Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How About This One?  
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=200107200313.JPG was rejected for "blurry" and "part of the plane missing".

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=200107200317.JPG rejected for being "blurry".



I wish I were flying
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3126 times:

For both pictures another reason would be "camera not straight". The first one needs a little bit rotation counterclockwise and the second one clockwise. Just look at the vertical lines in the background. In the first one the terminal building is a good reference and in the second one the pole in the middle of the picture could be used. But if you rotate the you will have to crop the also and there will be much more of the plane cut off. And In my eyes a little bit sharpening would be good for both.
Just my 2 cents
Regards
Peter



-
User currently offlineThomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 4006 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

"Part of the plane is missing ?????" What part ? the tip of the horizontal stab ?...c'mon!

I do however agree with the blurry parts on both photos.

Thomas



"Show me the Braniffs"
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

As Granite told me, get new glasses... Only he made the error to think you see things less blurry if your eyes are bad (you don't, I should know).
The KLM one is maybe 1 degree out of plane, that should be within margin for error...

With Aer Lingus, you cannot tell. The terminal is no reference as it does not run straight through the shot.
Using the KLM hangar in the background as a reference (on the larger original to be more accurate) it too is maybe a degree out of plane.

I'll see what happens after a bit of unsharp masking...



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineSJC-Alien From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

great photos....but yes,,,a little sharpening would be nice,,,but over all,, I love the KLM photo with the Transavia planes in the back....


SJC Alien


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Uploaded again as:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/200107200317.JPG and
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/200107200313.JPG

Let's see what happens.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

"image quality is low" no further information.
Look elsewhere for my photos from now on, this is ridiculous.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

Hi!
I just played around a little bit and this are the results:




I rotatet the Aer Lingus 1 degree counterclockwise and the KLM 1 degree clockwise, cropped them and did some sharpening. I think the results would look much better on the original files because the ones I took from a.net are already compressed. Also playing arounf with the settings of the sharpening in photoshop could bring further improvement but my notebook at work doesnt have a very good display for things like that.
Peter



-
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3079 times:

You have 2 problems, both of which have been discussed here before.

Number one : The Aer Lingus shot is 3/4 shot which as Paul Robinson found out, he Johan doesnt like, unless the aircraft is special or the quality is mind-blowing!

Second one : None of the shots I think are unique. Many photos which are not excellent quality get accepted because they are of a rare aircraft/airline or from a brilliant location which means the shot is uncommon. As both are taken from the obs deck most people could take them, I have the same problems when uploading shots taken from Queens at LHR and the Skyview deck at LGW.

Thats why I searched for better places to take photos of aircraft at SPL, makes a change.

You probably know this but my photos in an earlier post where you where asking where they where taken, I took them at the Mc Donalds spotters spot.

If you take the bus from outside the terminal at SPL and travel to Elzenhof, it cost 3 guilders and is at the Mc Donalds spotters spot. But, go early or late Up to 10:00 and later than about 18:00 because the sun is infront other wise

LGW


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

If he had just said it was personal dislike of the pose I could have accepted that (from Johan that is...). Calling something poor quality when it is just not the angle you love is not the way to go.
Anyway, neither of these fall under "common", which means several shots of the same a/c at the same location. There's only 2 shots of PH-BXI, one airborn and the other an arrival shot. EI-CPF has 2 departure shots from AMS, one of them horribly overexposed (at least that's what it looks like at this screen).

Thought it was near the McDonnalds, just wanted to make sure as it seems to be closer than I get them there. Maybe you just used a longer lens than I have available  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

I had a 300mm lens and a 2X converter but I didnt use the converter for any shots there

LGW


User currently offlineGeorge From Netherlands, joined Apr 2000, 115 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3034 times:

Hi guys,

Besides the discussion of the quality, the Mc Donalds spot have a better place for the time between 10.00 and 16.00. The only thing you have to do is a walk east for about 800 metres and you find yourself with the sun in your back catching all the traffic with a 200 mm lens.

this photo's where taken there about noon:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © George Polfliet



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © George Polfliet



 Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Happy spotting
George Polfliet


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

See I have something yet to find out  Smile I mostly stay at the spot near the Martinair cargo terminal or at the terrace.
shots like http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=281082



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGeorge From Netherlands, joined Apr 2000, 115 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

Hi,

As I mentioned before, feel free to email me, maybe it's possible to meet and I show the places I know.

Regards, George Polfliet


User currently offlineScreener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

JT,

a comment from a screener on your 2 rejections.

Both pics look like they suffered from "death by smoothing" - the originals are both *very* smooth with a definite lack of any sharp edges or fine detail.

The Aer Lingus shot is an angle Johan particularly does not like. Pics from this angle are rarely accepted, and if you read the rejection message carefully it does specify that it could be any of the following: "bad angle, included window reflections, pictured just a part of an aircraft, out of focus or similar" - in this case, it was a bad angle, not a part missing. It's best to avoid uploading shots from this angle unless it's an unusual subject - even if the screeners pass them on then Johan normally rejects them.

I've had a look at the re-uploaded shots, and I'm afraid they still don't cut it as far as the quality is concerned. They just aren't sharp enough.

S4


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...
Ok, How About This One? posted Tue Nov 25 2003 06:12:12 by Jerry911
How About This One? posted Tue Aug 14 2001 07:55:22 by Jwenting
How About This Evening Shot? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 00:21:52 by San747
How About This F-16 Photo? posted Thu Sep 7 2006 04:32:26 by Thetford569
Not Too Sure About This One....... posted Mon Jun 26 2006 10:40:26 by EGTESkyGod
What Do Ya Think About This One? posted Tue May 23 2006 03:14:50 by PilotNTrng
Not Sure About This One posted Thu May 18 2006 20:38:21 by Kmonroe
Waddya Think About This One? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 06:50:40 by Jetmatt777
How About This? posted Thu Dec 29 2005 13:56:33 by TV840
Wel How About This?!?! posted Wed Nov 3 2004 10:43:05 by Draigonair