Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1723 times:
I need to apologise before I start, because I know my mood is not great, and that may be seeping out here.
But this site is crying out for some better definition of this criterion. There sometimes appears to be a lottery regarding this rule and - for me, Frippe - there is very little wrong with the centering of this aircraft. It seems a number of threads come along with this issue, but it never feels to me that it is resolved.
As I see it, in a photo like this, the aircraft is from the tail to the wheels, and if you made a rectangle with the upper edge on the tail and the lower edge on the wheels then that rectangle is broadly speaking centered in the overall frame. To my eye having the aircraft higher in the frame - as I know is the preference of many uploaders (with the nose/fuselage lying in the middle) - would leave the photo looking unbalanced, with a lot of foreground before we get to the plane, and little above the tail. The way it is as in Frippe's example is closer to the 'rule of thirds', which is more aesthetically pleasing, I think.
But if having the plane higher in the frame is the preference for the site, so be it. Some further clarification is really needed, as it seems unfair that one person's centered would be another's rejection. Yes, some criteria have a degree of subjectivity that cannot be escaped - like 'motive' - but this should not really be the same.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1704 times:
Gary,
I have just emailed you before I saw your reply, but I will reply in public so that my sentiments can be read by others.
I, for one, have missed your input greatly in the Forum. Having active screener participation is crucial to the positive functioning of this Forum. I really hope that you find the level of debate mature and broadly constructive, so that you feel this is a place worthy of your time, and that your input (and that of everyone else's, for that matter) is treated respectfully.
Let's hope a corner was turned and that the 'trial' period will be passed.
All the best.
Paul
P.S. My apologies to you Frippe for stealing your thread here, but I feel confident you won't mind too much.
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1685 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 3): But if having the plane higher in the frame is the preference for the site, so be it. Some further clarification is really needed, as it seems unfair that one person's centered would be another's rejection.
I agree with Paul.
Sometimes, when editing photos, I feel hard to decide how to center the plane in the frame. If it's as simple as leaving exactly same room above the tail and under the wheel, the shot might feel balanced aesthetically in some cases.
I agree with Tim, and also feel the plane should be put a little higher in the frame. But if doing so, that will noticeably leave more space under the wheel than above the tail.
Here, I would like to share my experience, which might be totally wrong. If it's wrong, hope someone could correct me. The following shot was puzzled me a lot for centering issue, when I was editing it.
If Frippe takes Tim's suggestion and centers the plane a bit higher, the final looking of his shot might be similar to mine shown above. In my case, I decided to draw a line from the left wingtip to right one, and used this line as reference to center the whole photo. The line is just a reference; of course, it is NOT the centerline for the frame. By using this line, and moving it up or down around the center, I could easily find which position to put the plane in the frame is the best place.
I know this might sound ridiculous. But it seems working well in some cases. Even that has made the space under the wheel a bit more than above, it could help the whole photo look better and balanced.
Quoting Psych (Reply 7): I, for one, have missed your input greatly in the Forum. Having active screener participation is crucial to the positive functioning of this Forum. I really hope that you find the level of debate mature and broadly constructive, so that you feel this is a place worthy of your time, and that your input (and that of everyone else's, for that matter) is treated respectfully.
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 67 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1664 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 3): But this site is crying out for some better definition of this criterion. There sometimes appears to be a lottery regarding this rule
Paul, that is something that I will try to work on. Maybe rejections with examples in them will be better for this centered rejection...?
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1636 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 3): To my eye having the aircraft higher in the frame - as I know is the preference of many uploaders (with the nose/fuselage lying in the middle) - would leave the photo looking unbalanced, with a lot of foreground before we get to the plane, and little above the tail. The way it is as in Frippe's example is closer to the 'rule of thirds', which is more aesthetically pleasing, I think.
I agree entirely with this Paul. There are some circumstances when the overall aesthetics of a shot need to be taken into account, which I think is the case here. Obviously the fuselage isn't centred vertically within the frame, but I believe, along with some of the other comments, that to have to aircraft higher in the frame would then, ironically, make it look 'badcentred'.
I would appeal this shot Frippe and keep your fingers crossed
Frippe From Sweden, joined Sep 2005, 183 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1629 times:
Hello again and thanks very much,
I am very thrilled and thankful that a question from a new member can get so much attention.
Now I have tried to demonstrate the problems I face when deciding how to center.
1. First I always centered like this with the PS hair cross in the middle of the fuselage:
2. Then there is the method, or at least I interpret it so, that Paul is suggesting in his post, maybe something like this:
3. Third, this compromise is what I personally find most common today, or what do you say?
Maybe this post of mine here is of no great use, but I hope that it can be used as examples.
Please note - these are only quick edits, with many other imperfections, I am sure.
AND if my use of upload space for this purpose should violate any rule I do not know about, please tell me at once so I can remove the three photos as they are extremely DOUBLES. (I have no other server for uploads.)
Thanks for your patience, and once again thanks for help and clarification,
Frippe
(who is happy and proud to be a member of such a great world wide community as Airliners and for all helpful comments from its members.)
Linco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1379 posts, RR: 18 Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1595 times:
i'll go with Paul on this one, the rule of thirds applied here makes sense. Nice shot. Good to see an all round sensible debate with constructive critism. The way it should be!
Frippe From Sweden, joined Sep 2005, 183 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1551 times:
Hi again,
Let me just inform that I just got an email from the headscreeners, saying that my photo was not added. The conclusion seems to be that for the present at least the fuselage has to be centered higher than I did in my first upload.
Frippe
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Sep 2005, 183 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, 
From Spain, joined Feb 2005, 186 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
