Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rejection Is Far To Much Now!  
User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4370 times:

Guys

I am writing with great disappointment and sadness with regards to the rejection process which I now DO NOT agree with.

I have been uploading for years and getting better (in my opinion) every year and while the standards have been getting tougher I have still managed to keep my acceptance rate high.

UNTIL!
4-6 weeks ago. Every 7 out of 10 photographs were rejected! I mean come on I accept some should be rejected but not most of them.

Anyways
While I enjoy viewing the photographs I don't enjoy participating in any photo uploads anymore. I have reached the point where I feel my photographs are acceptable for me but not for the site so its time to quit uploading.

Here is the latest batch which I feel were harshly treated. Does anyone agree? I don't want to drown the page with all the rejections but lets just say they are all similar in quality, saturation, sharpness and detail.

I would appreciate any feedback.

badcameraangle
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=nw330amsca2.jpg

badcameraangle
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=klm777amsca2.jpg
Ok maybe tail was clipped but still a awsome photo

badcameraangle
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=co777amsca.jpg

badcameraangle
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=hbizisf2000.jpg

badcameraangle
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=klm777amsca.jpg



80 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4310 times:

1 ,2 and 3 are not lvld ..... , rotate a bit ....
4 looks okay to me, the lightpole looks straight to me ..... , actaully like that shot a lot ...
5 is not lvld again ... , also , if u crop, then try to show the whole engine .....

just my 2 cents

robin



ABC
User currently offlineGo3Team From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4299 times:

I have to agree on the badangle on all except #4. It was pretty hard to tell without getting the protractor out  Smile. Rotate them a few degrees and see what happens.


Yay Pudding!
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Colin

Your pictures are fantastic, and are comfortably above the "minimum" standard for airliners.net acceptance. All of the links you posted were to "badcameraangle" rejections. I have studied each one in close detail, and completely agree - they are all NOT level, especially HB-IZI.

Of all the rejection reasons, this is the easiest one to fix & reupload. I'd bet if there were all "level" then they'd probably all be accepted.

When checking to ensure an image is level, it's best to use the verticals in the image. In your case, all your images need a small rotation to ensure the lampposts are vertical. In your case, this will have the benefit of levelling up the horizontal of the runway too.

Please, don't be disheartened. Your image quality is great.

Tamsin
airliners.net Screener



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3516 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4295 times:

Colin - you just can't quit! I've admired your CPH shots for years - many of them still sit in My pictures folder to be displayed as a screensaver.

Badcamerangle is one of the most controversial rejections specially if photograph is rejected for being 0,1% off level - just like this one:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Daniel Wojdylo


previously rejected for badcamerangle - rotated 0,1% and accepted. IMHO that 0,1% does not make any difference.

Daniel

[Edited 2004-04-07 18:14:22]

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4267 times:

If you don't enjoy the process anymore then I would agree and support your decision to stop uploading. No one forces us to do this. If it were not fun for me, I would stop as well. Not everyone knows when to quit.

Sometimes taking a break is a good thing and you come back invigorated, and with new ideas. It also helps to get you back to the basics. I disagree with your using the term "harsh treatment". They are clearly not level, and as such were rejected.

Jeff


User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4258 times:

Guys

Thanks for the comments. I think I will give the uploading a rest for now. I have over 300 shots but it seems every time I upload I get rejected. My problem is I think they are good but someone else doesn't. That's fair I guess but its a lot of hours which I don't have in my life just now. Maybe in the future I will have more time to spend.

I think Danny hit the nail bang on the head. The 0,1% type of scenario. But then again its all about personal preference of the screener. That's something which we have to live with but something which can really irate us because it irritates us. Just like when it rains outside we always want to blame someone.

I will leave you with one final picture I have ready to upload. To me this is as good as I will get. Lets see what some of you think. If you were a screener would you reject it?

http://www.pbase.com/image/27705002/original

Thanks
Colin


User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4247 times:

Colin,

In my opinion the COA777 and SF2000 are not bad angle other three are marginally out.

The KLM777 in your last post is the worst of the lot  Wink/being sarcastic The buildings give it away much more than in the other images.

Out of interest new or old Screeners?

Cheers

Paul


User currently offlineAn-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

Colin,

It's not level once again... I have that problem too, a lot of my shots are crooked, but it's pretty easy to fix by rotating and cropping... It's not like you're having quality problems.

