Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Need Top-notch Equipment? NO Way!  
User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

In a previous, now locked post, someone mentioned that this site is 'only for those with top-notch equipment'.

This site IS NOT just for those with top-notch equipment. I have FAR from top-notch equipment, nor do I use VueScan(my scanner is not supported). However, in my last upload batch of 3 photos, I had 3 accepted without warnings, 2 of which were in poor weather conditions:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © C. Wassell



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © C. Wassell



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © C. Wassell



I am not on the travel list, nor do I have hundreds or thousands of photos, so you need not blurt out your conspiracy theories.

If I can do it, anyone can. Ask us for help in here for help, and be sure to include a link to one or more of your rejected photos. I for one(and I am not alone) am sick and tired of hearing people complain about not getting photos accepted and saying this site is for those with top-notch equipment only.

My equipment list can be seen in my user profile.


Regards,
Cullen


-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1769 times:

Your equipment is comprable to mine, except I dont have a scanner. About the comment you have in quatation marks, I think it was me who said it. All it really comes down to having a film scanner, if you dont have one....a.net is not for you, no matter how nice you photos are.



User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1755 times:

I dont have top-notch equipment either, its nice but not great...

But i will say, and i apologize ahead of time for this, you get what you pay for, and if you dont shell out a few bucks, you will not get quality pictures, and this is a site which only will accept quality pictures, there is a standard... how you achieve that standard is your perogative.

So in a sense, if you have a crappy camera, then im sorry, no one is going to feel sorry for you because you have crappy pictures.

And yes, if you dont have the time, money, and small amount of dedication to this hobby to get quality pictures, then no one is going to recognize them. Dont blame everyone else...


i got a bit off topic, thats all i wanted to say  Big grin


CHRIS


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

There is a difference between quality and price that some people seem to forget.
There is also no connection between quality of photos and quality of equipment. The only thing better equipment can do is improve the MAXIMUM achievable quality of the output. The quality of the person behind the camera is far more important.
An excellent photographer may make a picture with a $50 P&S that is better than the best a crappy photographer can do with a $20K mediumformat SLR kit.

A major factor also seems to be dedication to shoot exactly in the style Johan likes best. Anything else and you will have your photos rejected, be they as good as others in the database. This is of course his right, as it is his serverspace, but it can get annoying to get the standard "not enough quality" message when your shots are better than others of the same aircraft...



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineEDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1709 times:

Cullen is right.
The gear you are using is equivalent of what I'm using too.
If you are happy with your results, why worry?

You won't hear me complaining on this forum about rejections,
albeit, Granite does elsewhere (hint hint!)

What I find saddest of all when reading this Forum lately is the way
that some photographers easily discard old hardware and
software for the newest and latest cameras, scanners and programmes just
to get that better "scan" to please the webmaster of a.net.

What a sorry waste.

Gerry/EDI


User currently offlineGocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4355 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

Nah, the state of the art equipment isn't recommended here. Even a little point and shoot camera can do the work. I'm not worried about the camera and lenses which isn't important but I'm at least using a very high quality film scanner--Minolta scan dual II and I shhot with a Nikon N65 with Nikkor lense. HARDCORE!!!!

Kevin/DCA



SIX T'S!......TURN. TIME. TWIST. THROTTLE. TALK. TRACK.
User currently offlineSonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1689 times:



"What I find saddest of all when reading this Forum lately is the way that some photographers easily discard old hardware and software for the newest and latest cameras, scanners and programmes just to get that better "scan" ... " - Gerry/EDI

Hear Hear!!!!


BTW, Cullen, I agree with you as well; whining about not having one's shots accepted reflects self-elevation and inability to take criticism.

However, having said that, it seems to be the case that those with the latest tech. goodies will have better chances at getting their shots accepted than others. C'mon that's a fact. If you take a side-by-side shot of an a/c with a digital cam and a regular SLR (the output of which needs to be scanned etc..), I believe that by the virtue of the equipment the digital pic will win over the SLR pic - no?


Sonic99


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Using digital cameras is cheating.

User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1019 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

Guys,

You need to decide whether you are shooting pictures for yourself or for airliners. If whatever kit you have produces results you personnally like, then why worry, unless your primary objective is to get your pictures onto airliners.net

However, leaving aside for a moment the issue about whether a photographer is good or not, if you are driven by getting pics onto this database and whilst nothing is guaranteed, I think that there's a certain standard of kit which will at least makes things easier. You can probably get away with a low quality camera, or a cheap lens, or a flat bed scanner, and print film, but use all of them together and things will be less easy. Not impossible, but no so easy. But if all of those together make you personnally happy with your results, why worry? I have loads of slides I wouldn't scan and upload to airliners, but that doesn't mean that they're rubbish or that I don't like them or don't think they're any good...

Andy


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

zHey all..

