Laxet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2053 times:
Below are links to four pictures I submitted. After three weeks, they were rejected as being of poor quality. They were shot with a Kodak Digital camera at a resolution of 1536x1024, with no compression. I resized them to 1024x683 & submitted them. None of the text in the pictures at these links were on the photos. Would somebody please offer opinions as to why they may have been rejected?
Jan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1983 times:
First one I don't know. Looks OK.
Second is shot at a too low shutterspeed.
The last one I like. Try sharpening the original sized pic
using unsharp mask. Rezise and check what sharpening you need after that.
AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3780 posts, RR: 24 Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1966 times:
You have got to be kidding me......? these were kicked back ? These are beautifully executed photos. Despite the motion blurriness of the 737 and the LAX tower at sunrise (which personally, I think actually enhances the shot). I see no reason why these should have been rejected. The AA 757 could possibly use just a slight tweaking with the 'Unshap Mask', still I would have given this the 'thumbs up'
You say that these were rejected after 3 weeks of waiting in the queue ? Then I guess that these were rejected by Johan, well if thats the case......'Johan take a closer look at these shots again!'
CYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
I would also suggest you remove the copyright(s) from your photos. They are quite distracting and subtract from the asthetic quality of the pictures. Or better yet, make it smaller, darker and put it in the corner of the photo.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1883 times:
First one: aircraft might be too small for Johan's taste, horizon is somewhat tilted.
Second: Blurry, seems moved. Again a tilted horizon.
Third: very nice. Maybe a bit dark. Is that a star in the sky or a mote of dust?
Fourth: tailarea is slightly blurry. Could be either DOF lacking or (more likely, especially lower area) engine exhaust causing disturbance in the air.
The nightshots are hard to judge. Personal preference there is more important than pure technique.
I had the following rejected for "obvious poor quality" some time ago (this version somewhat reduced in size from the original): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=249871
I guess Johan just did not like it... That is his right of course, but a more honest explanation in such cases might be appropriate.
Screener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1870 times:
The views expressed here are my own, and not representing A.N.
1. I think this is a great pic. The only thing I would do different is to crop the bus out of the left hand side of the frame, as it is distracting, and maybe increase the overall pic size. (Perhaps start with your original 1500 pixel-wide pic, and just crop to get a 1024 pixel wide pic, without resizing at all if that's possible)
2. I don't like this one (sorry!) The horizon is a bit off (easily corrected), however, I think these types of pic need something SHARP in the frame to work (the 1st one works because the 747 is really crisp against the background). This pic doesn't work for me because not only is the aircraft blurred (understandable, with the shutter speed required for the shot), but the airport isn't sharp against the background either (looks like it was slightly hazy or misty). And it's too far away. To improve the impact of this pic I would: crop out the black part at the bottom of the frame, so the airport is right at the bottom of the pic; crop out everything to the left of the 737; crop out about half of the empty space to the right of the tower; crop out a third of the sky above the 737 (so the bright bit of sky leads the eye in from the corner of the frame); and finally try to sharpen a little more. I still don't think it would work unless you can get the tower or the theme building sharper on the horizon though. That's just what *I* would do however, and I'm not putting myself forward as an expert, merely offering an opinion.
3.I just don't think this shot works either. It's too dark, and all the bright areas (if you look at them) are ones we aren't interested in: the airfield sign, the lights and the reflected lights on the ramp. The airport buildings and aircraft, which are the parts of the picture we *are* interested in, are all dark, when they really need to be the parts of the pic that are well illuminated. Again, just my $0.02.
4. I like this shot. I do feel there's something not *quite* there with the quality but I can't quite put my finger on what. I feel like the 757 ought to be so sharp that it is jumping out of the frame at me, and it quite clearly isn't. I would suggest going back to the start, and redoing this pic again from scratch. Forget what you did to it the last time, and just see how much detail you can wring out from the original. Because it's not a bad picture - I just feel it could be better.
These are only *my* opinions (and what do *I* know?) Feel free to disagree with me if you wish. Just not too violently, ok?