Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Was This Cockpit Shot Not Accepted?  
User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3731 times:

Ok, I seriously think Johan hates me. The photo below is better than 99% of dash 8 flight deck shots in the database,yet it was rejected. Personaly I dont know what is wrong with this shot when flightdeck photos of much lower quality are accepted on a daily basis.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4164 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3577 times:

My thoughts:
1.) Not leveled
2.) Too much light coming through the window making too much contrast between the upper and the lower half of the picture. This is very obvious when you look at the dashboard and try to figure out where the window ends and where the dashboard starts.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3552 times:

1) could be. But not enough reason for rejection, I'd say.
2) I can see quite clearly where the window ends. It is quite bright, and a GND filter would have worked miracles here, but as the dash is the subject and not the tarmac...

I wish I were flying
User currently offlineAircanon From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3547 times:

Try to sharpen it a bit. That might help.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Edwin Olinowetz

Edwin (AirCanon)

User currently offlinePhxairfan From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 811 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

I also had a cockpit shot of a ASA CRJ-200 rejected, it was of the exact same nature, i' dont think they like the sun in the window, as mine also had bright sunlight.

User currently offlinePlaneboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3538 times:

I don't think you are as you said "hated." The photo you are questioning is a little too blurry and bright. I am lucky to have more than a handful on this site and believe me - I have struggled. My acceptance rate is not very impressive. My camera is also not very impressive - hence the low acceptance rate. I will say this however, when a photo is accepted I am very grateful. Good luck 2u and don't give up !!!!

User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3534 times:

Im gonna get the negatives re-scanned somewhere else and try uploading them again. Looking at it now I suppose it's a little soft, but I didn't want it "over sharpened", which only adds grain and not much else.

User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1074 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3522 times:


In my humble opinion, the easiest way to shoot flight deck pictures of this nature (i.e with a large amount of the window in view, where the outside is very bright and the panel is very dark), and still get a reasonable contrast balance across the whole frame, is as follows. You need a reasonable camera to achieve this - one that allows exposure readings to be locked whilst the view reframed, and also a system that provides fill-in flash:

1. Take an exposure reading of the outside world, though the flight deck windows, making sure only the outside is in the frame and not the much darker panel. Do not take this meter reading with the flash active (see later).

2. Lock the outside exposure reading (shutter speed and aperture setting) into the camera's meter, so that the reading won't change when you re-frame the subject (see next step).

3. Active the camera's flash (internal or external) and reframe the view so that the flight deck panel is included, as well as the windows. In doing this, try to ensure that the camera's metering area is on the panel, not the daylight outside (it usually will be!). However, whilst doing this do not change, or allow the camera to change, the meter reading taken of the outside world in step (1).

4. Shoot the panel with flash, with the camera still set to the outside world shutter/aperture settings. The camera's shutter and aperture settings will be correct for the outside world, and so the outside world should be exposed correctly. If the camera's flash is worth anything at all, it will fill in flash the panel will enough light so that a correct exposure is achieved of the panel whilst still using the shutter/aperture set for the outside world.

One word of warning: when taking the reading of the outside world, do not let the camera select a shutter speed that is higher than the camera's flash sync speed or you will end up with only a partial picture. If necessary, change the exposure setting for the outside world meter reading until the shutter speed it is equal to or less than the camera's highest flash sync speed.

Hope this helps,

User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3513 times:

Thanks for your suggestions but I use an old OM-1n, so the options you decsribed are not available on my camera. The actual negative was quite dark even though I used my 50mm lens wide open at f1.8 with 1/60 shutter speed.

User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1074 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3508 times:


Actually, whilst the process may need to be adjusted slightly, I suspect the OM-1n can do pretty much all of what is requried provided, you stick a flash gun on the top. Most fairly recent (last 10 years or so) and even fairly cheap aftermarket dedicated flash guns will provide fill in flash based on the camera's meter readings, and I'm sure the OM-1n most have some sort of exposure lock. Indeed, whilst I don't use it much now, pretty much all that I describe could be done with the age old Canon AE-1 that I still have, and an after-market flash.

Whilst I appreciate you may not have a flashgun and you may not feel it worth buying one for the odd flight deck picture, I suspect a glance through the camera's instruction book might show your camera can do more than you think!


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3468 times:

This photo was just added to the database, you be the judge but in my opinion mine is alot better. It is too dark and grainy and no details are visible.

And the dash 8 photo above (by Aircanon) is alot worse too.

User currently offlineBodobodo From Canada, joined May 2000, 553 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3454 times:


If you want people to keep helping you it might be a good idea to refrain from criticizing their work. Edwin (Air Canon) took the time to post and suggest something and all you can say is that his shot is a lot worse than yours (in addition to criticizing the above shot by Jorgos Tsambikakis). While you may believe that your shot is much better there's a lot to be said for being diplomatic and respectful for other photographers. The first step to improving something is to acknowledge that it can be improved. That's what will help you get your photos accepted on Airliners.net, not complaining that someone's photo was accepted while yours was not.


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3446 times:

Agreed Felix.

CYKA, you're a very new member in this forum, show some respect.


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3427 times:

I understand that my photo could use improvement, but I dont see why photos of worse quality are being accepted while mine are not. To be frank, im a little disapointed and confused. Im by no means saying that my photo is of superb quality, but if mine are being rejected because of low scan quality perhaps others should be to.