I got decent equip.
Chris! Did you get ur WideAngle lens yet??

I have 1 or 2 in trouble and they are good according to me.
i will post this sometime later on cuz I want to upload them again and see what happems. of course I will try my best to fix the problem if I can but if I cant and its rejected again then I need ur help.

and chris yes one of em is that 767 night shot.

Bo



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1019 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

What I find saddest of all when reading this Forum lately is the way that some photographers easily discard old hardware and software for the newest and latest cameras, scanners and programmes just to get that better "scan" to please the webmaster of a.net

Each to their own Gerry... If we took your argument to its logical conclusion, no one would ever have progressed beyond the pin-hole camera and a sheet of immulsion, or box-brownie - those too were capable of producing results, but not the sort of results most people wanted. So almost everyone ditched their pin-hole cameras and bought something "better" - something that allowed them to achieve the results they personnally wanted, whatever that was/is.

Why should buying new kit to "please the webmaster" (that's not what it is anyway - its to more easily achieve their own objective of getting pics onto a.net) be any different from buying a longer lens to shoot stuff that's further away? People buy kit to achieve the result they want.

If the pics a photographer gets from their current kit allows them to get the results they want, fine - they keep what they've got. If getting pictures onto this database is the result a photographer wants, and updated kit makes that easier to achieve, then fine too. You and I might not do the same, but I don't regard it as either sad or unworthy - its progress.

Andy


User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

to whoever it was that said "using digital cameras is cheating"

i hope you were being sarcastic; cuz this isnt some competition, and no one should be looking at it that way... this place brings together a very select group of people from all walks of life to share the love of aviation, no one (well, mostly no one) here is trying to compete against each other...


CHRIS


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

CYKA:
Why should using a digotal camera be cheating?
Peter



-
User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Im not talkinng about competion. Alot more effort goes into shooting/scanning/edditing a shot that was taken with a normal SLR and film than snapping a shot with a p&s digital and uploading it to a.net with minimal effort. So in a way, digital camera users are cheating compared to those who put in all the effort to produce a good picture which was taken with film.

User currently offlinePlaneboy From India, joined May 2005, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

I think you should use the equipment that is available and have fun with it. What else can you do ? Who cares about where it takes you. Ahhh... the only thing that should matter is where you go and who sees it ? Thats crap. If you like it and it makes you feel good - don't worry about what the "world" thinks about it. Remember this- for every 5,000 acceptances - there is at least ONE who is really grateful... If you don't believe me - search through the database - or better yet e-mail me and I will point you in the direction of quite a few who don't believe in "TOP NOTCH EQUIPMENT". They are not hard to find.

User currently offlineAndyhunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

CYKA,

"cheating" indicates that there have to be some rules. Could you please direct me to where those rules are?

Oh, what a surprise, there doesn't seem to be any!!

Andrew



Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlinePaulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1642 times:

I use a Minolta 7000I with sigma lens - all around 9 - 10 years old - not exactly top notch but i am happy with the results i get. As to using digital, i have never tried it and do not think i will - the main reason being is that i give slideshow of trips etc to a local aviation group etc and that is very expensive to do 'digitally'

just my 2p worth



English First, British Second, european Never!
User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1642 times:

You know what I mean, if you didnt you wouldn't be defending yourself with sarcasm. And yes, by using a digital camera your a braking the rules of traditional photography. Certainly not for the worse, but braking them nonetheless.

Im not proposing that theres anything wrong with digital photography since its the obvious way of the future, im just stating that at the moment those with normal cameras are at a disadvatage in terms of getting their photo accepted. Peters recent AA 777 shots with his digital camera are better than any of the klind to date. Such high quality photos are raising qaulity standards and it is in my opinion that sooner than later those who dont have 3 grand to throw into a digital camera will see their accpetance rates drop. Just my 0.02 cents.


User currently offlineAndyhunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1641 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

CYKA,

Ok, I was a bit sarcastic....apologies. Just having a bit of fun.

Actually, I shoot both digital and slide. And I love shooting both ways!

Andrew



Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1633 times:

The "best" camera outfit is the one that gets you the results you want - consistently, in any conditions. My 20 year old Canon kit (v.good in its day, but obviouly lacking many features some would now consider indispensible) does the job for me, and, because I'm so accustomed to its cpabilities, quirks, handling etc. I very seldom get a shot ruined for "technical" reasons. Also, I have learned how to push it to the limit.

Now I am seriourly considering a move to an EOS system, not because the old system is not good enough for A.net (or anyone else!) but I believe new technology (specifically IS lenses) will allow me to get shots which would not be possible otherwise.

As for digital camera cheating - well, yes it saves a step in the process, but give me the total control and quality of a film scanner anyday!

