Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Am I Doing Wrong?  
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3910 times:

Okay. This is my first photo submission to Airliners.net.

It has been rejected twice.

The reason was given as image quality vaguely stated in the rejection notice.

It was shot with my new Canon SLR camera with expensive Kodak film.

It was scanned with a new UMAX Astra 2200 (1200 x 600) dpi purchased expressly for this purpose.

The original photo is crisp as a 4" x 6". The scanned image appears crisp to my eye. But when uploaded the file size is massive at 773,000 bytes. So the resolution must be good. There is no pixelating going on. The data is there.

Alas, it seems not good enough. Very disappointing.

The following photo will take about 10 minutes to load because the file size is so big.

How do I make the file size smaller without sacrificing dpi?

P.S. I've had to reduce the dimension of the photo for this post to 400 x 600. Otherwise, the photo uploads at huge proportions and takes forever to load.

Hmmmm...




Hmmmm...


An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBrick From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1581 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3513 times:

First of all the file size is waaaaay too big. Even if it is at a 300 dpi resolution (which is more than enough) the file shouldn't be over 200K.

The photo was problaby rejected because: A) The subject is too far away and/or B) the subject has been cut off a little bit (why don't you crop the photo and have the aircraft centered?).

Just my opinions...

Mark Abbott
Minneapolis, MN



A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man...
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3500 times:

Hi!

The object itself looks good. A nice angle. But you need to leave out some of the sky and concentrate on getting the plane larger. Then you shouldn't have any problems.

On the topic - can anyone tell me what's wrong with these pics?




/Danny


User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

Thanks for your responses guys.

The rejection notice, the form letter we are all familiar with, only spoke about image quality.

It would be much better if Johan simply stated why it was rejected. A few simple words. That way we would know why it was rejected instead of guessing. It wouldn't take any more time to do that than it takes to fire off a form letter. Unless, of course, all the rejects for say, image quality, are all put into an e-mail folder and then sent all at once at the same time in a mass mailing procedure. That won't be of much help.

As a photographer, and photography is an artform, and therefore subjective, I like the shot the way it is composed. It was coming from my left, so I like the fact that there is more sky on the right. Nor do I think that the plane is too small. I don't believe that every shot requires that the plane be huge and right in the middle. That would be like being a photographer for a mail order catalogue company. There would be no room for artistic flair and therefore no point in displaying your work for others to see. I hope that is not the reason.

Yes, the right winglet is cut off. If that is the fatal flaw, then it would be nice to know that. That way I won't waste my time guessing what is wrong and uploading it again and again. I can write that photo off as unsalvageable.

But I don't think that is the reason. Which still leaves the question as to why the file size is so big, 773,000 bytes. Something is wrong there.

Even when I scanned it at 75 dpi, the file size was still 301,000 bytes, but the picture was pixelated.


I like both of those shots Danny. If it is image quality then maybe a higher resolution scan. What dpi was it scanned? My recent rule is that I should be able to magnify three or four times without seeing pixels. But maybe Johan's rule is six times. He does not say. So we are just shooting in the dark. And comparison to other photos on Airliners.net does no good. Johan says that he has increased the standards as time goes by. Which means there are thousands of photos there which are no better than yours or mine. So we can't compare to other photos since we do not know what the standards are now vs. then.

I'm at a loss.

Hmmmm...




An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineCorona From United States of America, joined May 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

Couple of points to Hmmmm...

You wrote:

"I don't believe that every shot requires that the plane be huge and right in the middle. That would be like being a photographer for a mail order catalogue company"

Welcome to Airliners.net. Yes, you ARE shooting for someone else by uploading to this site. Johan has the final say, so basically, you will have to create pictures HE likes. Sad, but true. That's why I don't upload much anymore...just a few shots here and there.

You wrote:

"So we are just shooting in the dark. And comparison to other photos on Airliners.net does no good. Johan says that he has increased the standards as time goes by. Which means there are thousands of photos there which are no better than yours or mine. So we can't compare to other photos since we do not know what the standards are now vs. then."

Well, there IS a way to see what the current standards are: check the most recent uploads.

Anyway, don't get frustrated...just keep shooting what YOU like. Good luck...


User currently offlineQantas737 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 738 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3438 times:

I've got the same problem guys. Johan says my scan quality is very low, but they are at 600DPI and I think they are just as clear as some of the other recent photos added to the database! Hmmm..... I do think your photo should be more centered, but other than that it looks good to me. Danny I see absolutely nothing wrong with your 2 shots at all. Please have a look at mine and tell me why you think they are always rejected!

http://photos.yahoo.com/supra_101

Thanks.