User currently offlineFredrik Hjort From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

I don't think they are of lower quality.
Tsambikakis shot is good composed with nice light conditions (it has an atmospheare). Good exposed I would say...

I'll go with the others:
Your shot is kind of blurry and need sharpness. And also the high contrast with the overexposed sun need some correction job. Try to sharpen and change contrast etc. Guess you intend to show details on the panels and therefore composed/cropped it like that, and it could be ok. However I prefer a little more wide angle.

Please try to be more constructive in the future when discussing other photographers shots...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineAH-64 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3408 times:

Is that one of the pictures we took whne at the Kamloops May Meet Mark?

User currently offlineNikonF100 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3404 times:

I think the Tsambikakis shot is a helluva lot better than yours. Your shot is much too dark. Give up on it.

User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

SCan at 1200Dpi or More and tinker like crazy in Photoshop or Paint and upload again.. Well after your convinced that the improved one looks way better than ur first upload.


Follow @kimbo_snaps on Instagram or bokimon- on Flickr to see more pics of me and my travels.
User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3396 times:


Since I dont have a film scanner I'll just take it to a diffrent place to get the negetive re-scanned. The actual picture(from what I could gather by looking at the print) is very nice, it's the crappy scan job that the London Drugs ppl pulled off that degraded the shot to what you see now.


my shot is too dark? perhaps you have the two mixed up. Mine is too bright if anything


Yes it's the one I took during the may meet. Did your dad let you get the internet again?


I will take the advice you provided and refrain from using other peoples' pictures as examples in the future. Sorry if I upset anyone.

User currently offlineAH-64 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3390 times:


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (14 years 5 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

Just a general rule; don't use London Drugs stores as the results will, more often than not, be poor.

User currently offlineDavus From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 174 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (14 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3363 times:

Gday Andy,

Just a quick question. A bloke would think another bloke knows what his own cmaera is capable of. But this one confuses me.
Have you any idea if the PentaxZ70 or MZ50 is capable of doing this? I believe this model is the MZ50 in the U.S.

Thanx mate........im not sure if it doesnt have it, or if i am missunderstanding what you are saying.


Dave Faulkner

User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Several suggestions regarding your shot, CYKA:

1. dials in center panel are not sharp. The center of the frame is the one place that should *really* be crisp, even if the edges aren't. In fact, the captain's panel appears to be slightly sharper than the center of the frame, which suggests your focusing might have been slightly off.

2. the light isn't the best (other people have already said this, but to an extent, you are a bit stuck with what you've got)

3. The framing is quite poor. 1/3 of the frame is taken up with the windows. Then in the lower part of the frame you have both yokes chopped off at the edges and at the bottom of the frame you just barely get the throttle levers into the picture. You would be better advised to use a wider angle and get more of the cockpit in, or else tilt the camera down, omit the windows altogether and photograph the panel and center console. Using a lens hood should eliminate most of the flare you would get coming through the window.

4. As regards the suggestion about flash made by Andy, I would caution that you will need to be careful because you could end up with reflections from the dials on the main panel. Shooting down at an angle again should remove most of this, but I would advise to take plenty of pics both with and without flash.

I hope you will take this as constructive suggestions, rather than criticism. Flight deck pictures are much harder to get right than they look.

User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (14 years 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3337 times:

So you guys think this photo will get accepted when I get it to look sharper? In regards to the composition, I dont think its the worst that it could be, I could have left out the window but in my excitement that didin't come to mind at the time. The lens I used is the widest I have(50mm) so I tried my best to include as much of the flight deck as possible. Finaly, everyone is complaining about the stray light coming in through the right window, I had two choices:seriously under-expose the photo or produce the result above. It was beyond my control. All in all, I think its a decent photo of the Dash-8 cockpit and if scanned properly, quite detailed. The rejection message stated the reason for rejection was bad scan quality, not composition.

User currently offlineFredrik Hjort From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (14 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Even though the rejection message stated bad scan quality - you compared your photo with Tsambikakis shot. Therefore we also compared your shot with his and thought that his composition (and light...) is of higher quality.


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (14 years 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

I see.

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...
Why Was This Not Baddouble? posted Tue Jan 11 2005 10:20:00 by Xpfg
Why Was This Photo Rejected? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 19:07:00 by Bravo45
Any Hope For This Cockpit Shot? posted Sun Mar 19 2006 13:39:03 by Edoca
Why Was This Rejected For Badcommon? posted Fri Jan 21 2005 20:52:02 by EZYAirbus
Your Opinions: Why Was This Pic Rejected? posted Fri Sep 10 2004 13:54:11 by IDAWA
RE: Why Was This Photo Rejected posted Thu May 27 2004 23:45:50 by CactusHP
Why Is This Shot A Badouble? posted Mon Jul 5 2004 18:16:53 by Hisham
SXM Question: Where Was This Shot From? posted Mon Jun 14 2004 21:16:46 by AA 777
How Was This Shot Taken? posted Thu Feb 5 2004 04:12:49 by Britman
Will This Kind Of Shot Be Accepted? posted Fri Sep 12 2003 07:15:49 by N178UA