Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photographers Choice...Technical Fault?  
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3597 times:

With standards being so high these days, how does a photo with such an obvious technical fault make it past the screeners? I wont post the photo here, but it is currently "photographers choice" on the front page. It's a wonderful photo, and really made me go "wow". But But it's pretty obvious to me that the nose of the aircraft is ever so slightly cut off. No disrespect to the photographer, because it's a wonderful shot. Just wondering how this "slipped by".

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11357 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3587 times:

Probably because it's such an awesome shot. That would be my guess. I can only imagine how hard that shot must have been to place in the frame.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAndyHunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1306 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3569 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

The photo was passed to Johan for a final decision and he decided that it was good enough to be added...... Big grin

Andrew



Full frame always beats post processing
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3512 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

I didn't want to throw this one in at once but since we're at it:
what about Steve Morris' shot currently in the Photographers Choice Top15?
I checked the image on 2 different screens and to me this picture, although it's a fantastic motive, looks as if too much of some drawing filter was used; this comes out especially clear on the fuselage reflections.
To me this filter ruined an otherwise perfectly nice shot.
My apologies to Steve should this post result in any trouble to him but since most people (including me) are interested in consistency regarding the screening and acceptance process I felt I had to point that one out as normally an image edited in such a way would get an immediate rejection!

 Confused

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3503 times:

Quoting AndyHunt (Reply 2):
The photo was passed to Johan for a final decision and he decided that it was good enough to be added......

"Good Enough"...but many photos have been rejected in the recent past for being just .5 degrees unlevel, or having just one small area slightly unsharp. So what you are saying is that it was ok that the nose on this plane was cut off because it was such a great shot. I mean, I could understand if it was slightly grainy for a high ISO, or maybe slightly unlevel for the angle, but part of the plane is cut off! This is the first thing that hit me when I opened the large version of the photo.


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 4):
but part of the plane is cut off!

So what. Its in by the boss decision. Time to move on.



-
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

Not really the photographers' choice, rather the "view all top rated-photos" section has something strange going on. Seems that some peoples names pop up there surprisingly often...  Yeah sure

E


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

I noticed this photo as well and I guess it is fare to say that 90% of the posters here would have done a better job in both photography and post processing but the fact is....... nobody did !
It's a rare picture and although it does not meet the quality standards most of us are looking for I am happy to see it in.

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

I must say I'm very impressed that the fighter flying so fast that it has no high alfa angle at all, still was captured by the sensor on a dull day with such a high shutter speed that there is no blur on the background and it doesn't look like it was at iso 3600.
New sensors are coming obviously.

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3766 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

Quoting Jan Mogren (Reply 8):
on a dull day with such a high shutter speed that there is no blur on the background

My very first thought exactly!

F.



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 5):
So what. Its in by the boss decision. Time to move on.

Peter,

This is a quite unessasary comment from someone with your experience and is such a blindingly obvious statement.
I would descibe Johan as a democratic autocrat. He listens and reacts accordingly and who is to say he would make the same decision next time.
Much of the rules and guidance for such as ourselves has been formulated as a direct result of reasoned discussions in this forum and long may it continue.
Tis your goodself who perhaps ought to move on if I may say.

Malcolm.



My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

Quoting IL76 (Reply 6):
Not really the photographers' choice, rather the "view all top rated-photos" section

Exactly my point against at the time it was introduced.
Which is why I proposed that only established photographers should have a voice for the "PHOTOGRAPHERS CHOICE" section.
Now it is just another "most popular" counter.

Quoting Jan Mogren (Reply 8):
I must say I'm very impressed that the fighter flying so fast that it has no high alfa angle at all, still was captured by the sensor on a dull day with such a high shutter speed that there is no blur on the background and it doesn't look like it was at iso 3600.

I don't think so Jan.
It depends largely on the distance between photographer and subject.
If it was taken with a short lens we might have seen some motion blur at 1/500s but not if it was taken with 300mm or something.

The lack of alfa angle does in this case not mean it is flying fast.
Guess it is doing something like 200kts at 10 feet or so which causes the air between ground and aircraft to compress more aft then front so the alfa angle disappears, in fact you have to be careful not to nose dive into the ground.

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3473 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

That's a very strange comment Flyfisher1976. The "Photographers choice" is, as you know, voted on by the photographers themselves and I have no say in what photo is selected.

As for it being added to the database, it was cristal clear that I would accept it - It's an amazing photo. There's many reasons for adding a sub-quality photo to the database, rarity, age, artistic qualities etc. This shot is both rare and artistic.

Now, should the photo turn out to be digitally altered in any way, we will have it removed for that reason.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 4):
"Good Enough"...but many photos have been rejected in the recent past for being just .5 degrees unlevel,

Yes - for photos of aircraft we have hundreds of already in the database! The types of questions you ask really shows that you have not read through the upload page and FAQ.