Alex.



Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
User currently offlinePH-OTO From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 434 posts, RR: 31
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4238 times:

Colin,

I am a screener and I would reject for badcamera angle.
This is not a personal preference as a screener, but a simple rule that we all like to see the picture as they are in real life: with a straight horizon.
I agree there are bordercases and there always will be, but your last example isn't.

Don't get me wrong it is a great shot, as are the others, and is up to A.net standards by miles, but it just isn't straight. Draw a horizontal line across your picture and you'll see. As Tamsin said: it is one of the easiest things to fix.

Tip:
A good measure tool if you are working with Photoshop is pressing CTRL+"
You will see a gridline which makes a perfect measurement tool

If you enter this CTRL+" check in your standard editing procedure I am convinced your acceptance level will rise to old levels.

Martin



Look very closely between the lines of this message, and you will see the captain beating up the jumpseater
User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

Colin,

I have to agree with the screeners on this, just a small angular correction is all that's required mate!

I feel your frustration I really do but to stop because of something as simple as fixing the angle?

I hope you reconsider.

Cheers!

Rez
 Big thumbs up



Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4221 times:

Martin, Thanks for the tip.
Paul, Sorry I don't know the new screeners, just the old squad

Rest
Thanks for the criticism, I'm sure I'm not the only feeling like this so this thread can benefit others reading.

From what your all saying your telling me that the background is more important to be level (Lampposts, runways, buildings) than the main subject. Of course aircraft are not always level, they fly in pitch and move in angles. Hard stuff to get everything in angle.

Here is the original
http://www.pbase.com/image/27705002/original

And the one I tried to change.
http://www.pbase.com/image/27705892

I did the Grid on Photoshop and rotated the image to the left so that the runway (which is the most important straight line in this photo) was level. I left the borders white to show how much tilt there has been.

Can anyone come up with something better? Or more thoughts. I'm no big head, I learn from others and if often takes something like this to kick it along the way.

Thanks


User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4210 times:

Guys

Here is another one which I feel I would love to upload but I think you cant say if its level. The taxiway is bent, How do you make this photograph level? At what point would a screener use for reference?

http://www.pbase.com/image/27706129

Thanks


User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4204 times:

Cabbott,

You got rejections, but what is it about the "process" that you disagree with? I agree with your rejections. I'm no master, but I think your framing is a bit off.

Hashly treated? Relax, it's the internet.

I'd have a little more sympathy if you didn't come off so rude just because your ego felt that your pictures were so wonderful.

Being upset with rejections is fine, I'm SURE I'll be making rejection posts in the near future, but there's a way to go about it. The screeners work hard and you were slightly disrespectful, not only to them, but to any Anet members and photographer who works hard to get their pics on here.

Cheers

-Phil




Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4195 times:

Colin,
I looked through all your pbase images. You have a lot of really nice photos. One thing I noticed was your exposures were so much better and color much more vibrant with the Cybershot then what you are using now. I'm not sure what type of processing you did to them, or the current ones, but if you go back and take a look, you will see the difference.

Maybe it is just the 300d's exposure is not set right, as they appear slightly underexposed.

Jeff


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4192 times:

One more thing, which nobody mentioned, look at the dark blue cheatline on the KLM 777 photos. Isn't it a bit jagged?





How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlinePH-OTO From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 434 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

Yes, it is a tricky taxiway, I know as an AMS local.
The problem is more that it has a curve. I would rotate until the left edge of the taxiway is more or less equal to the right edge.
This one would need at least 0.5 CCW rotation to get there. My reference in this case also is the sound screen in the background

You also run the risk of a badcentered rejection with this one, but that's beside your intital point. Good luck.

Martin Boschhuizen



Look very closely between the lines of this message, and you will see the captain beating up the jumpseater
User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4165 times:

Colin,

The KLM 777 looks good for level now, but remember to work from the original  Wink/being sarcastic

The MPH 747 is a tricky one, me personally I would leave it as it is the lamp on the left and the blue post are both vertical and the KLM 737 is pretty much level. Not sure about the sounds screen as the posst seem vertical to me, without putting it in PS anway  Nuts

I think badangle is always one of the toughest decisions to make Johan has alowed us some tolerance but it all depends on the image that we see before us.

