Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Angle Rejections  
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 days ago) and read 1551 times:

These have all been rejected for angle. Any clues?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20051227_EGCC_191205_GEUPT.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r.../20051227_EGCC_191205_LZHMQ_02.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r.../20051227_EGCC_191205_LZHMQ_01.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ig/20051224_EGCC_191205_N227PE.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20051224_EGCC_191205_GGFFB.jpg

This one for info - again no idea why - thought it might be quite interesting as Coldplay were playing that night in Manchester . I guess the moment's gone now.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...big/20051227_EGCC_191205_GCDFS.jpg

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.

Derek


Whatever.......
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

The first four are not level.

Regarding the last one, special schemes apply to airliners only, not business jets.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Viv

Thanks for that. Can you tell where you measured the non-level ones as being unlevel. I'm obviously using different criteria to everyone else.

The last one is in a City airlines modified colour scheme but is being used as a business transport I was told.

Derek



Whatever.......
User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1489 times:

Hi Derek..

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  angel  ) is amazing, the Tupolev from the 3rd photo is incredible!

Cheers

Enrique


User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1479 times:

Thanks Enrique

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.

Derek



Whatever.......
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1472 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.


User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1464 times:

OK what references were used to reject - I am keen to know especially the 4th one as the references used are vertical in my version of the photo.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
And if you don't want to, thats okay, too.

What is that supposed to mean?

Derek



Whatever.......
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1455 times:

I would have guessed either baddark, contrast or exposure on that first one as well, so be careful with reuploading.

User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1446 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
And before Pilote De Photo weighs in

Wonder who that is?????

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!

Regards
Colin


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

Hi Derek,

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.

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineLennymuir From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 434 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1402 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
First shot needs .3CW rotation

Second shot needs .4CW rotation

Where is your reference Royal?

Or is it your own perception?


User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1394 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 9):
The fourth I would have used the control tower as a vertical reference to ensure the shot was level.

I could do that but I tend to use references nearer the middle where possible. I think the fact that it is not obvious or easy to measure means that it is not always as stated below

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 5):
It is easy to make a photo level

N227PE would have been a new reg for the database too - still never mind.

Onwards and downwards and bedtime.

Derek



Whatever.......
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1386 times:

Derek, they all need to be rotated in my eyes as well.

Quoting DerekF (Reply 11):
N227PE would have been a new reg for the database too - still never mind.

New regs. don't mean a whole lot, I have had a few rejected as well. Life goes on.

Ivan



Contrails Aviation Photography
User currently offlineDerekF From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1367 times:

Many thanks for the assistance. Can't believe I'm getting worked up over 0.1deg - still as you say life goes on and I'm going to Scotland for Hogmanay so there!
Happy New Year
Derek



Whatever.......
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1357 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello Derek.

There should be a club for all of us who have struggled getting photos level at Manchester  wink . 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.

I hope this is of some help.

Enjoy your New Year - all the best.

Paul


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1349 times:

Derek

Rejections were correct but to level them, try as much as you can to reference the horizon. The taxi way does make them look unlevel.

The only thing I see here now once they are level, is a soft rejection. May just be my monitor but some are a little soft. You also need to watch the jagged edges on one or two of them too.

Nice shots and as mentioned, the light was really good on them!

Martin


User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1348 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.

E


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...
Centered Rejections posted Tue Dec 12 2006 19:44:30 by Paulinbna
A Little Tired Of Those Rejections. posted Sun Dec 10 2006 17:38:14 by B076
Need Help With Two Rejections posted Fri Nov 24 2006 19:14:35 by B076
Help With These Two Rejections posted Thu Nov 16 2006 21:11:41 by JoeIro
4 (harsh?) Rejections - Screener Comment Please posted Sun Nov 12 2006 08:23:56 by D L X
Colour Rejections posted Tue Nov 7 2006 00:07:15 by AirKas1
Two Rejections, Why? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 08:11:39 by Pitchul
My Rejections - This Time Qual And Soft posted Mon Oct 9 2006 02:01:17 by Lanas
Feedback For More Rejections posted Sat Oct 7 2006 09:26:53 by Monorail
Feedback On 2 Quality Rejections posted Fri Oct 6 2006 23:26:45 by Garry