My question is... ignoring quality, is it worth the effort to lay on the ground, stand up on that wall, or stick the lense between that fence to take shots such as these? The more I look at them, the more I realize that they may just be summoned to badmotiv.
Either way, I'm going to keep on doing what I do because it makes me happy.
There is a fine line between a picture and a photo. The latter seems to be disappearing.
To be honest, I can't stand certain locations because the same people that have been shooting longer than I have decimated the areas to the point where I feel that everything I am shooting has been done.
If it weren't for my exploring for new locations which give new vantage points unseen before, I'd probably be very unmotivated to shoot at all. Most spots I find allow me about 8-10 different "motiv" options just from that one location.
But the thing is, in order to make it appealing, you should probably shoot airliners instead.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2641 times:
You need to ask yourself a serious question: WHY do you photograph aircraft.
If it's just to get them accepted here you'll have to conform to the narrow definition of what is a good photo as used by the screeners.
If it's because you like photography for its own sake and don't care if the screeners like your work or not do whatever you fancy and be a better photographer as a result (and have a better time doing it).
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2551 times:
I think new angles are important - both to keep the photographer's brain activated and to create interesting images.
However, the new angle should serve a purpose - for instance, dramatic effect, setting the aircraft in its environment or highlighting a particular aspect of the aircraft.
I'm not sure you have quite achieved this in pics 1 -3 - I'm left wondering why you chose those particular angles, as I'm not sure what you're trying to show me - I can imagine many other angles which would illustrate the aircraft better. Number 4 I can see wht you're getting at.
I think the process should be "how to I want the viewer to see this aircraft?", then find an angle which makes your message clear, not simply difference for the sake of it.
Woody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 23 Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2537 times:
Number 4 is a start.
I think I may have shot from under the starboard wing, due to the angle the two are facing each other you could of moved more towards the tip and still framed the other aircraft well. This would of removed the support rod from crossing the other aircraft, which spoils the shot.
As the sun is not correct at the time of day you shot though it would have to be earlier or later so as to illuminate the facing aircraft.
Saxdiva From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2382 posts, RR: 44 Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2472 times:
wanna know why they are called "new" angles? Because they suck (no offense).
With all due respect to Clickhappy, I don't think I'd be deterred from shooting angles that interest you. It's like any other kind of art--if nobody pushes the boundaries, nothing new ever evolves. Just because it doesn't fit into established uploading guidelines of a site like a.net doesn't mean it sucks--just that it doesn't for a particular screening criteria. You know this, but I'll say it anyway--if you shoot just to upload here, you're probably missing the point.
Incidentally, of all the airplane shots I've taken thus far, my very favorite won't get uploaded. It's just too "artsy" to bother.
Rotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2399 times:
Shoot the new angles, Chris. Look foreward to a lot of trash shots, a lot of rejects, a lot of time at the Shrink... but every once in a while you'll get a "different" one accepted. The screeners will get an e-mail from 'up top' that says "never again!", your photo will either bomb or rocket on the hit scale, and the cycle will repeat. Eventually you'll probably get 'the one' shot and it will all have been worth it.
The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9549 posts, RR: 70 Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2396 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
you know why they are called "new?" Because most (not all) are unappealing. Taking a half-ass shot of a winglet or a tail, just to "take a picture" doesn't create an artistic or interesting shot. Most of the rejected shots you see were taken that way because there was either A) Lots of ramp lice in the way or B) The shooter didn't have a wide angle lense.
Also, personal satisfaction from a shot has nothing to do with the comments Mike made above. If you take a great shot, that YOU love, why would you care what the screeners think?
Having a picture accepted or rejected at Airliners.net doesn't validate the shot.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2348 times:
The best part about it is all the special access and the plane rides for me and recieving tons of emails from people who appreciate my shots.
Cashing checks, is just a perk. I enjoy the extra cash, dont get me wrong though ... The amount of hits isnt really important to me as it really means nothing as far as how good the shot is. I have seen some photos I thought deserved many more hits than it recieved.
Take this one for example, great color, great angle, great form. Not that many hits though. This one is magazine quality.
Bigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4075 posts, RR: 55 Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
I think the conversation has shifted a little to why we shoot at all.
With several sites I am building, aviation is becoming a small business for me. We'l see how I do, ut to be honest, it's gotten to the point where my Anet exposure helps out word of mouth about my sites. So, hits are good for business, as exposure in anything you do can help and it is a guage of progress in many ways.
That being said, the kind of shots that get a lot of views very well might not be the kind of shots that get you sales. I love nice angles and such, but sales are often for side-on shots for publication or 'motivs' along those lines. Royal happens to get side-on shots of amazing subjects, and he is smart enough to manage his exposure the right way so he can turn his artistic ability into a fatter wallet. That, at the very least, earns him respect from me.
But then there is the artistic expression aspect. Most of us like taking photos just because we like it. But my motivation changes with each shot. I often want to 'express' a view or idea in my shots, but if they jsut sit on my computer in a folder nex to my porn *cough*, then I'm not expressing my artistic message to anyone. This is why Anet acceptances are important to me. Share what I do with the world and hope that they enjoy and embrace the photographic ideas that I was able to materialize.
For the shots that aren't anet quality that I enjoy, I jsut rotate them on my desktop, print them out and hang them on my wall, or try to sell prints through other mediums.
Royal came off harsh there in his early post, but I do that too sometimes. His next psot explained his point which I feel was very valid.
Chris, keep workin at it. I may disagree with some of your 'motivs', but at least your brain is working, so you'll get there soon, bro.