Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Badsizebadmotiv?  
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

Okay so why is this bad size at 1200x764?

I think badmotiv is a bit petty if it's for the windsock post. At least I'm honest and left it in, I could easily remove it.

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=KA6S0753_G-CIVT_2.jpg

Martin

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePumaknight From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2017 times:

A little petty true, but I have to agree. My eye was drawn to the windsock straight away. A real shame cos it really is a fab photo. Sorry:-(

Just out of interest, where did you take it from????

Michael H


User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2012 times:

Just out of interest, where did you take it from????

The Esso station on the Southern perimeter. I guess for my own copy I'll edit the windsock out.

Martin


User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2001 times:

Martin...

The photo is brillant! I didn't realise about a windsock post was there!

So, if I'm allright you had the photo rejected for Badsize and Badmotiv..
About the size I have no idea if rules are now harde than before, I mean the size of the pic looks good but is not the 'standard' relation 4:3 or 3:2..

Enrique


User currently offlineGBOAB From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 367 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1997 times:

Hi Martin
Great shot
The bad size must have been selected in error

Regards
Ian



Concorde's gone but not forgotten
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1993 times:

Thanks Enrique

So, if I'm allright you had the photo rejected for Badsize and Badmotiv..
About the size I have no idea if rules are now harde than before, I mean the size of the pic looks good but is not the 'standard' relation 4:3 or 3:2.


It's not a standard format, but if this is not acceptable most of my photos should be rejected for the same reason. If I reduce my shots down keeping the same ratio they are 1200x800. This shot is a mear 36 pixels short in the vertical.

If the shot was rejected for the windosck then fine, as I said above I think it's a little petty, but there you go it happens. But the size is a point I'd like clarified.

Martin





User currently offlineAlphazulu From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 266 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1976 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

If you look closely there is a dust spot in the sky just above the letter "R" in AIRWAYS. (BADDIRTY) That should have also been a reason for rejection.

Paul


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Wow, Cool shot!!

Shame with the dammed sock otherwise this would of had much higher chances of making it on.
I say if it is possible fix up that dust spot previously mentioned and see if it might be possible to clone out a bit of the antennas so they dont stand infront of the engines like in your original shot.



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

Nice shot Martin!

I imagine it might've had a chance if the windsock hadn't cut into the view of the aircraft.

At least you have it for yourself though.

- Tom


User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1875 times:

I like the shot and that's all that counts. Thanks for all the comments.

An official answer on the size issue was received offline:

"The last line of the rejection statement"

BADSIZE
The size of the photos are too small. Please scan your photos about 1024
pixels wide and 768 pixels high for landscape format photos, or 800
pixels high (the longer side) for portrait format photos
with a high DPI and color depthsetting) and re-upload them.
Note that the minimum acceptable width (for landscape-format pictures)
is 800 pixels across. "Another reason might be that your photo has a very
unusual size like for example square dimensions or a site ratio way below 3:2"


I would accept this if my shot was "WAY BELOW" the 3:2 ratio, but the vertical is 0.045% out which is hardly way below (3:1.991).

I have my answer and while I begrudgingly accept the badmotiv and also the comment in the thread from Paul about a dust spot, but the badsize is ridiculous.

Regards
Martin




User currently offlineAndrewuber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

Stunning shot!!! I'd definately resize to 1024 and remove the dust spot. And as for that wind sock - I've got one word - ((((PHOTOSHOP))))  Innocent


I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineWillo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1720 times:

And as for that wind sock - I've got one word - ((((PHOTOSHOP))))

Can I send in digitally enhanced/composite photos?
No, Airliners.net does not accept photos that have been altered in any way.


and as we all know this picture now I assume it would still be a rejection?


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 33
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1691 times:

As my previous post pointing out the inequities of A.net i will confine my self to saying its a great shot Martin and deserves a spot in the DB.
I could agree with the bad dirty reject but badsize?
Here is a cut out from badsize info as the rest of the info does not pertain.

