Senorcarnival From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1780 times:
You know how sometimes you have a picture you really like but you're not sure it's quite up to a.net standards? Well, welcome to yet another one of such threads. All these photos were roughly edited just to have a slight idea of what it would look like and if it can be improved. Photo 1: http://www.pbase.com/senorcarnival/image/59281540
I like the late afternoon sunlight on it, but I think the fact the tail is somewhat cut off (even on the original, I know, my fault...) would get the dreaded motive boot.
Photo 2:
Are extreme nose close-ups acceptable if the pilots aren't waving or any of that? Also, is that white speck under the cockpit a hot pixel or just a plane showing signs of age? I wasn't sure if I should clone it out or not.
Photo 3:
Another sort of close-up. Would it be correct to say that the reflections (especially near the U.S. flag and on the landing gear "door") on the plane would botch this shot?
ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1391 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1757 times:
Image 1
I presume you've compressed the first image on that site? You'll need to start again with it. Nevertheless you'll probably get a badmotive rejection there.
Image 2
Nice, but the shot's not level - it needs some CCW rotation. Also there are some serious quality issues with the background. Did you use NeatImage?
Image 3
Looks good, perhaps a little too much noise though. The main issue is with the centering - it's much too low in the frame.
No, however, I applied USM to the whole picture b/c I didn't feel like taking the time to apply it only to the plane and get feedback saying it's no good.
Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 2): Looks good, perhaps a little too much noise though. The main issue is with the centering - it's much too low in the frame.
Looks noisy probably because I used the same strategy as above.
ZSOFN From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1391 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1701 times:
Quoting Senorcarnival (Reply 3): I applied some post processing to it and resized it to 1024 X 768, just like I would if uploading to a.net.
In that case, make sure you're saving in best quality jpeg format as there's an unacceptable level of jpeg compression for this site.
Quoting Senorcarnival (Reply 3): No, however, I applied USM to the whole picture b/c I didn't feel like taking the time to apply it only to the plane and get feedback saying it's no good.
I'd recommend you take the time to do so I can understand you not having done so thus far as you mentioned in your first post that you want to see whether it's worth working on them properly.
You're showing some promise with your shots but post-processing takes practise and involves constant learning, not to mention a lot of time if you want to get the very best out of your image.
I had to use a 3:4 crop ratio because I couldn't crop it on a 2:3 (or 3:2 for that matter) without cutting something out, like part of the landing gear. What is wrong with the motive? Mind you, I'm not disputing your opinion, I just want to gain insight as to what you feel is bad about the motive. What about size? Is it just the square thing?
I can indeed get better centering on a 3:2 ratio, this would make the fuselage centered but the furthest away engine still sits low in the frame. If the fuselage is centered, would it correct the centering part?
I know you have some photos to screen, so thanks a lot for taking your time to help me out.
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 56 Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1613 times:
Quoting Senorcarnival (Reply 7): I just want to gain insight as to what you feel is bad about the motive. What about size? Is it just the square thing?
I guess in this particular example, size and motive go hand in hand.
In the reply above you've explained the motive behind the size.
The size rejection takes into account both size and ratio:
SIZE Rejection reason The size of your photo(s) was too small or they had a very unusual width/height ratio.
Quoting Senorcarnival (Reply 7): I can indeed get better centering on a 3:2 ratio, this would make the fuselage centered but the furthest away engine still sits low in the frame. If the fuselage is centered, would it correct the centering part?
I suggest when taking the photo initially, think about centering. If you want to prepare for some flexibility with editing, you can also decrease your zoom while taking the shot.
Some might say to just clone some extra sky in, but that is a big no-no and could also lead to rejection.
EDITING Rejection reason Deliberate attempts to alter the image, i.e. by digitally removing or adding objects, or by purposely changing certains items in the image.
For reference motive can be easily explained with:
MOTIVE Rejection reason Your photo(s) showed a motive that is not accepted by Airliners.net. This problem may be due to a very wide range of reasons.
Some examples are:
...Photos showing just a part of an aircraft (with no motivation for doing so...
Quoting Senorcarnival (Reply 7): I know you have some photos to screen, so thanks a lot for taking your time to help me out.
Not a problem! I'm glad to be of assistance.
Glenn
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1391 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, 
I can understand you not having done so thus far as you mentioned in your first post that you want to see whether it's worth working on them properly.
From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
