Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Unusual Size? But It's Rare.  
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

I got a rejection for a nice picture of a Pan Am 707 taken in the early 60's. There are zero pictures of this plane in Pan Am livery on airliners.net. I submitted it as 1024x537 because 1024 is the minimum width for landscape mode. The rejection says the size is too small or the size is very unusual. OK, which is it, too small or very unusual? I can make it bigger but I can't change the proportions. Will a bigger size still be rejected as very unusual size because it's too narrow? I thought the standards were lower for rare pictures. What do they want me to do?

Thanks for any help.

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineA346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1268 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3665 times:

Could you not crop the photo to change the aspect ratio? Perhaps to something like 1024 x 683?


You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

The airplane fills almost the entire width of the photo. If I crop to change the aspect ratio I will cut off part of the plane. That's why I'm so frustrated!

User currently offlineAirlinelover From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5580 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3619 times:

Give us a link to the rejection part. Maybe we can look and see what we can do..

If all else fails, APPEAL!

Chris



Lets do some sexy math. We add you, subtract your clothes, divide your legs and multiply
User currently offlineEuropean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3576 times:

Can U not give us a link to the photo? Like, But it on a Photobucket website and then post the link on here?

Thanks

European
Jimmi


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3503 times:

This copy is reduced further in size (600x315), but I'm just trying to show the problem with the aspect ratio. I like it the way it is even though the ratio is 2:1. Since it is a rare picture I would hate to crop any of the plane out, and cropping the small empty space on the left doesn't help much. Thanks for looking.



User currently offlineCHabu From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

Hiya,

As with a lot off pics that get rejected, i wonder why. (Just as i wonder why a lot get approved.....)

I'd like to let you know that i do like this one.
It's a lot better then a lot off old pics on A.Net.

Perhaps you can upload the original scan onto myaviation.net ?

Bet the viewers on that website like it too.... 8-]

Bye, Chris.



User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3489 times:

Perhaps cropping the left side and again between engine 1 & 2 will work.
Gary



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3484 times:

As with a lot off pics that get rejected, i wonder why.

Because they do not meet the standards of the site. The rules clearly state the requirements, if they are not met, they are not getting in.

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Don't crop it.

That is a great image. If aDOTnet doesn't want it up here, that is their loss. It is worth more than a thousand identical Southwest 737's taken this month.

There seems to be this idea among the screeners that if they reject a picture like this you will simply go back to 1963 and take a better one.

I have a number of pictures, decent, color pictures of prototypes and experimental airplanes, or the first two built, sequentially numbered sitting side-by-side. I don't even upload these anymore because they are best possible scans of pictures that are forty years old and they will be rejected. The criteria says they will make quality concessions for rare images but it just does not seem to be true.

I appreciate the glimpse of the picture. Thanks



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3403 times:

Is there not more picture at the top and bottom on the original slide/print?

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3379 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

There seems to be this idea among the screeners that if they reject a picture like this you will simply go back to 1963 and take a better one.

Really? And how would you know such things? It is easy to sit here and type negative things, isn't it.

We try to hold uploaders to a certain standard. If you are scanning a picture and preparing it for the web, there is no reason (as an example) that the picture should be unlevel. Or the color be all wrong. Or cropped smaller than it needs to be. The fact that a slide or print might be 30 or 40 years old is irrelevant, take pride in your work.

The criteria says they will make quality concessions for rare images but it just does not seem to be true.

For anyone reading this, I will tell you, straight from the horses mouth, that this statement is a flat out lie. Not only do we "make quality concessions" but we work with our photogs to make their images as high quality as possible. Just because something is old doesn't mean it has to look like garbage. But there are the photographers who don't want to hear it, who aren't willing to make the adjustments neccesary to produce a quality picture.

I will let you decide which has spoken here.


User currently offlineRayPettit From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 608 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

I do not have the benefit of seeing the original print of this 707, but I'm at a loss as to why its been rejected merely because of the ratio of the image.

I take pride in levelling and cleaning my slides uploaded here, which are mostly 30 years old, but then I'm dismayed that some shots from the sixties and seventies get through which contain dirty marks which can clearly be seen.

Yes, its easy to type these words not being a screener, but there appear to be some inconsistencies in what is acceptable so I can understand why people get put out.

