Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Old Versus New  
User currently offlineSchweizair From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 139 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1802 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?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mick Bajcar


Wouldn't this picture be rejected for being too grainy? Would the person submitting it be asked to darken it just a tiny bit? It looks like there's a bit too much glare on the plane near the back.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jean-Luc ALTHERR


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?

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

Your first question is answered in the FAQ's for the site...old and rare means lower standards. Recent photos must meet higher standards.

It is poor form to pull a photo out and criticize it/the photographer. Submit your own and let them stand on their own merit.

Blurring the back ground is not simple, but also not that hard once you have the technique down. If the airplane is sharp it will be accepted. (See this example...)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Zeljeznjak



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.

Cheers,

Tony


User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1770 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.


User currently offlineSchweizair From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

2912n:

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.

Hope that explains everything but I doubt it.


User currently offlineKC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1747 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.

-Benjamin


User currently offline2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Well so much for offering advice in what I had hoped was a friendly manner. Obviously not. No wonder fewer and fewer photographers are willing to help newcomers.

Enjoy yourself here at airliners.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

Seems to be more and more common lately Tony..... Some people "get it" and others don't. Oh well...

-Jeff


User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

Schweizair,

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!

Cheers!

Rez
 Big thumbs up



Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Old subjects, rare subjects, new subjects not in the database all get more leeway in terms of standards - unless they're likely to become common (so don't expect any leeway on BA's newest A319!!!)

A


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...
Who Says You Can't Teach An Old Dog New Tricks? posted Mon Apr 4 2005 21:57:50 by USAir_757
Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks posted Wed Feb 14 2001 18:58:16 by Round_Engine
Old Banner Type On A New Photo... posted Tue Nov 15 2005 18:18:36 by Asgeirs
Replacing Old Pic With New One posted Thu May 3 2001 03:18:59 by Joe pries
I Got New Equipment posted Sat Dec 16 2006 12:39:52 by EZYAirbus
Another New Airport ID? posted Fri Dec 1 2006 20:00:47 by JOliver
Colorizing Old Black And Whites posted Thu Nov 30 2006 20:35:11 by SlamClick
Upload Queue Limits Change For New Photographers posted Thu Nov 23 2006 20:10:18 by Administrator
New Lens Feedback posted Sun Nov 19 2006 08:40:07 by Aussie18
Very Old Pictures posted Sat Nov 18 2006 02:31:47 by Flugnord