Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Hmm Not Too Sure About This ....  
User currently offlineDRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 5
Posted (9 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 2967 times:

Hey guys

i just got some rejection i need some help with because i dont really understand them....

this one: Badmotiv

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=DElta1604nose.jpg

Bad camera angle:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=USair762.jpg

Bad Common (i never took a pic like this)
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=MartinprinsberjunTAK02.jpg

Bad Info??
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=UNITED772towerbehind.jpg

ok i have no clue whats wrong with these pictures...

please help me

cheers
Nick



cheers
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePaulinbna From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 1114 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 2952 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The first one: I don't really know

The second one: Look at the yellow sign all the way to the left in front of the aircraft it is not level. CW rotation

Bad common means there are alot of this aircraft all ready in the database 128 to be exact. Which in my opinion should not matter. (just my opinion)  Smile/happy/getting dizzy  Smile/happy/getting dizzy  Smile/happy/getting dizzy  Smile/happy/getting dizzyas opposed to bad double which the same picture you uploaded.

Bad info: you do not have a reg number it is fairly easy to find out from what the reg number is from the number on the nose.

Hope this helps.

Paul



Canon 50D user; 100-400 MM L IS 10-22 MM, 60MM Macro
User currently offlineDRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

thnx,

yeh i tried to find the reg of that UA, but none of the plane in the database have a number ETOPS 2369...ill try and look....

cheers

Nick



cheers
User currently offlineQantas077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5855 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 2946 times:

bit rough with the Delta, the UA is awesome, just add the rego.


a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineLurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 2944 times:

HI

The UNITED Code 2369 is from a 777-222 N769UA LN-12 C/N-26921.

The info came from my copy of AFQR by Air Britain.


User currently offlineDRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

yeh cheers mate i found th reg also  Smile just had to figure out how the ETOPS was also part of the reg  Smile

also this is wierd

this one badcommon:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=KLmoedteresaTAKnose.jpg

and then this (delta) bad motiv...
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=DElta1604nose.jpg


this one also bad common...
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=MartinprinsberjunTAK02.jpg

hah suggestions on what to do?

cheers

[Edited 2004-10-09 11:11:55]


cheers
User currently offlineInterpaul From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 409 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 10 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

The Martinair is a beautiful picture but the problem is this.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lukas Kinneswenger
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon Willson



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Romailler Lionel
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jan Davidts



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Jonsson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Spijkers



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Miguel Snoep



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Miguel Snoep
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ruud de Vries



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Jonsson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ramon Berk



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Florian Kondziela
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Gregory



 Wink/being sarcastic
Jan


User currently offlineDRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 10 hours ago) and read 2909 times:

yeh true...

tried to edit some, and some i didnt use again but this one...

what should i do with it?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=DElta1604nose.jpg

just leave it or re-upload?

cheers



cheers
User currently offlineJderden777 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1755 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2836 times:

also that last one, the UA 777 might need to be rotated a bit CCW

jonathan d.

EDIT: nevermind i just saw your other thread about rotating the same picture....

[Edited 2004-10-09 22:25:32]


"my soul is in the sky" - shakespeare
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5497 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2790 times:

Nick, maybe the Martinair should have been baddouble becuase you already had a shot in the DB, but your second one is just a close up on departure. Just my opinion.

User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

aloha guys,

srry, but all pics are just okay! cant see anything, why there are not going into the DB. ok, the reg on the 777 from United shouldnt be a prob to get. rejections by new screener/in training? Appeal! the Delta Shoot is very nice and I really like it, but be aware, if its going to get accepted, it will be exactly 1 hrs before 24:00  Wow!

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9630 posts, RR: 68
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2758 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

1) Not so bad really, but this is one of those odd shots, more than just the nose, but not an entire airplane. I would reject it as badmotiv.

2) Needs some slight CCW rotation. I have to say, I am surprised you dont have the reg numbers of these planes, as you are pretty close to the action. How come?

3) Not too bad, but 125+ shots ahead of yours, it will take something pretty special to get in at this point. Just looking at the above thumbnails I see 6 images with more or less the same angle as yours.

4) Very unlevel. Also lots of evidence of chromatic abrasion with your lens. Of course its also missing the reg number.



User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3625 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

1) Not so bad really, but this is one of those odd shots, more than just the nose, but not an entire airplane. I would reject it as badmotiv.

See, this is a travesty. Rejecting a shot just because it doesn't pigeonhole perfectly into one of the categories here. Out of all four of these shots, this is the one I couldn't stop looking at. It's rare to see a pic where you can see both the flying pilot and (maybe) some of the passengers, in flight.

4) Very unlevel. Also lots of evidence of chromatic abrasion with your lens.

(I'm guessing you mean "chromatic abberation".) I don't really see any purple fringing, except for one small spot of it where the landing gear intersects the white lamp-post; it's not really the type of shot that'd exhibit a lot of CA, though.

I do see over-sharpening. There are noticeable halo artifacts around almost everything, as well as extra noise throughout the image caused by over-sharpening. A simple rotation and less sharpening would improve this image.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineTu154m From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 682 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

The DL shot is cool. For god's sake....... you can see the condensation off the nose gear doors, the individual rivets with paint missing.......you can almost see the pilots big fat wallet!!!!!!! I think badmotiv is just a convienient rejection........that's a cool shot, no reason at all not to be added. In fact, they are all quite good. The bad double really blows too........that could apply to just about all aircraft here, especially special schemes and such.
S



CEOs should swim with cement flippers!
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9630 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2712 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

How is it a travesty? I'm sharing my opinion, no need for drama  Smile

The good news is you can always appeal the shot, surely if it is good Johan will let it in.

And yes, I meant chromatic abberation. Thank you for pointing that out.


User currently offlineDraigonair From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

Hey guys

thnx for the info...wel the reason why i dont have the reg is that if its not shown in the photo i probably dont know  Smile Im just 18 and i only take the photos, and dont keep a log...ill offcourse do my best to get the reg. For the UA772 i got the reg and re-upload...I will put the Delta in the Appeal or should i re-upload? appeal right?

thanks for the info guys real great help Big grin

cheers!

Nick

btw today is my 4th year as memeber at a.net Big grin ahah i was 14 when i joined :P



cheers
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...
Hmm Not Too Sure About This .... posted Sat Oct 9 2004 10:30:43 by DRAIGONAIR
An Upload Im Not Too Sure About Help Wanted posted Tue Jan 3 2006 10:17:35 by JumboJim747
Not Sure About This One posted Thu May 18 2006 20:38:21 by Kmonroe
I'm Not Too Sure How To Level This... posted Wed Jan 4 2006 07:20:57 by ElpinDAB
BadDouble, NWAA330...not Too Sure... posted Fri Oct 8 2004 12:41:29 by DRAIGONAIR
How About This One? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 21:53:20 by Stil
How About This Evening Shot? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 00:21:52 by San747
What About This Kamikaze Shot? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 07:19:53 by AirMalta
How About This F-16 Photo? posted Thu Sep 7 2006 04:32:26 by Thetford569
Two Questions About This Shot... posted Mon Aug 14 2006 07:15:12 by Flamedude707