If you look at the 1960's pages here you will see a black and white airliner photo uploaded early January 2005 proportioned at 1024x522 ~ narrower than the 707 in question. Its had over 400 hits and so I would say that compares well with, say, a bulk standard side-on Southwest 737 shot uploaded at a similar time.

I respect the screener's decisions, but feel I have to help defend Bobster2's case and I hope he successfully appeals the image.


User currently offlineJetjock22 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3321 times:

Clickhappy - I respect yall as screeners and know you guys take pride in your work, but yall dropped the ball real bad here. This picture is one of the finest old photos I have seen on this site, and I have seen quite a few, most of which are pretty shitty, based on their age. A few examples:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malcolm I H McCrow


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Morris


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Varndell

- I fail to see what is wrong with the pan am shot. Much better than some of these from the same time period. I think we know what has spoken here, and it is not what you want us to believe clickhappy.

ps - no disrespect to the photogs whose pictures i put in here, just simply using them for comparison


User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3302 times:

It seems utterly important to keep the ratio. For what ?
Just because some might want a print???

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

(Bobster, please tolerate this modification of your shot.)
To my mind, converting the picture to a more conventional format detracts from the overall feel. The original emphasizes the 707's sleek lines and also highlights how much less hectic the airport environment was 40 years ago.





Clickhappy or any screener:
What then is the minimum height for an image 1024 pixels wide? The Upload FAQ section gives this unclear and contradictory guidance: "Furthermore the photos need to be bigger than about 1024x768 pixels. We suggest using sizes around 1000 pixels in width."

Thanks,
Mark



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineJ.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3240 times:

If only you were a more popular photographer on here, we might be able to see it... Insane


What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

Clickhappy perhaps you should count to ten before typing your response. A lot of anger there.

Did you read my entire post or just the part that apparently stepped on your toes? I don't think I've ever written one critical word about this site, the administrator or the screeners before. There is a word of wisdom in non-profit organizations: "Be kind to your volunteers."

I submitted several pictures of one-of-a-kind airplanes. Prototypes, experimentals, first of production, first two built, consecutively numbered sitting side-by-side and had them rejected badquality. I am talking about tail number not in database, aircraft type not in database and in some cases, not one example of the type left in the world, even in a museum. Rejected badquality for showing some sign of their age.

One of my pictues that is up in the database here was rejected badcenter the first time. I went in and constructed a ruler in the image. It was within three pixels of being perfectly centered. You guys do a good job but do you really think you can see 3 pixels?

I am now in posession of dozens of large format pictures of 1920s and 1930s military airplanes in Hawaii. These are so detailed that you can read (with a magnifying glass) stencils on a plane parked a hundred feet from the camera. I'm not going to bother to submit them because there are some cracks and stains. I will still submit a decent shot of a plain-vanilla airliner because that is what you seem to want and it is not my website.

The PanAm 707 rejection is all the evidence that one could ever ask for that you do not always make rare image exceptions. That picture should be in the airliners.net database. That kind of picture is what many of us come here for.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineRyan h From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 1499 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

I would ignore all the politicsa and crap here and put it on myaviation.net.
It is to good a picture to be sat in the dark on your hard drive unseen by anybody.



South Australian Spotter
User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3175 times:

Hello again everybody. The crisis is almost over. I just spent the last two hours searching for the original negative. I don't why I cropped it so narrow when I scanned it the first time several years ago. It must have been an accident because I usually scan the full frame. It was long before I heard about airliners.net and image screeners. By the way, there's absolutely nothing of interest that got cropped out. Now I have to go install my scanner. I haven't used it for a couple years. I'm going to scan the negative again to prove to the world that I can follow the rules about aspect ratios. It also means that I'll have to fix the dust and scratches again. Thanks for all the nice comments about the picture. I hope the final result will be worth all the effort.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

User currently offlineJetAv8r From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

prove to the world that I can follow the rules about aspect ratios.

Can any one point me to any place where the aspect ratio rules are written (other than some post in the forum)? I remember searching a while back to no avail, it almost seemed like the rule was made up or didn't exist! (I'm in no way implying that it was).

Thanks,

Alex.

Edit: Come to think of it, I even asked here and got no answer. The only replies were other photographers who were just as confused as me.

[Edited 2005-01-23 02:02:26]

User currently offlineCyclonic From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 231 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

C'mon screeners, cut this guy a break huh? Otherwise, you're going to end up with an elitist situation - none of us want that.


