Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are These Pics Good, Or Worthless Trash?  
User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3203 times:

Everybody, please nit pick these as much as you would like, so that way I can decide wheter I should waste more harddrive space with better scans or not.

DL 757 PHX


UA 727 CLE


22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAus_spotter From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

Without getting into the quality of the photo, I don't think either of those would be accepted since they don't show the entire plane. The noses of both planes are cut off.

Jason Knutson - Austin, TX


User currently offlineThomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3940 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3053 times:

Noses chopped off on both pics as well as both being soft and grainy. Slightly overexposed with the DL '57' as well as a very distracting overhang on the DL shot. Definetly re-scans are in order!

Be warned though, it has been reported that Johan 'hates' gate shots......no matter how nice!



Thomas



"Show me the Braniffs"
User currently offlineSteinwayartist From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

What waste? They're 45k and 47k, respectively.

The first pic shows them loading the poison into the plane, and the second pic might show how wreckless those guys are with our baggage!  Smile

It's neat seeing one United jet among four Continentals.

If you could get a close-up of nothing but the front of the turbine, that would really be neat; perhaps when it's turning, so you get that blur effect!
I might go out and try to get one of those... hehe...


User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3034 times:

I didn't think these would be accepted anyway, so I don't bother anymore. I just post them from the free picture hosting site, and ask you all if they would ever be accepted. I've uploaded the top ten pics I've ever taken, and every one of them is rejected, even ones showing aircraft not in the database. So, if my best pics won't get accepted, then my regular pics won't get accepted either. I give up uploading to A.net, but i still have two more "good" IMHO pics left from my trip to PHX. I will post them ASAP.

User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3026 times:

OK, actually, there are three I like:

America West 737-200 PHX


Sun Country 727-200 PHX


Same Sun Country, except for the fuel spill on the tarmac, and the emergency vehicles.


User currently offlineAus_spotter From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3021 times:

The last 3 pics you posted are definitely waaay to grainy. The America West and first Sun Country shot would probably be accepted if the quality was improved.

Jason


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3013 times:

The second Sun Country might classify as an accident shot... Could be stretching the term a bit of course.


I wish I were flying
User currently offlineTimmsp From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

KCLE,

Nothing is a waste of time if you enjoy doing it. While you (I and many others included) might not have the time , and/or equipment, and/or money and/or photography experience to get pictures of a precise level of quality needed for acceptance into this database, I bet the one thing we all have in common is the great fun we've had while taking them.

As money and time permit, upgrade your equipment and sharpen up your skills. Perhaps if you quietly let it be known that "All I want for Christmas is a 5.34 megapixel 7x zoom digital camera..." or whatever camera you have your eye on and suggest that everyone in your family chip in for it as a gift?

The other great thing about photographing is the people you meet while shooting and the conversations and knowledge shared while shooting.

I do not think that there is one photographer who has looked back on some of their earlier photos and thought "Wow, that shot really sucked!" and the next thought that pops into their mind is "but I remember the fun I had that day while taking it!"

I don't mean to sound all "Mayberryish" but that fact that now and again I can get out to the airport, take some shots and converse with others who have the same interest in airliners makes it all worthwhile the disk space I use up on even some of my worst photos and there are hundreds of those.

Tim

P.S. - Santa, if your listening - about that 5.34 megapixel 7x zoom Dimage7 digital camera. I've been good all year long and promise to be good for all of next year if I find it under my tree!!!!



User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2972 times:

Well, I submitted the third Sun Country, and about 15 minutes later, it was rejected. Too small and low quality were the reasons, but I just went out and bought a new scanner, since my old one would not work on my new system, and this one does not scan good, so these pics will not get any better, so I might as well start deleting them. Unless someone has a miracle remedy, these pics will no longer be here for you to gawk at as of tommorrow night, here in CLE, early morning for you in England and elsewhere over there.

User currently offlineAus_Spotter From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2955 times:

The minimum size for a file to be accepted is 800x600. The photos you posted above are grainy. It looks as if they were sharpened too much.

Jason


User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

My photo editing program, which is Ulead PhotoImpact 6, only gives you pre-selected levels of sharpening. I used just the first level, and that's how they turned out. There are three types of sharpening as well, Emphasize Edges, which totally sucks. It makes the pics white colored. Sharpen, which is what I used, to only the first extent. And Unsharp Mask. Sometime today, I'll rescan another pic and use the unsharp mask. It seems to make pics slightly brighter looking.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2938 times:

What type of scanner do you have?


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineGocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4339 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2927 times:

The first two pics has too much clutter. No wonder Johan hates gates shots. Your other 3 pictures are way oversharpened because you can see all the noise on the photo. The SkyChief truck is in the way of the Sun Country 727 so that will cause a rejection.

Kevin/DCA


User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

If this isn't acceptable, I give up.