User currently offlineAUS_Spotter From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3433 times:

You don't need to scan at a high dpi to get a good quality scan. All the photos I've uploaded have been scanned at 150dpi and saved with 20% JPEG compression. This results in a file size of less than 200kb almost every time. I've found that most of the photos I've had rejected are due to the original photo itself, and not the scan. I've learned a lot about scanning and taking photos since I started uploading pictures to Airliners.net in January.

Quantas737, You're photos were probably rejected because the date is printed on the photo. However, even if the date wasn't on the photo they probably would have been rejected for being too blurry. Try using the "sharpen" feature of your image editing program after you scan to make your photos sharper. I took one of your photos and sharpened it. http://www.coasterphotos.com/temp/SAS-ingvar.jpg
Check it out, I think you'll be able to see a difference. Also, it looks like the photos may have been taken through a window as I can see some reflections in the photos. This will also get a photo rejected.

Jason Knutson - Austin, TX


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3422 times:

The picture would look better if the plane was centered and not cutted, if you want to bring the "art" word to discussion, you should have filled that open space on the right with something like another plane or the sun or some building. In aviation photography that kind of open spaces doesn't work, it just seems you shoot the plane one second before the right time. Ofcourse art is subjective and different to each one eyes but to tell you the truth I don't see art in that photo.

Luis, Faro, Portugal


User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3405 times:

Okay, art critics, I have bent to your demands. I have reduced the amount of sky all around and also the tree at the bottom. I liked the tree where it was. It gave the photo perspective. You knew how low to the ground it was when you saw the plane juxtaposed against nature. But I have now become one of the Borg collective it seems, and removed this as well.

When I uploaded this photo on to the net to show you here, I noticed that the file size is right. At 612 x 900 pixels, full-page view, it comes to about 58 KBs at 300 dpi. Perhaps the host automatically compresses it. I don't know. And I don't know if lower dpis will produce the same quality. I understand that for Internet display, 150 is plenty good enough.

I added my credit to protect it now that it is in the public domain. Johan can delete that if he finally chooses to display it.


I also ran the photo through Adobe Photoshop and used the sharpen feature twice. But not more than twice.

This is the result.



BTW, that over-the-wing shot out the window shows no reflections to my eye. I don't see a problem with that one. Keep trying Danny.



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineNosewheel From Jamaica, joined Jul 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

Hi There Mmmmmm,

I have no comments on the picture quality...ultimately Johan has the final say so no point me telling you it is good, bad, or in-between.

But...

When it comes to scanning, resizing, saving and all the rest...try this...

Scan the shot...any resolution, doesn't matter...just try a few settings until you find what gives the best end result.

Resize the shot to some sensible size, bearing in mind the new 800/600 minimum sizes here on airliners (some packages will call this "resample") and at the same time set the "output resolution" to something between 70 and 100 dpi...this has nothing to do with the scan resolution and no detail is lost...this just affects how big your shot will print.

Note that if you resize to say 1000 pixels wide and leave the resolution as 1000dpi your shot will only be 1 inch wide when printed!!! I don't know if Johan considers this when looking at image quality...but he might...and what good is a shot that no one can print?? (just a thought).

Now sharpen (using the unsharp mask feature) to something between 100 and 160% with radius set to 1 (always!!!) and threshold set to 10...only use this once on the whole image...you can selectively do detail afterwards if required. Sometimes you might find an initial 100% sharpen at the original images size helps...this will vary from image to image but it is something to try if at this stage the image doesn't sharpen satisfactorally.

When done save as JPEG with no more than 20% compression...or better still save with no compression and use JPEG Wizard as this compresses with very little loss of image quality (get it from http://www.jpegwizard.com)...

Then see what Johan thinks...

But bear in mind it all starts with a sharp, clean slide or print.

Good luck,
Dean Barnes




User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3391 times:

I like it now, it lost some quality, it's more grainy but I like it.

User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3399 times:

Thanks for your suggestions Nosewheel. This is where I am at now:

My scanner software allows me to set dpi and image size separately. I chose the default setting of 100% for image size.

Then I scan with 300 dpi. I found that higher dpi scans produced no better results. But took forever to load. But I found that scanning at 75 dpi was very pixelated.

