Granite From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 1999, 5364 posts, RR: 76 Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1687 times:
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3562 posts, RR: 70 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1663 times:
Normally I do not keep my a.net screening emails longer than 1-2 months... And I had almost no rejections during the last weeks, so nothing to show you guys
regards, Florian
AirTeamImages - take the high road and others will follow
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1940 posts, RR: 46 Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
Rejected for badscan, badcontrast.
Frankly these screeners infuriate me. I have over 450 similar in the queue that I spent hours uploading straight from the card of my £5000 DSLR. The 862 BA A319's that I'm presently uploading had better bloody be accepted, or there will be hell to pay.
A3204eva From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 21 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
EGGD From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2001, 12377 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1473 times:
A3204EVA - did i see you then? I was at the AVP on the 10th April, although I got there a bit later in the day (2:30pm-3:00pm).
Futterman From United States, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 55 Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1356 times:
Curt: This has baffled me ever since I saw your first rejections...why do you upload at 1600 wide? You would get much, MUCH better quality if you uploaded at regular 1024, especially if you added in a little hint of USM.
If you did that, your 880 shots, CO takeoff shot from DCA (personal favorite), and I'd assume most or all of your rejections or MyAviation photos would make it onto A.net.
Concord977 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 1255 posts, RR: 43 Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
JeffM,
I just believe strongly that there is enough historical significance to these two aircraft (which most people thought had been destroyed), that the aircraft would've been worth seeing - even if they did not measure up to current a.net standards.
Futterman,
I asked you in another thread for some help in understanding your advice on the 1600 vs. 1024 thing. I never saw a reply.
Concord977 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 1255 posts, RR: 43 Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1312 times:
Futterman,
Copied over from the other thread:
Josh & Brian . . .
I will take your advice on the sizing, but I must admit that I don't quite understand it.
Why would an image sized to 1024 display HIGHER resolution than one sized to 1600? It seems that there would be fewer pixels with which to display the details, such as reg. numbers, door outlines, etc.
Bigphilnyc From United States, joined Jan 2002, 4004 posts, RR: 63 Reply 25, posted (5 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1298 times:
I agree with Futterman, and I'll explain, as the boy is probably sleeping.
Look at a newspaper picture. it looks decent, but once you get REALLY close, you can see all the dots that make up the picture.
When your pic is 1600 wide, it shows a closer look at any faults that there might be, and will give the impression of higher quality.
I've seen many thumbnails of shots that seemed liek they might be of GREAT quality, but was disappointed when I clicked on it to learn that they were old crappy shots with many flaws. I had fallen for it myself there!
I highly recommend you try it. It will make them more visually pleasing and hide certain faults,while maintaing the shot's integrity. Remember that most people are viewing their screens at 1024 these days, and 1024 is not THAT small to lose detail.
Cheers
-Phil
Phil Derner Jr. - NYCAviation
26 Concord977: Phil, Thanks for the advice. I will indeed try it. This has been a big day for me: I have received and installed Photoshop (I was using PhotoPaint bef
29 Andrewuber: For those of you still scratching your heads about why 1024 is better than 1600 - 90% of people's desktops are in 1024 resoultion. When they click "Se
31 Q330: Since I haven't had any photos accepted to A.net yet, I suppose this is my best photo overall (from my very limited collection). http://myaviation.net
32 Olympus69: how do I get a myav. thumbnail to show up in a post? Use this - myaid:xxxxx with left/right arrow thingies front and back. (xxxxx=id number) If I use
33 Q330: Olympus 69, That didn't work for me. Should it look like this (but without the spaces)? < m y a i d : 9 6 5 2 1> -Q
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1996 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 1999, 5364 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3562 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1940 posts, 
Good looking photo, well composed Sulman...
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2001, 2364 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 623 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}