I really thought this one had a good chance, it made it through the normal screening and then bit the dust from the head screeners. I'm beginning to think they don't like me
The rejection reasons were
"The image quality of these photo(s) does not meet the very high standards
of Airliners.Net. This does not mean that it is a bad photo, but it does
mean that we think it has certain (possibly minor) flaws.
I may be possible to correct this problem, but this depends on many
"These photo(s) show a motive that is not accepted by Airliners.net. This
problem may be due to a very wide range of reasons, from photos that
include unwanted window reflections to photos showing other subjects than
aircraft. Also, certain kinds of so-called "creative" photos may be more
prone to this problem."
So I am wondering if this one is fixable or should I just keep it for my personal collection. I looked through the database and found a motive that was very similar (I even have a bit more traffic in mine) so I am thinking motiv is OK as this photo is very good.
Image quality may be an issue as I am using a laptop for photoediting but after looking at it on another screen the quality looks fine to me. I set the WB so that is fine. So anyway, any ideas on what else to do to this photo?
Atomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 440 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4434 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 1): Ok for one, the shot you refered to was added in 2003.
Not trying to compare my shot and say one got in while another didn't. In my opinion (means nothing) they are very similar and I really like Rafal's shot. I don't care when he took it, it is a good shot and I hope if he uploaded another today that is similar to that one, it would be accepted.
I really hope those long exposure shots aren't banned, I think they are some of the nicest types of shots out there if done right. I do think the standards should be higher than normal for night photos though but not so much where they are no where to be found.
Did I miss the memo somewhere saying these types of shots are no-gos now?
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4347 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 10): well, I don't know that it has ever been handed down like that, but I double checked, J did reject that photo, so I would say they will have a tough time being accepted in the future.
Thanks for the straight answer on this. Much appreciated.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 10356 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4322 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 4): I do hear what you mean. The only one I ever got accepted is one of my most popular shots.
very nice picture Martin. I really like it! Hope to see more of those type of photos in the database.
I still have to focus on night photography but I need to buy a tripod first and learn about how to use the correct camera settings for night photography. I remember reading somewhere about ISO400 for night photography or am I completely wrong? Please correct as I'm not that familiar with night photography settings yet
Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 14): In the case of your rejected shot there is no airplane per se, just some light streaks.
Oh it's there, you just have to look a bit closer
And now that I think about it there is technically one on the left side.
I totally see the arguement there, I just think these type of shots are a huge part of "aviation photography". This leads us into the debate again about if the site is just a database or a place for aviation photography.
Well, I will keep trying though, hopefully my next one makes it in.