LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1720 times:
Don't you think that A.net strict rules to accept pics limits the creativity of aviation photography ? (for example the clutter rejections limits very much the airport action shots...). Remember, I'm not talking about the quality rejections (blurry, over/undersharpened and so on).
Gary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
yes, i think it would be nice to have a creative section along with the rest down the left hand side on the homepage, but then someone has to be charged with judgeing whats art and whats crap, theres some stunning artistic shots that would'nt be accepted by a.net. yet theres some rubbish that trys to pass itself off as art
nice idea, but whos to judge whats art and whats a cockup trying to pass itself off as art
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1702 times:
The criteria that have to be met for ramp shots certainly seem to be quite strict. Occasionally (when I get time) I upload some of my Dad's older slides, from the 70s and 80s and I've had a couple rejected for clutter, which I thing is a shame as the 'clutter' were things like old vans and busses and things which gave a great sense of period to the photos, but weren't in the way of the aircraft.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
Quoting LIPH (Thread starter): Don't you think that A.net strict rules to accept pics limits the creativity of aviation photography ?
No I don't. If anyone limits themselves to shooting only what gets accepted on a.net that's their own problem. That being said, I'm all for letting more different stuff in as long as it's good. Different isn't necessarily the same as good.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1621 times:
Problem is the amount of rubbish shots that get uploaded here under the heading: "I'm being artistic here, that blurriness was intended, I cut off the nosecone on purpose, etc".
Creativity is a subjective thing, which you can not argue about. However people still do. To prevent chaos and argueing, you have to limit the acceptance by rules, so people will know what to expect. Of course this system is not fail-safe, as the numerous rejection complaint posts on this forum demonstrate. If these rules are not here, A.net would be like Myaviation.net. A great website, but with a different purpose.
So... You want to be creative out of A.net bounds? Upload to Myaviation.net. That's what it's there for.
Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1599 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW SITE ADMIN
I for one love the "artistic" shots and Airliners.net supports creativity, just have look at the Editors Choice section.
Quoting IL76 (Reply 5): Problem is the amount of rubbish shots that get uploaded here under the heading: "I'm being artistic here, that blurriness was intended, I cut off the nosecone on purpose, etc".
That is absolutely correct. What a photographer might consider artistic, we might consider low quality and the other way around.
[Edited 2005-03-09 14:18:32]
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1562 times:
I agree with almost all of the responses in here.
The only thing that I would change in terms of what is acceptable is that I sometimes think that certain "baddistance" or intentional "badcenter" situations are gorgeous and that it's unfortunate for us to miss out on certain ones.
No biggie though, I think this site does very well otherwise and I'm grateful for it's "strict" upload policy.
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
Johan, I agree with you, and with the strict upload policy of A.net. This make it the best. But in some cases, as badcenter, baddistance, clutter, the pictures would be worth the database, because the enviroment itself can create some more atmosphere and sense of "being there" instead of simple side, front, perfect centred shots.
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4506 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1323 times:
Badmotive is my worst enemy.
I'd love for a.net to be more open for creative and unique types of photos, with art as their central focus.
While I consider myself an aviation photographer I don't have much in the db so take that for what it's worth...but...most of the photos that I do take have some sort of artistic quality to them. "more than just a plane" kind of thing.
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1275 times:
Aloha....exactly...the enviroment where the photo is taken (landscape,cables,buses,antennas,clouds,other aircrafts,crew,terminals....etc etc etc) can improve the beauty of a pic giving more a sense of "being there" as I previously said.
Like flight simming : the life of a pilot it's not only the cockpit, but rather also the crew room, the tarmac during the pre-flight plane check, and so on. This is why some software houses are trying to improve this sensation.