Regards,
Johan

[Edited 2006-04-02 12:49:31]


Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3455 times:

Quoting Administrator (Reply 12):
There's many reasons for adding a sub-quality photo to the database, rarity, age, artistic qualities etc. This shot is both rare and artistic.

 checkmark 

Quoting Administrator (Reply 12):
Yes - for photos of aircraft we have hundreds of already in the database! The types of questions you ask really shows that you have not read through the upload page and FAQ.

 checkmark 
Well spoken Johan.
Please apply it more often for rare stuff  Wink

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3452 times:

Quoting Administrator (Reply 12):
That's a very strange comment Flyfisher1976. The "Photographers choice" is, as you know, voted on by the photographers themselves and I have no say in what photo is selected.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this...If you go to the home page, right under where it says "Photographers Choice" you will see the thumbnail of this photo. Not sure what exactly is strange about my comment regarding it being "Photographers Choice". Am I missing something here?

Quoting Administrator (Reply 12):
As for it being added to the database, it was cristal clear that I would accept it - It's an amazing photo. There's many reasons for adding a sub-quality photo to the database, rarity, age, artistic qualities etc. This shot is both rare and artistic.

Amazing how? I mean it's a rare circumstance, but is it really that amazing. After all, it's a side-on shot of an aircraft. I'm sure I'll have a hundred people tell me why this shot was so hard to get, but I really don't think that it's that amazing from a photographic point of view. And as for artistic...I'm not sure how this shot is artistic in any way shape or form.

Quoting Administrator (Reply 12):

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 4):
"Good Enough"...but many photos have been rejected in the recent past for being just .5 degrees unlevel,

Yes - for photos of aircraft we have hundreds of already in the database! The types of questions you ask really shows that you have not read through the upload page and FAQ.

I'm sorry Johan, but this photo is sub-par for the standards of this site. My opinions on this shot have nothing to do with my comprehension of of the photo-upload faq page. It is simply an observation of a flaw that immediately draws the viewers eye and really detracts from the photo IMO. It doesn't deserve to be showcased here IMO.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3452 times:

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 14):
After all, it's a side-on shot of an aircraft.

Yes Flyfisher but there is a difference in photographing a stationary or slowly moving (big)object and something that goes 200kts.
Have you ever tried it yourself ?

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 14):
I'm sorry Johan, but this photo is sub-par for the standards of this site.

Everybody agrees but there are different standards for "common" and "uncommon" and although I am not impressed by this photo it is "uncommon".



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3452 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We are discussing this image with the photographer.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5697 posts, RR: 44
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3452 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 14):
but I really don't think that it's that amazing from a photographic point of view.

This site is not about amazing photography, it is about technically competent photographs of aeroplanes, with some artistic shots being accepted more as an exception than as a rule. Sometimes as seen here exceptionally rare or unusual shots that may not meet normal standards are(and should be) accepted.

Tim, looking forward to the results of those discussions


Chris



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3452 times:

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 14):
I'm sure I'll have a hundred people tell me why this shot was so hard to get

...

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 15):
Yes Flyfisher but there is a difference in photographing a stationary or slowly moving (big)object and something that goes 200kts.

 checkmark  There's one...

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 16):
We are discussing this image with the photographer.

Cool, I'll be interested to hear the outcome.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 17):
This site is not about amazing photography

I never said it was. You have either misunderstood what I said or taken my statement out of context. I was merely countering Johan's opinion that this shot was "amazing".

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 17):
artistic shots being accepted more as an exception than as a rule.

Can someone please explain how this shot is "artistic" in any way, shape or form? I just don't see it. Furthermore many great shots have been posted here that have been rejected for this very reason (artistic, i.e. motive).


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5697 posts, RR: 44
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3452 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 18):
You have either misunderstood what I said or taken my statement out of context. I was merely countering Johan's opinion that this shot was "amazing".

I was describing the site in general, Oh and you can have an "amazing photo" that is certainly NOT "amazing from a photographic point of view" If you get the not so subtle distinction.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 18):
Can someone please explain how this shot is "artistic" in any way, shape or form?

Now it is your turn to misunderstand me.. I never said this photo was artistic, I did say (or at least implied) it was amongst those "exceptionally rare or unusual shots that may not meet normal standards are(and should be) accepted"

Personally I agree with Johan that this photo may be rare, I do not feel it is artistic.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3452 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 19):
Personally I agree with Johan that this photo may be rare, I do not feel it is artistic.

 checkmark 

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 19):
Now it is your turn to misunderstand me..

