Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How About An Amatuer Section...  
User currently offlineUsairways@clt From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 209 posts, RR: 3
Posted (14 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Ok, here's, the deal,

I have been trying to submit photos to airliners.net for about two months. I have tried improving just about everything, but i still get the same message. The following photos were NOT added... you know what I am talking about.

So, why not create a new section on airliners.net called "Amatuer photos" for people who do NOT do this for a living? I think it would be a great idea, for it would help boost amatuer photographers' (like me) self-esteem. You could be a little easier on the standards, and while submitting maybe the photos will eventually be placed in the regular section??

So what do you think Johan??

Zach

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1586 times:

I think Johan needs another vacations   relax Johan, take it easy.

Zach it has nothing to do with making this for a living, it's just a metter of equipment (scanner) and the way each one photographs. I have a friend who tried to upload photos here for more than 2 monthes with all the pictures being rejected. I remember going to his home, after leaving my work, quite often trying to help with the scanner and software parameters without sucess, we were very sad and frustated about this. Later he was able to buy a new scanner (HP3200) and from that point ALL his photos are accepted.
My point is that maybe you have really good photos but if the equipment is not good enough just forget it, don't waste time trying to upload.

BTW do you have a link to see some of your photos?

Luis, Faro, Portugal


User currently offlineAke0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

Some of the photographers may be proffesional ones, but I think the majority of people posting photos just have this as a hobby.
You don't need the most expensive equipment to take photos or the best scanner.
Even the best equipment does not work for you if you don't know how to use it to your advantage.
If I were you I would ask tons of questions, there are lot's of photographers out there to help you.

I had the same problem in the beginning May 2000 and now I have almost 300 photos on this site.

Keep trying and then we don't need airliners.net for amateurs.

Regards

Vasco G.


User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1560 times:

Thats true. I can get scans that are excellent of an inexpensive scanner.

http://www.crosswinds.net/~kmht/beechjet.html

That was scanned with my HP3200C.


USAir_757/PSM/MHT



-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
User currently offlineUsairways@clt From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 209 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

I have an HP 4200C. The scans are definetly LESS than perfect...or perhaps it is a good scanner and I am using it wrong? I unfortunately don't have a site at this time. I am thinking of getting a geocities and putting some pics on there so you can give me some input.

User currently offlineUsairways@clt From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 209 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1556 times:

I just started a page: let me know if it the page is screwy or somet
http://www.geocities.com/zachgollman


User currently offlineAke0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

Hello,

Just took a look at the first picture, what kind of settings are u using to scan the pciture. Also for the small distance the shot was taken, some details should be clearer.
Did you try to upload that pic ?

Vasco


User currently offlineUsairways@clt From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 209 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1544 times:

I really dont have a lot of "settings" on my scanner. (HP 4200C) Is this a good scanner, because I have not been pleased with it. Yes, I tried to upload it. REJECTED of course. I am also starting to use slide film (Fujifilm Sensia II) Is this good film? Those pictures were taken with Kodak Gold though.

User currently offlineAke0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

Hello,

I don't know if you follow the forums but I can say, be careful with slides as they are not forgiving, with print film 200 speed it is not as complicated.
Kodak Gold is a good film and I used to shoot with it and still do, but not aviation anymore. If u are experienced I would try slides and see what happens, but keep in mind you scanner will become useless.......or do you have a slide adapter for the HP.
Additionally prints from slides are awefully expensive !!!

So how to u scan your pictures, explain the work flow and then we might be able to help u out.

Regards

VG




User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1538 times:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © C. Wassell



i scanned that with 300 dpi, selected for the scanner to rescan with higher values, and DID NOT directly import into PSP. Instead i saved as a BMP file and loaded it into PSP. Directly importing causes the scanner to save as a JPG with about 30-45 compression THIS IS TOO HIGH. i NEVER save at anything over 5 compression, except for my own website. Then i STILL do not use anything over 15. Usually i use 8 or 10 for that. Hope this helps.


Regards
C. Wassell/PSM/MHT



-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
User currently offlineUsairways@clt From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 209 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1527 times:

I simply press the "scan" button and it scans. I then simply save it, bring it up in Photo Deluxe, work with it, export it (change it to a jpg) and then send it. Is there anything I can do to improve without buying a new scanner?? I am really trying hard with no success!

User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Hi

In the HP PrecisionScan LT program:
Go to Settings--->Resolution... after scanning once and you will find the things i explained(300 dpi and 'Take extra time to rescan with higher values.')

Set them then click OK and save. It will flash a box that says a rescan is required to get optimal results and it will immediately rescan and save.

If you have $110 then you can get Paint Shop Pro its much nicer than PhotoDeluxe, you can do alot more. The main problem with PhotoDeluxe is you cant specify the JPG compression level. It automatically saves at about 40-50 and you cant change that.

Regards
C. Wassell



-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
User currently offlineAke0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

Do you actually change the pixles of your file, depends on the dpi the pixels could be around 1600 x 900 or more,

I do the following, I have a S20 negative and slide scanner and Photoimpact as software for it.

I start the software and scan the image directly into the software, scanned @ 2400 dpi the pixles are normally 2800 x 2000 or so, after that I resize the file to 1024 width and that automatically gives me about 600-700 pixels in height.
After that I use the sharpen tool and save it as jpeg file
File size between 90 - 200 KB this is for slides, for prints file size might be slighty higher.

E-mail me one of your scans and I take a look at it and see what I can do.

vascogarcia@msn.com

Regards

Vasco G.


User currently offlineUsairways@clt From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 209 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (14 years 2 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1503 times:

When I save at 300dpi, it seems way too big, and plus some of the quality of the photo seems to be lost (and I clicked rescan for higher value)

Zach


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...
How About A Vapour Trail Section? posted Sat Feb 23 2002 03:48:07 by Boeing764
How About An Amatuer Section... posted Sat Aug 19 2000 18:15:01 by Usairways@clt
How About This One? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 21:53:20 by Stil
How About This Evening Shot? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 00:21:52 by San747
About An Aircraft Info posted Mon Sep 18 2006 17:42:54 by Bubbles
How About This F-16 Photo? posted Thu Sep 7 2006 04:32:26 by Thetford569
How About A 'Shot From A Moving Car' Category? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 20:42:09 by SmAlbany
How About This? posted Thu Dec 29 2005 13:56:33 by TV840
How About These? posted Sun Aug 14 2005 17:21:30 by FlyingZacko
How About Another Category? posted Wed Apr 13 2005 04:14:38 by CallMeCapt