Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
3/4 Views Of A/c  
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Am I missing something ? What is wrong with photo's taken from the angle below. I have had a number rejected that were taken from this angle. Why ???????

This is the latest rejection :-



(I have reduced the size to speed up display)

The reject reason was ;-

- G-VBEE.jpg (Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747-219B)

The photos were either of low esthetic qualities (bad angle,
included window reflections, pictured just a part of an aircraft,
out of focus or similar), pictured an aircraft far in the distance
or did not picture an aircraft at. Finally, you might read this
because your camera displays the date in the lower right corner of
the image. If so, please disable that feature in the future.


38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Was that from Johan or from one of the Pre screeners?

I cant see anything wrong with it maybe its not photogenic enough for Johans taste??

Regards

Paul (Jealous for not having ramp access at LGW)


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi

A lot of people don't like this kind of 3/4 rear views.

Your shot looks nice enough to me though  Smile

Regards
Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland


User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1406 times:

Hi,

I'm never one to turn down a ramp tour, but my experience is that you sometimes end up shooting views like this, because of position, other aircraft, etc. OK, so I assume you work on the ramp at LGW, but the issue is the same.

What Gary says is very true - in my experience a lot of people do not, for some reason, like rear 3/4 views, whilst 3/4 front views tend to be far more readily accepted. I know of one person, for example, who is not interested in any picture that does not show the flight deck windows "properly" (whatever that might mean). As to why it was rejected, each to their own, I guess.

Andy


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1401 times:

prescfreener's message. got the same once for a picture where the first 5 centimeters of the nose (in real life, must have been a pixel or 2 in the scan) were missing.


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1409 times:

VC-10,

Aesthetically, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this picture. However, there seems to be a little too much sharpening which even shows up in the smaller version (Look at the registration). Oversharpening leads to grain. I can't say any more without seeing the original.

The options for the screeners are in the form of about 20 check boxes, which are quite close together. The check box right next to the one which gives the rejection reason you recieved (only a couple millimeters away, actually) is the one for excessive grain. So it might be a "slip of the mouse".

But post the original file, so that we can make sure.

S2


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1384 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



User currently offlineScreener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1386 times:

The quality looks ok. If I had pre-screened this I would have passed it through, although I have seen a number of these types of shot rejected in the past. It's not a view angle that I particularly favor, but as the scan quality and the colors are good, I would have left the decision on this to Johan. Maybe if the screener who rejected it is reading, he could comment - it's not fair for me to say any more without knowing his reasons.

S4


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1360 times:

It looks a bit grainy on my screen, though not excessively so. The red on the tail of the Virgin bird also seems a bit strange.


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineScreener6 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1373 times:

Looks good to me as well. I definitely would have passed this one on to Johan as well.

S6


User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1335 times:

I wouldn't mind a few "good" rear 3/4 view of an aircraft at the gate included into the mix occasionally.

Tom


User currently offlineSkyliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 204 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1339 times:

To each his/her own, but well-done 3/4 rear takeoff and landing shots can be a nice change from the front views.
George


User currently offlineBoeing757fan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1323 times:

Send it in again, maybe youll get one of these screeners.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1327 times:

Looks good to me...

S2


User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1311 times:

Interesting we have some Screeners who say okay and one who has said no..........I thought you guys were just sorting out the rubbish?

Taking cover Wink/being sarcastic

Paul


User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1305 times:

Just what I was thinking Paul...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Actually, VC-10 has not confirmed whether this picture was rejected by a screener or by Johan, although with the screeners mission being supposedly to weed out the grossly unacceptable, I'd have thought this pic would have made it to Johan.

Andy  Nuts


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

From some of the messages I got about 2 weeks ago from the screeners, they seem to be into small details like "decrease brightness by 5% and then sharpen the reg-number just a little bit" (these were actually two messages).
That is fine to me if that will get a shot accepted (it wasn't., Johan thought it a tad too dark...).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

VC-10 hasn't said who rejected it, because he doesn't know !

User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1295 times:

It's mentioned in the Topic of the mail you have got. If the topic is something like ".... screening ...." the it was rejected by the screeners. if the topic is "... upload confirmation ..." or something like this it was rejected by Johan. Also I think that the sender E-Mail Adress of the Screeners is screener@airliners.net and from Johan (obviously) admin@airliners.net.
Peter



-
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1289 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In that case it was Johan.