"BADSIZE"
Another reason might be that your photo has a very
unusal size like for example square dimensions or a site ratio way below 3:2"

Well i am looking and this photo is not "way" below 3:2

I have had a couple of badsize rejects for similar reasons and by a similar margin and an explanation of what the "new" limits are for a badsize would be in order.
It is easy to define as a mathmatical number so for the benefit of us not wasting our valuable time uploading a photo to be rejected because it is 3 pixels to narrow.
So what are the min and max ratio limits for a photo to be accepted?
My personal opinion is "badsize" should not even be a reject item as long as the photo is composed correctly and well balanced in its look.
If you look through ANY book or magazine you will find the majority of photo's are or would be badsize rejects.
What purpose does it serve other than acting as a filter to limit the size of the DB?
Darren




2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineSnowJ From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 207 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1670 times:

Martin, my man...I should've known it was you when you said the Esso station!  Wink/being sarcastic I agree with what you said about the badsize thing...kinda petty, but who knows. I don't agree with every reason they give me either for my rejections...and believe me, I get a lot of them! LOL


Jaysen F. Snow - Midwest Tail Chasers
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

Stunning shot!!! I'd definately resize to 1024 and remove the dust spot. And as for that wind sock - I've got one word - ((((PHOTOSHOP))))

Cheers Andrew. I have used PS for my own version which is much larger than 1200x764. For that I have the full 8MP version to play with. I'll not upload it though as it's known as Willo says, but no doubt I'll get another shot like this as BA 744s aren't exaclty a rarity at LHR. It's just a case of getting the light and positioning right.

Martin, my man...I should've known it was you when you said the Esso station!

Hi Jaysen, yeah it was me  Smile

Regards
Martin


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 33
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

Rather quiet from the crew in forthcoming the info on what the definition is of a badsize?
I thought its a rather simple question.
What are the ratio limits for a badsize reject or is it as most of us suspect each screener has there own?
If its the later then something should be done to standardize them so we don't waste ours and there valuable time in uploading a photograph simply to be rejected.
Or is that to easy?
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1568 times:

What purpose does it serve other than acting as a filter to limit the size of the DB?

I'm guessing badsize rejections keep the thumbnails aligned and looking relatively equal on the photo search pages.

But I agree the criteria is arbitrary. But then so are a lot of other criteria used here, so it's not really any different.

Let's face it; this is not really a photography site. It's a site about airliners, with pictures of airliners. If you want to show off your photographs and you don't want any arbitrary technical limits (except for file size) or qualitative judgements keeping your photos out of the database, go to photosig.com and post them there. I see plenty of aviation photos there, some of which are better than what you usually see here, some of which are worse. That's what you get when you don't set limits and just let people post whatever they want. The limits set here seem to keep the quality and style at a consistent, albeit arbitrary and artificial level.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

The size matter needs to be defined. You either stipulate that it has to be a 3:2 ratio or have a guideline that it's acceptable to be 2 or maybe 3% out on one of the axis.

1200x800 being the standard for example, but with acceptable deviations such as 1200x824 or 1176x800.

Regards
Martin


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 33
Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

Hi Spacecadet
I agree with you that this site is not really about photography.
Many styles and variations are not permitted here which is a great shame.
The reason i say its a shame is that this site is respected as one of the best aviation photogrphy sites around yet it filters and rejects many of the best photo's because of the style or layout of the photograph.
The other problem is people and A.NET itself present the site as the premier aviation photography site yet given there obsession with not permitting various styles of photo's leave a gaping hole in its credibility as a purely photography site.
Sorry guys but you can't have it both ways.
You cannot call yourself the premier photography site and then say "well only certain types of photo's please".Take a walk through the world press photographers awards and there are very few 3:2 ratio shots,the same at the wildlife awards.
The question here really is what is A.NET.
If it claims to be a photography website hosting the best on the net then it really has to take a long hard look at itself in terms of what it does not allow up in terms of style and content.
If its simply a DB thats cool they should pick what stuff they want,but stop calling the site the best photography site.If this is the case then its simply false and misleading as a true "photography" site accpets all shapes sizes and content on the subject s long as the quality is there.
Cheers
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineSnowJ From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 207 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1494 times:

Well said, Darren...I doubt I could've said it any better. It does leave a lot of room for opportunities for so much more. There is standardization, and then there is perfection. Which are we going for here? As for deviations, it would make a huge difference...you're right there Martin. I think I'd have a few more in the database myself if it wasn't for the size issue, or for the overkill that some of the screeners seem to use. OR maybe I should just upgrade to a Canon... Wink/being sarcastic

Jaysen F. Snow, SSgt, USAF



Jaysen F. Snow - Midwest Tail Chasers
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 33
Reply 20, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

Hi Jaysen
Even upgrading to Canon won't get some shots through the queue!!
But it makes life easier.
Darren

PS we are still waiting to hear what the size limits are for a badsize rejection???



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineSnowJ From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 207 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

Even upgrading to Canon won't get some shots through the queue!!
But it makes life easier.


Oh I know!  Wink/being sarcastic



Jaysen F. Snow - Midwest Tail Chasers
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...