Cheers

Paul


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4160 times:

Very nice shots! I love em, especially the CO close up. Looking at it at 1600 res all of them are crystal clear and sharp and a joy to view on my 19 inch monitor.  Big thumbs up
I also see the slight tilt (camera angle) of the pictures you have shown us.
When photographers get rejections over such minute things it does feel quite dissapointing, but don't forget that this is airliners.net we're talking about. It is as if we are sending photos to Time Magazine to be published. Even the smallest of things will make a big deal. Most of those pictures that I see are like 0.1% off level as what some of the other guys had pointed out.
Easy to fix forsure, and we understand if you wish to take a break from uploading.

I am already having my break from uploading at this time. Haven't sent a picture in about a week so far.



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4153 times:


So far Bigphilnyc your the only 1 with nothing constructive to say. I wonder
what the others are thinking when they are reading your posts. Your being very helpful and a true diamond in our community! not...

Congratulations on being the first *anny to bring down the conversation.

Thanks you for your detailed expressions. It's it nice to have a thorn in the bush...

Have a nice day as they say in your area...
****************************
Codeshare, Thanks but I think its the size and compression for quick viewing.
Sukhoi, Many thanks for your very constructive approach and help




User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4139 times:

Ha. Because I came out with what I felt was your being disrespectful? God forbid I be outspoken.

As for photo critique, I gave similar comments like everoyne else said.

Just because I disagreed with you in a stern way, I'm not constructive? You asked for opinions and I gave it to you straight. Get real.

I didn't throw insults, you're getting ddefensive because you just don't like what I said.

My only regret is that I didn't give you any compliments with my negative criticism. In fact, I had just spent the last 20 minutes checking out your shots because I wanted to say something nicer about your work, and came back into the thread to post, but if you're going to whine becuase I "attacked your framing", then forget it.



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4138 times:

Colin,
I may be wrong, but the attitude of this last post is what Phil is talking about.... I admire him for his direct to the point attitude, we can probably use more of it.

Jeff


User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4106 times:

Jeff

Forgive me for getting mad, perhaps its Phil with the BIG BALLS and the rest of the posters who are quiet like mice.

I appreciate criticism, far from me to step on anyone who has something bad to say but I felt out of all the postings Phil's was the most NEGATIVE. Its better to be a problem solver than a problem maker and if Phil had said " I think you could improve it this way if you did this and that" he would have my utter respect as a fellow photographs and forum user. Instead a got waffle about respect to screeners etc etc.

In respect Jeff your comment of "we can probably use more of it" I don't think so. I believe that if your going post you post with the view of helping others. Phil didn't help me in anyway, he just banged on about respect and bla bla bla. In fact the more I read it the more I realise that there is people here which approach any subject with a huge negativity and a very LARGE chip on the shoulder.



User currently offlineSpotterboy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4104 times:

For getting back to your first posting:

#1: Look at the lightpoles - rotate the image 1° to the left, and crop a bit closer to the aircraft's nose - it will be accepted!

#2: Absolutely the same as #1

#3: I like it, don't see anything wrong with it.

#4: Also - i don't know why badcameraangle ... looks good to me

#5: You might rotate it 1° to the left...

In general, all these images are top quality, and full of action - just a small correction here and there - they will go up like a rocket if they make it into the DB.

hope this helps...


Keep up the good work!

regards, Florian


User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 43
Reply 24, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4070 times:

Cabbott



I'm glad someone in this thread finally approached matters maturely and took them into their own hands.

Phil, that is.

Sure, he may have come off a little negative, although I beg to differ. I'm sure this must be a very disturbing time for you (since you obviously regard yourself very highly), but you have no right whatsoever to blatantly disregard someone's critique--be it towards your photographs or your attitude.

For your own sake, before you embarrass yourself and scar your reputation as a renowned and respected photographer on this site, I suggest you calm down, and take it all in stride.