If I scan with 1000 dpi, my file will be huge. That was what I had been doing and I was getting file sizes near 100MB! And the quality of the photo was no better. In fact, it was worse, because it was so blown up, every imperfection in the processing was there up close.

My software does not have this radius and threshold feature you speak of. Or it goes under another name. But I do use the sharpen feature that comes with the Photoshop software. I sharpen twice.

BTW, this image should be no less fine than before. I did not diminish the scan resolution. I simply just cropped the photo and sharpened it twice. Without sharpening, it was a little blurred up close.

I did not compress this JPG file. And the file size was only 58 KBs. All in all, I think the technicals are now correct. Resolution-wise, I compare it to recent uploads at Airliners.net and see no difference, even after magnification several times. I look for pixelating after moving up in magnification level and comparing where it starts between my shots and those that are already up at Airliners.net to convince myself that it is not a resolution issue.

BTW, what photo software do you people use when downloading JPG files? I have Corel Photohouse that came with Corel Suite 8. It is very basic. Not too many features, but I find it allows me to make small JPG files by selecting pixel dimensions. I can not seem to be able to do this with Adobe photoshop. It makes huge files. So I use both.

I was just talking to a gentlemen in photo equipment and processing store, and he told me that there is infinitely more data to be scanned off a negative or a slide than there is off a 4 x 6 print. Which is what most of us are doing I think. The resolution should be crystal clear if the shot was.

The scanner I purchased advertised, on the box, that it scanned negatives, slides and transparencies. Well, guess what? To do that, you need to purchase a special add-on piece. No mention of that. And guess what? It is an item almost impossible to find for that make in this country.

Truth in advertising.

Hmmmm...







An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3382 times:

Try to keep the scanning as simple as possible, I use Adobe Photodeluxe, first scan at 150dpi, then sharpen the photo only once and later if necessary add some contrast and that's it, all my photos are accepted. BTW the scanner is a HP5100C.

Luis, Faro, Portugal


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3372 times:

Hi! (sorry if I'm a little late - weekend...  )

Hmmmm, what sort of scanning software do you use? I use HP DeskScan II and it allows me to use any DPI setting but still reduce size if I want. There should be some similar thing in your software. Try looking it up. But as many already said - it usually is enough with 300 DPI, and that's what I used for my shots. But they still get rejected because of low quality. I've tried almost everything with these pics, and I really can't see what's wrong with them, just like the rest of you. So Hmmmm, we'll just need to try harder, right?   You have an eye for good photo angles, so don't give up!
That wing-shot of mine is absolutely without any reflections, so that can't be the case...I actually got rejected (if I don't remember it wrong) because of "low esthetic values". Meaning that I didn't shoot enough of the wing... Is there anyone else seeing the art in that shot? Spoilers up at fl310? I think it looks pretty good. It's almost like a desktop pic for your computer!

Qantas737 - the ideas on your pics are good, but.
* The first SR MD11 - not showing enough of the plane. I like the pic, it's very artistic. But that's not what they think here.
* The second SR MD11 - you've got a little too much terminal building in the foreground.
* The SAS B763 - why do we nordic people always have to eat so much? Them freakin' Gate Gourmet cars are in the way.
* The Qantas B743 and Australian BAe146 - play around a little with light, contrast and sharpening. Looking good.

Anyway...I'm gonna try scanning the pics one more time, then I don't know what to do...

Guys - keep trying, you sure show that you can and are good enough for this place! Good luck!

/Danny


User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

Hmmmm...: The photo still would be rejected. It's too grainy. I believe PhotoShop has a grain reduction feature. Try re-scanning that photo at 150DPI then using PhotoShop and use the grain reduction, THEN sharpen. I use Paint Shop Pro 7 beta, it has a grain reduction.

Look at the difference:
(before grain reduction) http://www.geocities.com/aviationspotter/comaircrj-4.jpg

(after grain reduction) http://www.geocities.com/aviationspotter/comaircrj-5.jpg

TRy it...


Regards
C. Wassell



-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
User currently offlineQantas737 From Australia, joined Jul 2000, 738 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (13 years 11 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3349 times:

Looks like we all have to just keep trying   One day we might all have at least 1 photo on airliners.net. I'm trying to get my last 3 shots on the film currently in the camera used up so I can see what kind of shots I got. There is a real close up shot of a Flight West Jetstream 32EP and I hope it turns out real good. No Gate Gourmet trucks next to it and the only thing that might let it down is the rear door/step at the rear of the aircraft being down at the time! Danny I really like your photos and I don't know why they could really get rejected! The wing is like my shot of the Asia Swissair shot showing the fuselage which just isn't enough of the part, apparently. I really liked the way that my shot turned out. I think the shot with the Asia Swissair tail was more aimed at the Tokyo Narita Terminal in the background so I'm not complaining! Anyway good luck everyone trying to upload some photos! 