User currently offlineCactusA319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (13 years 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2907 times:

It's an ok shot, but the scan needs improvement. Therein lies your problem....



User currently offlineGocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4339 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (13 years 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

The United 727 is way too soft and blurry. You can't even make out the reg. number. Also, the sun was at an angle. Always shoot while the sun is behind you. Anyways, don't give up, keep on shooting and editing them and soon you'll become a pro.  Smile

Kevin/DCA


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (13 years 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

that's about what I got from my previous scanner. Scanner artifacts in the dark areas (wrong-colour pixels, just check the dark bands in the tail). Scan seemingly out of focus making it all look blurred, especially edges (for example the reg and UA titles on the forward fuselage).

Also, Johan does not like shots from this angle, guess he does not want to see the business end of the engines  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineUnixoid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2889 times:

Just a comment: do you really expect to be praised for these pictures? Hmm... Any reasonable person with moderately developed sense, and judging by a number of replies, there are quite a few folks like that out there, would give you the real answer: these pictures are poor in both quality and composition. But don't worry, get better equipment, software, scanner , and learn to compose your photo, besides there are so many good professional examples on this site. You'll get there, no doubt. IMHO digital cameras spoil the beginning user and attribute to extra sloppiness; Besides, compared to film, which still provides a far superior photographic quality, colors have no depth.
So why do you ask in the subject, really?
However, you are not alone, the place, as I see it, is littered with extremely poor pics of all kinds. And the prolific guys never even bother to ask, it seems all that counts is to get your stuff in. Having a digital camera doesn't make one a photographer. Heck, there are some old photos with MUCH better quality than these with dates 2000-2001 (just looking at Aerial Applications Airline 1974 shot in another browser window for example, may be not the best example, but will do...), then again, some old photos get a horrible scan, at least there is an excuse there (old... is 1980s old? so many bad scans, it's not even funny)
I can only wish that a use of a decent photo editor be more commonploace: otherwise, it accounts for pictures that are "unbalanced" for no particular reason, with colors so distorted, a c/s is barely recognizable... oh well, good thing there are thumbnails and different ways to sort the results, helps a bit to avoid subpar quality and enjoy good pictures.
My thanks to so many for cool quality stuff , good luck !  Smile


User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2885 times:

Why dont you just look at other photos on airliners.net and compare the quality of your photos to those and then see if there good enough, or just upload them and see

LGW


User currently offlineKcle From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2876 times:

Unixiod, I'm not using a digital camera here. That's how bad my scanner works. I had to purchase a new one since my old one required updated software that cost as much as a new scanner, and this new one is an HP ScanJet 2100C. So, I not rich, I don't make my livelyhood off taking pics, so I'm not going to buy a new scanner, a "better" photo editing program, or a new camera, since mine is "borrowed" from a someone I know. It's got several lenses, but I used the 80-200 mm lens for the UA pic above. The pics look fine in person, just my scanner is trash, but hey, what do ya expect for $50.00?

So, can someone point me to a 2nd class aviation pic website, where these pics would be added just to make the database larger?

PS, anyone reading this will notice lots of red squares, those were pics that were of low quality, and since have been emoved by myself


User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

KCLE - Visit my site, (URL in my profile) I have, on my links page a list of about 5 websites which will accept your pics "just to make the database larger"

Hope this helps, let me know how you get on

Regards

LGW


User currently offlineSam the Lab From Ireland, joined Aug 2001, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

Hi Kcle, I think your photo of the America West 737-200 with the Southwest aircraft in the background is a very good photo as is the first Sun Country 727. Keep at it and do not be discouraged. Be grateful that you have somewhere good to go spotting where you get to see and photo so many nice aircraft. You should come here to Cork, Ireland where it is quiet except for weekends and then it will be very likely lashing rain so count your blessings! Have fun!

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...
Are These Pics Good Enough? posted Mon Aug 28 2006 10:14:15 by Robban75
Are These Pics Ruined? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 11:18:23 by Robban75
Are These Any Good? posted Sun May 28 2006 19:34:15 by Jhribar
Are These Any Good? posted Thu Aug 4 2005 17:54:44 by FlyingZacko
Any Of These Pics Good? posted Mon May 30 2005 18:58:49 by Planespotterx
Reuploading Rejected Pics, Good Or Bad Idea? posted Sat Nov 27 2004 05:38:25 by Ghost77
How Are These Pics Taken? posted Sun Nov 5 2000 04:43:31 by Chris28_17
How Are These Flight Decks Pics? posted Thu Jun 29 2006 01:03:19 by Phxplanes
Are These Good Enough To Try And Upload? posted Sun Apr 23 2006 00:31:43 by 7E7Fan
Are These Photos Any Good? posted Mon Jul 18 2005 19:55:45 by Airfly