What the FUTT?
25 Post contains images Bigphilnyc : Maybe I was wrong. Doubtful to me, but maybe. I'll break it down for you all so as to show exactly why I felt that way I felt. I'm saying this to get
26 Timdegroot : Colin, it's a shame you don't enjoy uploading anymore. I think your pictures are definitely a.net material and enjoy them very much. However, I agree
27 Post contains links Jan Mogren : Colin, they are easy to fix. Just check here http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/76567 /JM
28 Cabbott : Tim What I'm starting to dislike (I have to choose words carefully now as the American dictionary is reading) is spending my spare time uploading stuf
29 Post contains images Pepef : After going through this topic I'm finally convinced there isn't a conspiracy going on against my picture uploads only In fact your rejects beat my re
30 Mirage : I find it funny, people who like to announce to the audience that they are leaving, but a few monthes later they came back, quietly. Luis
31 Timdegroot : Peter, Don't make the screeners look petty. These pictures aren't 0.1% unlevel. Tim
32 Post contains images Timdegroot : Yes Luis, most of them come back, without saying a word Tim
33 Ckw : Colin - I know exactly how you feel, yet, the pics are crooked and by A.net rules, should be rejected - and yes, as Tamsin says, they are an easy fix,
34 IL76 : Maybe so, but a rotation that can be fixed in less than a minute is something that can be brought to the attention of the photographer so he can pay a
35 Pepef : Timdegroot, I didn't try to make the screeners look petty. I'm sorry if you thought so. What I meant was what Ckw wrote. He put it more eloquently, I
36 Timdegroot : OK sorry I misunderstood you, don't worry about it. Tim
37 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Colin, coming in late to this thread.......had better things to do than view Airliners recently..........hey my hero Agnetha Faltskog is releas
38 Post contains links Futterman : Colin/Ckw: Brilliant post. Here's a link to a similar discussion I started in Site-Related that is more or less arguing the same point: http://www.air
39 Swaphx99 : Over the past couple weeks, I have attempted to upload roughly 10 pictures and only one was accepted. I think that is due to me learning the in and ou
40 Timdegroot : Kevin, if you need help start a thread in this forum! Tim
41 Post contains images Ckw : Eduard - yes it is an easy fix, and yes ColinA could/should fix it now that it has been pointed out. But I guess what I'm saying is, how much does it
42 Post contains images Jakbar : As an aside, I strongly encourage everyone to read Futterman's discussion in the site-related forum. Even if you don't agree with his view, I am sure
43 Vafi88 : Cabbot, I've always enjoyed your photographs and your skill as a photographer, but just to point it out: Please use VERTICAL reference because the ram
44 Post contains images An-225 : Colin, As I said in this thread before, your pictures are definitely airliners.net material. All they need to have is just that little rotation. And b
45 Post contains images Futterman : Wow...Josh (Jakbar)...thanks a LOT. I'm happy my thoughts come across with some sort of value, be it just to you or everybody else. Thanks! He's right
46 Vafi88 : Yeah, Like Jakbar, I also encourage everyone to participate in Futterman's post. He's very smart (haha) for his age, and a pleasant person to talk to
47 Post contains links LGW : Colin, Maybe not constructive help with regards to your post but this kind of compounds what others have said. If you have somewhere to host it could
48 Cabbott : Hey Everyone. This is now turning into a good thread with lots of help. As always Ckw nailed it to perfection and there is really no other way to desc
49 EGBB : Colin, Very interesting thread indeed! It is so easy for anyone to point out faults on rejected pictures but would it not be nice if we could do the s
50 Post contains links Cabbott : Ben Here it is straight from the camera in huge size. http://www.pbase.com/image/27729556/original Here is the rejected shot http://airliners.net/proc
51 Post contains links and images IL76 : Lets see if this works: http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid110/pc1daa8d7e8514cf77c2017c162964635/f91738c7.jpg.orig.jpg This is a very quick edit
52 Granite : Colin Would appreciate is you could acknowledge my comments. Thanks Gary
53 Post contains images Paulinbna : Alright what I did was go and get one of those small levels. (with the bubbles in it) Anyway I laid it across the top of the screen at home and it was
54 Cabbott : Sorry Gary how could I leave out a fellow Tenants Lager fan. While I loved the Cybershot cameras nothing can be quite as perfect as the DSLR. It opens
55 Cabbott : Eduard Thanks for that. It does look MUCH better. Can you give us a breakdown on your technique used for this shot? Colin
