VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3691 posts, RR: 35 Posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
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.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1320 times:
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.
Screener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1323 times:
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.
Screener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1300 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.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
Just what I was thinking Paul...
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.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1209 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...).
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1209 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 firstname.lastname@example.org and from Johan (obviously) email@example.com.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 998 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1196 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.
Craigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1157 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.
25 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 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 VC-10: Cfalk 'Consider a plane like a person' - I think you need to get out more
28 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