Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1082 posts, RR: 32
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4758 times:
I personally think your shot is excellent.
Well composed and the lighting is good and the theme is very cool.
Size is fine and i have no idea why it would be rejected for that.
As for quality noone here knows at th emoment what specifically quality may mean but the screener didnt like something about the shot.
Personally i cant see whats not to like but i am not out to find issues.
The crew did say something about flightdeck shots with fisheye's a while ago but not sure if that carries over to general shots.
Quoting Dehowie (Reply 1): The crew did say something about flightdeck shots with fisheye's a while ago but not sure if that carries over to general shots.
You must mean this message. But then it should have been rejected for motive? And IMHO it's quite obvious what I'm trying to achieve with fisheye - The plane is almost straight above me & the little spotter on that photo...
Any other comments / suggestions? How to improve the quality?
Davidu From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 60 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4657 times:
When seeing the pic for the first time, my eyes are drawn to the boy looking up at the aircraft and not the aircraft itself. This would suggest motiv for me as previously suggested.
Overall Qual for me also. The image is overall dark and the photo looks softish mainly the a/c from the engines all the way forward to the nose. Factors like that all adds up to Qual / Scan.
The standards at airliners.net are a lot higher compared to a couple of years ago. That what makes us the top site.
This is just my personal views as a screener, but if you feel hard done to, by all means appeal the shot and our respected Head screeners who will look at the shot again.
1000 x (between) 667 and 750
1024 x (between) 683 and 768
1100 x (between) 733 and 825
1200 x (between) 800 and 900
1300 x (between) 866 and 975
1400 x (between) 933 and 1050
1500 x (between) 1000 and 1125
1600 x (between) 1066 and 1200
667 x (between) 750 and 1000
683 x (between) 768 and 1024
733 x (between) 825 and 1100
800 x (between) 900 and 1200
866 x (between) 975 and 1300
933 x (between) 1050 and 1400
1000 x (between) 1125 and 1500
1066 x (between) 1200 and 1600
The 'between' sizes apply to the 2 different ratio sizes.
Some of the size rejections may seem at bit harsh, although we do give a bit of come and go. I do reject for size even if the size is not out by miles. But only along with another definite rejection category. This hopefully advises the photographer to watch out for the size guidelines while carrying out the rescan for the main rejection reasons and for future reference.
The From Finland, joined Sep 2005, 7 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4638 times:
Thanks for the clarification. You can be sure I won't appeal, but I'll try to improve the quality with complete rework from the original. Might be (too) difficult, but we'll see...
About the motive: IMHO it's good to have something that draws your attention first and directs you to the main subject. If that would have been a woman in bikini, your eyes wouldn't never notice the a/c and then it would have been NOA_Motive.
Quoting Davidu (Reply 7): The standards at airliners.net are a lot higher compared to a couple of years ago. That what makes us the top site.