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1019 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1624 times:

Re digital... some interesting comments on theis very site's FAQ page (don't blame me, I didn't write it, and maybe its in need of an update now!):

Digital cameras still can't compete with standard cameras so our advice is to use a standard camera and than use a scanner to get the photo in digital format. It's true that the digital cameras is getting better and better but we have yet to see a photo shot with a digital camera that can compete in quality with one shot with a good standard camera.

Do note that even though that site has a rather large digital camera section, Airliners.net does not recommend that you use a digital camera (read the above question).

So how can digital be cheating???  Big grin

Andy



User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

I think the A.net position on digital is strictly true - by any objective measurement a 35mm neg/slide IS better than the best digital camera. However, since the process of converting a slide to an A.net image is largely a process of throwing away information (resolution, colour depth etc.), a digital camera would probably serve just as well as a film camera for A.net images - indeed, there are some advantages - time saved, and the "bonus" effective focal length gain on lenses designed for 35mm.

But, if you intend to produce hardcopy in large sizes, digital still has a long way to go.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (13 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1601 times:

I still think calling digital "cheating" is absurd. (and i've never touched a digital camera)

i dont understand how getting better results is "cheating"? I have an analogy, might not be a good one buts the only one i could think up  Big grin what would you say if we never let Michael Jordan play basketball because he was too good, and whatever team he was on was "cheating"??? Or tiger woods for example? actually i take that back, thats a damn good analogy....

Guys who spend this "3 grand" on a great setup started out more than likely with an all manual SLR sometime in thier past... people dont just decide "hmm, i think i will start getting into photography, i think i'll spend 3,000 on a digital setup..." No, i doubt it, these guys were good photographers before they went digital...

Most people probably still couldnt get great pictures with a 3K digital camera, it really is the person behind the camera that matters.... but yes, you get what you pay for....

i still dont understand how thats "cheating" This site is for great pictures, it doesnt matter how you get them...


CHRIS


User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

Digital = cheating? B++++++S! I started photography by developing my own film and then spending hours in the darkroom, painstakingly printing each frame individually onto photographic paper. So does that mean that because you lot all send your photos to a lab that YOU are cheating? Of course not! What's important is the photo, not the process!

As for the argument that digital is better than conventional, and that only the digital users will be able to get pics accepted eventually, that's complete garbage too. I have a $3k Canon EOS D30, and the resolution I can get from scanning a slide with a filmscanner is still 4 TIMES as high. Apart from that, how many damn pixels do you think we're gonna WANT on this site? Most of us are still using desktops of 1024x768 (or 1280x1024 - and some still use 800x600) - so how big do you want the pics to BE? If they are bigger than most people's screens, they're going to struggle to view them.

I have upgraded my kit over the course of several years, and yes, I have been lucky enough to have (just) enough money to buy better kit. And over that time I have had pictures accepted with ALL the kit I have used, from when I was using a 12 year old Ricoh SLR with an extremely nasty 3rd party zoom lens and a cheapo 300dpi flatbed scanner, up to now, when I'm using A Nikon F100, with 80-200F2.8 & Nikon Filmscanner.

Why did I buy the better stuff? Was it to get pictures accepted, please the webmaster etc? No, absolutely not. It was because I saw the excellent results other people were getting, and compared them to my own, and thought "Their pictures look much better than mine. Look how much better-looking my photos could be - how much sharper, clearer, etc. What can I do to make *my* pictures look as good as those?"

Ultimately, it's up to the individual. I chat to plenty of other guys while I'm out taking photographs, and they use a wide range of different gear. I *never* look down my nose at anyone using like 15 year old Minoltas, Pentaxes, Practikas (and the occasional Zenit), so I'd be a bit upset if they looked down their noses at me. It's all down to personal choice. I saw other people's photos that were better looking than mine, and thought "I want some of that", and decided I was prepared to pay the money it was going to take to get it. As long as *you* are happy with what you're getting, that's what's important. If it takes getting your photos accepted by Airliners.net to make you happy, then you'll need to get them up to a "reasonable standard", and that does take a "reasonable" quality of kit (but certainly *not* "top-notch"). To take it to the extreme - hands up all those people who use $5 disposable cameras to take their aviation photgraphs...?


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5066 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (13 years 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1579 times:

Well, I basically agree with Cullen. All 120 of my pics were taken with a point and shoot.

But the last couple years, every outing resulted in pics that were not accepted. For one thing, I think Johan has raised the acceptance standards (which is good), but I'm not just whining about my pics and a.net. When I look at the print I can see for myself how the picture isn't all that clear (I don't mean focus-I mean graininess & lack of fine detail), and in some cases too small because I only have 135mm on my point&shoot lens. That is why I want to invest in some better gear, but not top-of-the-line.

This site is a great learning experience for photography. I have lots to aim for with all the great shots on here.