So does that make us "even"? Big grin


User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

Why is everyone criticizing an accepted photo so much? If its below a.net standards or not is really irrelevant at this point since it got accepted, so why dig in so much? I feel bad for the photographer. He did a great job and yet people are almost saying that the picture is crap!
just my opinion, nothing personal  Smile



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 11):
It depends largely on the distance between photographer and subject.
If it was taken with a short lens we might have seen some motion blur at 1/500s but not if it was taken with 300mm or something.

Think about that some more.


User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 14):
I'm sorry Johan, but this photo is sub-par for the standards of this site.

No need to apologize-- we all make mistakes.

Wouldn't you guess that if it were put to a vote, 90+% would agree with Johan's choice? He'd be crazy to refuse this one, far as I'm concerned.


User currently offlineTRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3337 times:

I had noticed the nose tip cut off but I didn't have to think why it was accepted. It is simple common sense.
Great shot and great screening.

I believe it is time anet should ban threads challenging accepted photos as it is very much insulting to the photographer involved. If there is a real issue, it should be pointed out to the screeners/Head screener.

The whole blaming and pointing fingers thing is making the anet photographers look very cheap and immature.


25 Post contains links and images Aviopic : Oeps..... silly mistake. A/C travels same distance in a given time no matter where you stand As indicated I was/am in favor of this photo although no
26 StealthZ : There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism or healthy discussion of a photo or photographer, as long as it is done in meaningful and non insu
27 Post contains images Flyfisher1976 : After I thought about what Johan said in his reply above, I realized that I misunderstood the point he was trying to make. He was saying that we vote
28 QANTAS077 : why? the hits it's had speak volumes about the shot, ok it's not perfect but stuff me it's the only shot i've seen in here for a while that sent my j
29 Flyfisher1976 : And what was the result of this "discussion"? Just curious.
30 BY123A : Quoting ThierryD (Reply 3) "My apologies to Steve should this post result in any trouble" Now I know why my last accepted submission has gone missing!
31 Post contains links and images ThierryD : I'm not sure I understand what my thread here has to do with your last submission but should you be referring to the Virgin B747 shot it indeed came
32 BY123A : Regarding the 747 shot, I had an accepted e-mail but the shot never appeared in my photos, nor my rejection box by mistake. I have since been trying
33 Xpfg : The system now queues accepted photos, sometimes up to an hour or more that I have seen. If you go to My Photos, does it say something like "you have
34 Post contains images ThierryD : Ok, well in this case Tim and I are wrong and honestly I'm not too concerned about being wrong in such good company This stringent rule about baddoub
35 LIPH : Thierry, what filter are you talking about ? Regards
36 ThierryD : see Reply 31
37 LIPH : Thierry I agree....Maybe (me included) have been rejected some shots for really less...and maybe if one of our rejected shots would be in the db it c
38 Post contains images Willo : Theiry I personally think Steve has every right to be annoyed with your approach. If you had an issue with Steve's (drawing filter) picture why didn't
39 Post contains images ThierryD : Andrew, when you address someone, please be sure to get his name right to start with. Then though I'm not a fan of explaining an issue to someone who
40 Post contains links Willo : Thierry, Apologies for the incorrect spelling of your name in my previous post. Funnily enough, I have followed this thread from day one, so I'm aware
41 Post contains images Flyfisher1976 : No, I wouldn't guess. My point remains the same, but let me define it a little more clearly: From a photographic standpoint, what really makes this p
42 TRVYYZ : Check the number of hits, who cares what standpoint. There are only two shots of that event on anet DB. Because you and I were not there. As simple a
43 VasanthD : Hits does not imply a viewers favorite. People would definitely want to see how weird the photo is after looking at the thumbnail. This is just a gen
44 Flyfisher1976 : My thoughts exactly...
45 Flyfisher1976 : Some additional thoughts on a previous post... Initially, I wasn't challenging the mechanics of "photographers choice", rather using it as a reference
46 TRVYYZ : very true in absolute terms. But the picture in question was also a photographer's choice. There was something special in the shot that made myself a
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...
An Improvement To Photographers Choice? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 08:18:43 by Q330
MH 747 On Homepage, Photographers Choice posted Sat Oct 29 2005 03:44:03 by Ammunition
About The Photographers Choice Awards posted Sun Sep 18 2005 21:48:54 by GOT
New Photographers Choice Award posted Sun Aug 14 2005 04:02:05 by Administrator
Need Help With Camera Choice posted Fri Nov 24 2006 01:07:31 by DeltaGator
Upload Queue Limits Change For New Photographers posted Thu Nov 23 2006 20:10:18 by Administrator
Meet Some Non-A.net LHR Photographers! posted Sat Nov 11 2006 00:38:47 by Aero145
Changing Information - Photographers' Views posted Thu Nov 9 2006 09:47:07 by Psych
The "New" Professional Photographers posted Tue Oct 17 2006 18:37:30 by N314AS
MAN Photographers... posted Sat Oct 14 2006 22:23:24 by Daleaholic