56 Post contains images LeelooBastet : Hi every one Sorry I'm new (and french moreover), so maybe there are things i won't always understand in first time. I'm not going to help in this thr
57 Post contains images IL76 : It was a rush job... What I did: 1. Open your pic 2. Rotate CCW 0.7 degrees 3. Cropped to 3:2 ratio again 4. Played with the colourlevels a bit. Cyan/
58 Post contains links and images Joge : A.net is becoming a more 'clinical' and narrow-minded site in regards to photograpic creativity Hold on a sec. I think the situation is just the oppos
59 Post contains links and images EGBB : Colin, I have uploaded my edited version on ATI for you to see: http://www.airteamimages.com/pages/klm/klm-777.html As I go to AMS in two weeks can yo
60 Post contains links Bernieh : Here are is a link on how to make an image level (in Photoshop): http://www.lonestardigital.com/crooked_pictures.htm Don't know if you know that but I
61 Cabbott : Hi Derek Thanks for that. It does look better but you and I both know Media Publications are not looking for straight lampposts, or blurred engine log
62 Post contains images Sukhoi : Derek, You version of the KLM 777 is nearly as good as the picture on page 7 of the May AI Cheers Paul
63 Post contains images EGBB : Paul, I have yet to see it!!!! Do I look that bad??? Derek in hiding for a bit now
64 Post contains links and images Manzoori : Colin, I've had a crack at your image as well. It would be interesting to hear a screeners view on whether it would be accepted or not.... there's def
65 MIAMIx707 : Whenever I get my slides back and I see something that is not level, especially a side on shot, I think ugh that's ugly! However some angles like 3/4
66 Mirage : "My point is while is was not good enough for a.net it was good enough for Denmark’s largest newspaper on the front cover with a audience of 5 Milli
67 Post contains images Cabbott : Luis I think your miss understanding my point. I agree Airliners.net is special and has its own criteria but I was trying to point out that because A.
68 Mirage : No, of course Airliners.net rejected photos doesn't have to be necessarly bad photos, I agree on this. In fact this website has a long experience in r
69 Post contains images Sukhoi : Rez, Your shot appears to lean to the left a little too much BUT I would say that the aircraft is past 90 degrees to the photographer so that would be
70 Post contains images EGBB : Paul, I have had a few model agencies on the phone already Just skip page 7 and go to pages 72-76 is my best advice As for Anet it has to move on and
71 Post contains images Sukhoi : Derek, AI will soon stand for Airteam Illustrated monthly Page 72-76 seems to be missing from my copy Cheers Paul
72 Post contains images Manzoori : Hi Paul, Thanks for the feedback mate!... your looking at the runway aren't you? I levelled it against the grass horizon... I initially levelled it by
73 MIAMIx707 : I offer two suggestions. If you have to manipulate the image so much to get accepted, why not erase the lamp poles? If there is a lamp pole not at a p
74 Post contains images AA777 : Do you think they should have rejected mine? I thought it had nice color and a cool lineup.... Sunset Picture of AA Tails at SJU: -AA777
75 Post contains links AA777 : Hmm sorry about that, here's the link itself http://myaviation.net/?pid=00082420 The picture is good quality in medium size, but it gets grainy when i
76 JeffM : It's pretty dark, and like you said, a bit grainy as well. Maybe fifteen minutes earlier would have done the trick.
77 Atco : Have to whole-heartedly agree with Colin W, as usual. Doesn't this just demonstrate how ridiculous things are when we are having an in-depth discussio
78 JeffM : I'm sure Avis says something similar about Hertz.... "Not exactly..." LOL...
79 Paulinbna : The best thing I found is to use the grids in Photoshop. It was discussed earlier in the thread. What I do is view the picture at full size. Then push
80 Jan Mogren : >then rotate arbitrarily .2 each time
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...
Now This Is A Shot To Aspire To! posted Mon Jan 17 2005 16:45:38 by Fergulmcc
Darkness Rejection - Is It My Monitor? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 23:09:56 by Hpr7
To Much Clutter? posted Sat Apr 1 2006 14:27:34 by EWS
To Much Bokeh? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 20:33:17 by Maiznblu_757
My "best" Rejection So Far! posted Sun Mar 12 2006 14:53:45 by SNATH
Rejection - Any Way To Improve This Photo? posted Thu Jan 26 2006 00:44:08 by QantasA332
When Is It "Too Much" Dust In Your Lense... posted Tue Nov 29 2005 10:04:50 by Speedbird128
USM Is Going To Be The Death Of Me... posted Fri Oct 28 2005 16:01:32 by Flyfisher1976
Lufthansa 321 Retro Colors To Much! posted Sat Apr 2 2005 13:31:10 by JK
This Is Nice To See... posted Sun Oct 17 2004 21:33:37 by Kaddyuk