Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4517 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 4): Why does this matter? A beautiful photograph is a beautiful photograph. A "perfect" photograph isn't always beautiful.
I agree. The recent Air International photo competition was an eye-opener: in a.net terms most of the winning photos were bad quality, bad distance, bad motive, bad grainy ...
But as long as you're uploading to a.net, then the a.net criteria have to matter. And to be fair, a.net's criteria are what stop a.net from becoming like a military aviation desktop photo website that I came across a while ago - full of mediocre photos possessing neither technical quality nor artistic merit. Unless perhaps one considers an F-18 flying in formation with a squadron of dust spots to be artistic.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4461 times:
I always enjoy looking at your rejections - so often they are lovely photographs, as is this one. I also admire the way so many of your shots 'test' the boundaries of the A.net criteria, and I would like to think the screeners enjoy having to consider your shots very carefully.
For me, with a screener's hat on, the first thing that struck me was the 'dirt', so I am pleased to see that those areas have gone in the second posted version. I think the crop now gives you more chance of success too. I am guessing it is not possible, but I would have liked to have see the far right corner of the runway, just to make it complete . But it is a lovely photo nonetheless, and I think the heat-hazed background makes it very atmospheric.
A couple of very minor points: can you give the port wing a little extra sharpening? There is very slight softness there, and with the nav light. Also are there very small jaggies on that left, highlighted side of the fuselage? Look what the screeners have done to me - I am becoming as picky as them .
You must give it another go and I will have my fingers crossed for you.
Tonyosborne From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 62 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4392 times:
I am intrigued by now that was taken at 1/25th of a second, I would have thought that an aircraft travelling at about 150/160mph at that point would have produced far more movement, and probably a more blurred aircraft...not a critisism, merely an observation...
Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4349 times:
Quoting Tonyosborne (Reply 14): I am intrigued by now that was taken at 1/25th of a second, I would have thought that an aircraft travelling at about 150/160mph at that point would have produced far more movement, and probably a more blurred aircraft...not a critisism, merely an observation...
Absolutely right, but we know what IS does and I am pretty sure Javier fired some frames away while moving perhaps his cam some mlms up - as he knows what he is doing. We all know : some shots turn out some not while trying to blur it ....