53 by Bubbles
A Little Clarification Help Please... posted Thu Jul 27 2006 03:53:45 by MarkJBeckwith
A Little Photo Help Please posted Sat Jul 22 2006 19:22:26 by AlitaliaMD11
Air India Nose Closeup... Little Help Needed posted Fri Jun 16 2006 06:39:17 by Airplanenut