User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1282 times:

OK then VC-10, if it was Johan who rejected the photo then I'm afraid you've been subject to the editorial policy of airliners.net. I have no real axe to grind about editorial policy, as whilst I might not alway agree with it, that policy has made airlines.net what it is today, and we should all be greatful for that.

Andy


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3701 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1273 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't have a problem with that. My original question was whether there was anything fundamentally wrong with a shot taken from that angle.

It is interesting to note however that about a year ago I submitted this photo

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Paul Robinson


and it was rejected for the same reason as above. I resubmitted it a few weeks later and it was accepted !


User currently offlineEDIpic From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

Great topic.
If you're not  Confused too, you should be.

Gerry/EDI


User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1254 times:

>>I resubmitted it a few weeks later and it was accepted !<<

You caught Johan in a good mood then  Wink/being sarcastic

Same thing has happend to me, I guess its kind of like the define people in your picture argument, some get in some dont.

Regards

Paul


User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1243 times:

I prefer to shoot moving aircraft (preferably flying rather than taxiing). I see the 3/4 front shots as "here it comes, here it comes..." and the 3/4 rear shots as "here it comes... click... Sh!+ too late".
For this reason, I do not usually submit side-on shots where the aircraft has gone slightly past the 'critical point' where the wheels are dead in line.
Again, just my personal preferences.
Craig.


25 Post contains links and images Cfalk : LOL Craig! I can just picture you with cartoon bubbles over your head... Consider a plane like a person. When taking a picture of a person, you genera
26 Post contains images BO__einG : Haaaahahaha! Skirt. Nice one! I can see for sure what you mean.. Too bad the underwear, (APU) is not the kind of type that most women would like to we
27 Post contains images VC-10 : Cfalk 'Consider a plane like a person' - I think you need to get out more
28 Post contains images Cfalk : Maybe you're right. I just re-read my post. It does sound weird. Well, as long as I don't start getting a stiffie when I see an APU exhaust outlet, I
29 Jan Mogren : LOL!! /JM
30 Post contains images Anton P. : hmm the word 'aviation-porno' just popped up in my mind after reading Cfalks message.. do You reckon you need adult check for that aswell?
31 Post contains images CYKA : What about this one? Do you guys think the shot is interesting enough to get accepted?
32 Screener2 : While the angle may not be the most attractive, the near perfect picture quality makes it a easily accepted picture for me. S2
33 VC-10 : Yes that will get accepted. I had an e-mail from Johan about my photo. He said that when taken from that angle only photo's of exceptional quality & r
34 Post contains links and images AndyEastMids : Craigy, Rear shots are "darn I missed it" things are they? Don't usually do self-publicity here, but I like this sort of rear shot... Click for large
35 Post contains images Qantas737 : Andy, I must admit trijets are an exception to the 3/4 rear angle, as they just look sensational on that particular angle. It really does each and eve
36 CYKA : Yeah you have, except this one was scanned by Chris Sheldon as can be see by the absence of jagged edges. The lighting was better where the guy was st
37 Post contains images AndyEastMids : CYKA, You "learned a valuable lesson" Hey, we might make an airplane photographer out of you yet!!! Andy
38 Post contains images Glenn : strang,I just had a similar shot of a usaf 757 80002 same angle pointing same way rejected Howver, I did just clip an inch or 2 off the tail but as it
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...
Views Of JetBlue Ramp At JFK posted Sun Jul 11 2004 06:34:39 by UCLAX
Highest Average Views Of Photos, For Photographer posted Wed Dec 5 2001 13:23:04 by 9V-SVE
3/4 Views Of A/c posted Tue Jul 31 2001 15:23:55 by VC-10
Thinking Of Buying My First Dslr posted Sun Nov 30 2008 09:16:46 by MWHCVT
Warhol Photo Sort Of Trivia... posted Thu Nov 20 2008 12:55:40 by Pliersinsight
Recently Added Pic Of Martin Mars posted Fri Nov 14 2008 14:55:11 by Jspitfire
Very Bad Quality Of Jpg posted Thu Nov 6 2008 05:01:15 by Bsierens
Small Self Gloss - 1 Million Views posted Tue Nov 4 2008 15:36:50 by Opso1
Photo's Of Private Jet In Quantum Of Solace? posted Sat Nov 1 2008 16:19:41 by 9VSPO
Is A.net Considered Commerical Use Of Pictures posted Fri Oct 24 2008 16:28:26 by 76794p