Keith Richards: The man that Death forgot...
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3034 times:

Slamclick said: The PanAm 707 rejection is all the evidence that one could ever ask for that you do not always make rare image exceptions

On the contrary, the cropped picture of the 707 posted by Vzlet is all the evidence needed to demonstrate that many inconsistancies and problems can easily be corrected, even with old images. The original has a large area of wasted space on the right hand side which adds nothing to the image (I might have a different view of this by the way if the wing-tip had been included), and with the revised crop we now have something that works for both the subject AND airliners.net.

Furthermore, we've now learned that there is indeed more image above and below the subject, but that would necessitate a rescan. So the photographer can have it either way - cropped to exclude some of the wing as seen above, or to the original width but with more above and/or below so as to achieve an acceptable height/width ratio.

Clickhappy said: We try to hold uploaders to a certain standard. If you are scanning a picture and preparing it for the web, there is no reason (as an example) that the picture should be unlevel. Or the color be all wrong. Or cropped smaller than it needs to be. The fact that a slide or print might be 30 or 40 years old is irrelevant

Clickhappy is RIGHT ON. We do lower standards considerably for old and rare subjects, but not so much that a reasonably easily achieved correction (or as in this case, a rescan) could correct an issue. Judging old images is often the most difficult part of the job - balancing the need to get rare subjects onto the database against knowing (or having a very strong suspicion) that with a little more effort or a slightly different approach an even better result could be obtained.

Andy


User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

So the aspect ratio thing is because of possible prints wanted?
/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2982 times:

So the aspect thing is a rule defined by the boss and applied by the screeners.

Andy


25 Jan Mogren : LOL ! Thanks Andy. /JM
26 Vzlet : Is the aspect ratio rule something that can/will be revealed to the photographers?
27 Wietse : If only you were a more popular photographer on here, we might be able to see it... Ah come on, give the screeners a break here. They spend a lot of t
28 SlamClick : Well, now that we know there is more image outside the top and bottom framelines by all means un-crop it. Just the other day I was thinking how we rea
29 Dendrobatid : With my large numbers of old black and white photos of rare aircraft now on the database I feel that I have to step in in the defence of the screeners
30 SlamClick : You might well be right but WHAT IS happening to the golden frogs in Panama?
31 Dendrobatid : SlamClick. I am probably the only one on here who understands where you're coming from on that one ! Presumably you did mean Costa Rica ? Mick Bajcar
32 Post contains images SlamClick : To be honest I had to look some things up. I used to see the golden frogs along the creeks in the jungle-covered mountains around El Valle de Anton, P
33 SlamClick : Back on topic: I sure would like to see some favorable resolution of this issue. That is a tasty, even if imperfect, photo of a classic 707 in its nat
34 Post contains images Cboyes : Vzlet Is the aspect ratio rule something that can/will be revealed to the photographers? You had me rolling around on the floor with this one. I would
35 Post contains images Rampkontroler : "Slamclick said: The PanAm 707 rejection is all the evidence that one could ever ask for that you do not always make rare image exceptions On the cont
36 Clickhappy : This shot was added today. For all you screener haters out there all I can say is "have a nice day."
37 SlamClick : Clickhappy you seem a little bitter. I have no idea what kind of communications you have with the would-be uploaders here, so perhaps it is justified.
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...
I Smell A Rejection...But Is It Rare Enough? posted Sun Sep 21 2003 08:18:41 by Aaron747
I'm Thinking This Is Fake But It's Done Very Well. posted Thu Aug 25 2005 00:52:11 by ANITIX87
...But It Is Level! posted Thu Jul 28 2005 01:53:49 by Q330
"Baddirty" ... But It's The Aircraft That Is Dirty posted Mon Jan 10 2005 19:53:37 by Guido
Motiv,people Etc.. But Rare posted Fri Nov 3 2006 06:04:12 by StealthZ
Yeah, It Sucks, But.... posted Thu Nov 2 2006 22:23:12 by Fiveholer
Meeting Photo - I Like It But.... posted Sun Sep 3 2006 01:10:09 by PipoA380
My Personal Favorite... But Would It Make It? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 20:01:50 by KLGAviation
You Probably Already Noticed It, But... posted Sat Apr 15 2006 13:48:21 by Glapira
Great Picture... But Image Size? posted Thu Jan 12 2006 19:53:56 by Vasanthd