Schweizair From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 139 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1842 times:
There is something odd going on with the pictures shown in the websites.
I still don't always understand all the reasons someone gets a picture approved for the site and another doesn't. There are some obvious ones such as a picture that has been overexposed or the contrast is too high or low.
If someone stumbled across an old picture and wanted to submit it, are the chances lower than with a picture taken yesterday?
Do some feel that there's too much glare on the plane's side? Does anyone have a picture that was rejected because there was excessive glare on the plane?
Then there's the hard one: taking artistic shots. Suppose you want to catch a plane moving and you deliberately pan the camera so that the plane appears still but the background is blurred. How do you get that kind of shot approved or is there a little bit of luck involved every time?
Are digital pictures rejected more than film? I have manual controls on my digital HP 735 camera but am afraid that I will not be able to manipulate the settings enough to produce a picture good enough for submission. Anyone know a trick or two on how to do this?
First off learn to use your camera. Feel free to ask for advice here in the forum and read up on photography techniques. Learn how to post process your photos using Photoshop, PS Elements or another editing program. If you can take a decent photo and can process it properly you will be able to upload here. Don't learn the basics and you will get frustrated quickly.
I suggest uploading a couple to the sister site here and then asking for advice.
Cicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1810 times:
The older images were always subjected to a lower threshold of screening, but apparently the bar was dropped a bit further in recent times. I seem to remember a screener mentioned it in the forum not long ago.
I am glad we can view some of the older shots even if they are of lower quality. I would guess they are especially considered if there are no examples of the registation yet in the database as well.
I know in the past there were some older images that were substantially off level. Not sure why those were not kicked back for correction, but perhaps the folks submitting them were not familiar with how to do that.
Schweizair From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1792 times:
I was not bashing the other photographer. You misunderstood the entire post. I plan to take a few pictures and submit them sometime in the future and have no idea how get a picture approved because the bar keeps changing. There are several pictures people tried to post that have been rejected and they look perfectly fine to me.
I have not posted any pictures yet.
Because of that, I had to find an example. I feel that my question would be incomplete if I didn't give an example. There are thousands of pictures that have been posted by others as examples. It's rude to quickly accuse someone of "ripping off" another person. I did NOT anywhere in the post state "I shot this picture." I was stating that I've seen an angry post or two from others who said something like "they said my picture was underexposed a bit." Or, "they said I touched it up in the wrong areas." You should read Cicadajet's post as well. I was stating that it was sometimes unclear why the webmasters rejected some pictures and approved others. Keep in mind, a few have tried several times with no luck and, understandably, were frustrated by the rejections. Having seen hundreds of pictures and hearing words from the webmaster like:
"pan wider next time"
"is out of focus but isn't a motion shot"
"no glare should be present from this angle"
I've seen pictures that had some glare when shot straight on and were accepted. Then a few with a tiny bit of glare were rejected. Then I've seen some pictures that, understandably, were taken in a situation where there wasn't enough time to get the picture perfectly focused and SOME were accepted and OTHERS were rejected.
Note: although it says "No hostile language or criticizing of others," I tried to find a picture that I felt they might claim was "overexposed" or "had a bit too much glare". I had to explain why I was confused about the rules for getting a picture approved. I think you totally misunderstood why I posted this question.
KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1787 times:
I don't think the second photo is too grainy at all. A lot of my pictures have that much grain and sometimes more...all depending on what film I use. If you know of a grainless film let me know...cuz I've been looking for a long time!!! Usually the prosumer digital SLR's take very good photos with no grain. The point is, if you reject photos with any kind of grain, then you'll be rejecting photos taken on film.
Manzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1735 times:
I'm afraid it's you who appears to have got the wrong end of the stick mate! Tony's response to you was polite and friendly as far as I can see and yet somehow you seem to have misconstrued his comments as being personal.
The bit about using others images to make a point is also very valid and just good manners IMHO.
I recommend you re-read his response... you might be surprised at how it reads the second time out!
Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist