Boeingfreak From Germany, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 398 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4227 times:
yes shots like your's are allowed at airliners.net but yours isn't showing enough of the aircraft (will result in a motiv rejection). The engine also looks soft and the houses a bit blurry. Next time try to include the wing (or parts of the wing), if there's not enough aircraft visible in the picture it will be a no-go for airliners.net
Ilikeflight From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4178 times:
Quoting Boeingfreak (Reply 1): yes shots like your's are allowed at airliners.net but yours isn't showing enough of the aircraft (will result in a motiv rejection). The engine also looks soft and the houses a bit blurry. Next time try to include the wing (or parts of the wing), if there's not enough aircraft visible in the picture it will be a no-go for airliners.net
Yeah, I know. I have many over-the-wing shots in the DB. I was (a) trying to do something different and (b) I didn't have much of a choice in this case, as I was seating in the middle row, just held my camera against the window, and shot blind. I was not very hopeful, under the circumstances. But, when I saw this one, I thought that it might have a chance. In fact, I have seen a couple of shots in the DB that basically include a small part of the engine, similar to mine, and concentrate on what's behind it.
Quoting Boeingfreak (Reply 1): if there's not enough aircraft visible in the picture it will be a no-go for airliners.net
I wouldn't say that this one has much of an aircraft in the picture; it instead focuses in the background.
Quoting Psych (Reply 2):
Also - in your other thread with the London shot - I would agree that the sharpening is not right on that one (also ultimately, it is an aerial view of London, not a plane photo, as there is not enough engine in shot). This can be very tricky through aircraft windows. When I last flew it struck me that it was in fact not possible to get the ground in sharp focus at all - clearly due to something about the properties of the windows. So this may not be an editing issue.
Yeah, exactly. I had to heavily sharpen to get it as is in the first place. Seriously, what equipment should I have to use to make such shots to work? Splash on >$1,000 a f/1.4 L lens to maximize sharpness and minimize motion blur? Would it be worth it? Absolutely NOT.
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1732 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4008 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 4): It seems as if the screeners are finding new and innovative ways to reject my photos! It was rejected for soft and (wait for it!) level!!! And no motiv!!!
We'll start with soft.....it is. Probably understandable with shooting at an angle through all that glass but soft, nonetheless.
Level is far more contentious and what I do when screening is to go for an at a glance look, the instant feeling. If it feels right I don't always check, if I do because that at a glance feel suggests that it is wrong, it usually is. I am afraid that my at a glance feel of yours is that it needs CW, and a quite a bit of it.
And before you ask, I did not reject it. It is a pity as I do not think the softness is correctable.