Bottie From Belgium, joined May 2004, 281 posts, RR: 9 Posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2604 times:
The SV was made @ OST this week, the OO-DAS a few weeks ago @ Wings and Wheels (EBUL). Submitted this week but couldn't wait to have some comments (sorry
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 45 Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2579 times:
Hi there,
Im sorry to say that the first picture has no chance, what is the motive behind the picture?
I like the second one, the evening light look's nice bouncing off of the front nose of the aircraft. Although, I am put off by the way you have cropped the picture, making it look almost square. In future, try to stick to the normal cropping sizes which are 1024x682, 1200x800 and 1600x1200. That way everything looks in proportion.
Jkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2505 times:
Hi there,
Have to agree with Simon on both of them
As for the second one, re-edit it... Crop away some of the "dead space" at the top and bottom and you are on to an upload worthy shot. Make sure its in the region of 1024 x 680-660, anything else is just too "square".
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 45 Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
Bram,
That is much better, the picture now looks pleasing to the eye. I can't see any reason for it to be rejected.
KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2438 times:
I think it looks great too. I even like your first pic (old plane & truck), but whether it would be accepted is questionable. There may be no "motive", but I think it's a good one.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
Uhhhh I didn't see much problem with the first shot... 1024x780 is, or is very close to normal monitor resolution (1024x768) and the cropping looked good to me. I see no reason why it would've been rejected.
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3251 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2361 times:
Personally liked the original crop better. The original is a nose w/ wings and engines, re-crop is sort of an in-betweener - the crop line is at a sort of awkward spot on the airplane.
Aspect ratio is not a big deal. Too much is made of this sometimes; the photo should be whatever aspect ratio it has to be given the subject. 1024x780 is very close to an 8x10 ratio and that's a common ratio regardless.
All of the common ratios used in photography printing are different ratios anyway - 3x5, 4x6, 5x7 and 8x10 are all different aspect ratios (I don't just mean sizes; do the math, they're different aspect ratios). So this is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned - there is no one "standard" ratio. Even different film types have different "native" aspect ratios. And digital photos can of course be whatever you want.
If this site itself has a rule saying "your photos must be 1.85:1 to fit our thumbnails" or something then that's one thing, but I've seen lots of photos here with different ratios so I don't think such a rule exists.
Second crop also has a red color cast to it that the first crop does not have.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
Rotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2195 times:
When people in the forum are more harsh than the screeners, you know something is wrong. I'm barricading myself in the basement for the inevitable alien landing to follow.
-Mike
The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net