I think I had it down as special scheme and business aircraft as well. Might be useful to give info rejections a bit of a hint as to what is wrong rather leave it to guesswork as to why it has been rejected.
Mygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 1521 times:
Perhaps I'm wrong but the reason I see is not related with they're level or not. 1 and 2 are not cabin nor side on shots. The 3rd pic the a/c is not centered, you should rework again from the original photo and crop less the right wing, 4 and 5 pic are showing the back of the plane (motive problem I'd rather say)...
The light (to tell you something good ) is amazing, the Tupolev from the 3rd photo is incredible!
DerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
You may well be right and should be a motive rejection rather than angle , which I thought was just for camera level. i.e in the rejection e-mail it says "These photo(s) do not appear to be level, i.e. the angle of the camera
does not seem to be straight compared to the horizon. "
The light that day was good - it such a shame I am struggling to get photos accepted nowadays.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9673 posts, RR: 67
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 1504 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Nope, angle is the (correct) rejection.
First shot needs .3CW rotation
Second shot needs .4CW rotation
so on and so forth.
And before Pilote De Photo weighs in with some negative comment about it being silly that a photo gets rejected for such things, well, they do. It is easy to make a photo level, and that is what this website asks from the people whom wish to contribute. And if you don't want to, thats okay, too.
Anyway, Derek, nice photos especially the BA 733. Great light. I think they do need slight cw rotation. I have the same problem with alot of my photos shooting from a funny angle. What may seem right to me/you isnt always what is required on here....make the changes, and fingers crossed!
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 hour ago) and read 1448 times:
I know the taxiway runs at an angle to the 'turrets' at the viewing park, so the first 3 it's easy to understand how you've got them slightly off. The fourth I would have used the control tower as a vertical reference to ensure the shot was level.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3065 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1389 times:
There should be a club for all of us who have struggled getting photos level at Manchester . Part of the problem is that what looks like level when you are there is often not 'level' according to the screeners. I have learned that when there is any doubt with the result that you get on the computer screen, you need to make it look level.
For example, I think there is no reliable reference in the first shot for you to use at all. But, given that there is a slight impression of CW rotation needed, I would use the back edge of the taxiway just behind the one that the Airbus is taxiing on - so that looks horizontal. The same would apply to the nose shot of the Balkan.
For the third shot, of the TU154, I would draw a line from the left edge of that 'grass' horizon to the right edge, just beyond the wind sock. Even though you may argue that 'horizon' is not perpendicular to you, I think if that were level the chances would be better of creating the 'impression' that the photo is level. That might also cause the pole of the wind sock to look vertical, though I understand where you are coming from regarding verticals at the edges of the frame.
In number 4 you definitely need the verticals of the control tower to be absolutely vertical - this one isn't far out, but maybe a little.
With 5, as with number 2, you need to make the horizon look level - that's the bit under the Dash-8 on the far left with the horizon on the far right. I think this one needs closer to 2 degrees of CW rotation.
Also, to my eye Derek, they all need an extra 'oomph' of sharpening too.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2239 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
What is quite funny to see (but I'm not talking about Derek's shots in particular) is that often you can compare shots to people's older uploads. Everybody has a 'home' airport so often shots are taken at the same location. When you screen a shot that looks unleveled, you can compare it to other shots taken at the same location and get a good idea what is level and what is not. Especially if other shots taken at that location DO have reference for levelling.