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
25 FastGlass : Here's a key quote from the Photo Upload page: "Don't try to shoot from angles/situations that your experience and/or camera can't handle." That says
26 B757300 : Top of the line gear does not always guarantee acceptance. My camera/lens cost me several thousand dollars but all my photos still get rejected. The p
27 EGNV : How is using a digital cheating? It takes a lot of skill, and practice to take quality shots. It is the photographer that matters, not the camera. I'm
28 Davus : Your comment is untrue and unsupported. I use print film, an avergae camera, and a flatbed scanner. NOT slide, NOT a top camera, and NOT a slide scann
29 CYKA : What flatbed scanner do you use? The best one I had access to was an HP 6300C and the results still weren't up to A.net standards.....or maybe I didn'
30 B757300 : Hint: There is only one way to get photos accepted while using a flat bed scanner but if I say what it is I'll get my username deleted again.
31 Post contains links and images USAir_757 : Eric is correct, there is ONE way to get photos accepted using a flatbed scanner: USE your software's unsharp-mask. Click for large versionPhoto ©
32 B757300 : That is not what I meant...
33 Jwenting : in other words, reduce the quality of the scan to mask imperfections in the image... Sounds fishy...
34 Bruce : so you have the trick to get them accepted? I'd like to hear this. Email me if you don't want to put it on the board.
35 B757300 : Read my profile and you'll see that I don't have the best acceptance rate for Airliners.net.... I'm sure some people on here know what I'm implying ab
36 USAir_757 : in other words, reduce the quality of the scan to mask imperfections in the image... Sounds fishy... What are you talking about? It's the regular shar
37 EDIpic : I'm lost Eric. Why not spit it out? Whats's the secret? You can always re-enlist under another assumed name! Hi Hi! Gerry/EDI
38 Davus : B757-300: its people like you that cause arguments. If you are referring to some kind of lame political style "i know the owner so i can get my shots
39 CYKA : What print film do you use....Reala?
40 Post contains images B757300 : Fine, since everyone is going to act like an about it. Despite what people on here claim it has always appeared that there is an "preferred customers"
41 Davus : I only use Fuji Superia....100 is the fastest i use
42 CYKA : Superia 100? I just used that film and found it to be total CRAP! I dosen't even comapre to Reala; it is more grainy and the colour reproduction sucks
43 Post contains links and images Davus : yeah i dont mind it.............and when i can get shots like this out of it..... Click for large versionPhoto © Dave Faulkner and pay less that
44 CYKA : Amazing, the shots i took with Superia came out less colorfull and vivid than with Reala, the shot above looks quite good...I wouldnt have guessed it
45 Jan Mogren : A big part of how the end result looks concerning prints, has to do with processing the negatives and prints. To be able to compare you should use the
46 Post contains images Strickerje : I have a friend who brings his digital camera to all of our school events, as do I. His camera is actually a newer model than mine, though they're rel
47 Ckw : I agree with Jan - most modern print films are capable of great results, even with speeds above 100ASA - but the variation between output from labs is
48 USAir_757 : Dave, Slides are cheaper to proccess, less than half the price for print, at least at the local lab I use, prices are as follows: 36 exp print - $15.5
49 Post contains images Jasonm : USAir 757, That's it! I'm moving to the states! Jason Milligan Melbourne Australia
50 Cliffie : http://www.planepictures.net/netsearch.cgi?pokall These pics were taken 10-25 years ago, scanned with a Minolta Dual II Scan (around $400).
51 Post contains images Da fwog : There's some really nice shots there. All those great colour schemes - gone forever.... (you never know, maybe US Airways will follow the trend for re
52 Granite : Hi all Chris, do you fancy seeing one of the new BA A318's in a BOAC Cunard or BEA scheme?? Regards Gary Watt Aberdeen, Scotland
53 Post contains images Da fwog : Who, me? Sure. Regulars into Aberdeen are they?
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...
2 Rejections -no Way! posted Thu Oct 9 2003 22:31:12 by Jon01
Need Equipment Advice posted Fri Jun 23 2006 04:10:22 by N723GW
Need Advice On Additional Equipment posted Fri Aug 19 2005 14:53:54 by Maiznblu_757
Need General Photography & Equipment Advice posted Thu Sep 23 2004 03:13:31 by Diamond
No Screening For The Top Photographers! posted Mon Dec 29 2003 20:27:02 by Work4bmi
No Photo Equipment As Hand Luggage Due WTC Crash? posted Thu Sep 13 2001 15:51:57 by Hias
No Foto Equipment As Hand Baggage? posted Wed Mar 21 2001 15:28:32 by Hias
Any Way To Save This? posted Sun Jun 17 2007 07:53:54 by Flamedude707
Four Pics, And Need Advise posted Wed Jun 13 2007 22:51:57 by BoeingOnFinal
Need Help On 2 Shots posted Sun Jun 10 2007 10:43:56 by Jai