User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3337 times:

Well I adjusted the photo to make it even clearer with the despeckle option in Photoshop. Unfortunately, no matter how good it is, Johan doesn't want it.

So instead of waiting 5 days to get a rejection notice, I've decided to forget about airliners.net and create my own porfolio at webshots. At webshots, you can share your photos with the internet.

I have some very interesting well-framed, artistic shots that just will never see the light of day here. But you guys can view them as soon as they are all scanned and loaded.

I suggest you do the same.

The problem is not the your photos are of low quality. We all know what a low quality photo looks like. There are thousands of them on airliners.net. Your photos are as good or better than most. We've seen them. Better than most of the run-of-the-mill shots already uploaded and accepted. The problem is that there are already so many photos on the site, many by professional photographers, that getting your photo accepted has become a contest. Often it rides on your intimate knowledge of photo editing software and your ability to manipulate your photo so that it will appear just right to Johan in the one-second glance he probably gives it.

That is not what it was about in the beginning. And it certainly is not in the spirit of the internet where sharing thoughts and photos with untold others is the reason why you and I are here.

We are here to share our photos, that have been carefully taken and scanned to the best of our ability. But to Johan, the submitted photos are only material to generate web hits, to generate banner income. The "better" the photos, the more hits he can generate, the more money the site makes. So why spend the hours and the tedious effort in uploading your work when it will most likely end in rejection because your work was deemed unprofitable for the greater glory of the site?

When you share your photos on Webshots.com, for example, they are also material for generating site hits. But at least there they do not reject your work. They allow you to share it the way you photographed it. In the egalitarian, democratic spirit of the of the Internet, they let the world decide if the shot is flawed or great. Or great with a flaw. Or somewhere in between. It is not censured by anybody, least of all, one man.

Which is ironic. In the beginning, when Johan had nothing, he accepted any decent photo of an airliner, grateful for the submission. And best of all, it was free. Fee material for his site that earned him money with the banner ads. That's how all sites work. The more hits, the more you can charge for banner ad space.

But now that this site has become so big with so many photos and such a money maker, he doesn't need, nor want, your amateur photos anymore. Now he is no longer grateful for your efforts, because he doesn't need them. Instead, he snubs his nose at your nice shots, claiming that his standards have increased, and your efforts no longer meet them. Then a belated pre-worded form e-mail rejection notice informing you that your photos are lacking.

I would like to see those "high standards" used on the discussion forums. But dumbass Airbus vs Boeing threads, with atrocious grammer and spelling worded by 12 year-olds, generate lots of hits. More hits, more money.

So much for quality control.

Hmmmm...



An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

I've seen lots of people complaining about rejected photos, if you make a search, you can even see ME complaining a long time ago. You're the first that I would call a bad looser.
Something has to make the difference between the good sites and the average sites. Airliners.net is the number one site for aviation photography and I hope Johan will keep it this way.

Luis, Faro, Portugal


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

Luis, as you said - you have been there before, and so have I. We had both gotten lots of rejected pics before finally getting accepted...and now that we get our pics more or less accepted, it's so much easier to say what you just said.

But please put yourself in Mark's place. Do you remember those annoying "The following pictures were NOT added..." e-mails? What did you think? What did you say in your anger? Well, probably exactly what Mark just said. So take it easy on him and remember that we have all been there.

And to you Mark, have patience. It takes a lot to get accepted, but if I can manage to get my pics accepted, so can you. You show that you have that eye for nice angles and stuff. You got the potential to be one of those "higher level"-photographers. When that day comes, remember us guys at the bottom, okay?  

Don't give up and keep up the good work!

/Danny


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3316 times:

Yes I have complain before but I have never told something like "hey guys you're loosing time here, let's go to webshots, this administrator doesn't care about your photos, he's just looking for money"

It's of bad taste trying to influence the other peoples opinions using this arguments. Well this is what I think, ofcourse.



User currently offlineAUS_Spotter From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

I am in no way a professional photographer and have a lot to learn about taking photos. All of my first uploads were rejected for low image quality. I spent a lot of time with my scanner and image editing software and finally got 1 photo accepted. A little more work and learning and I can now get photos accepted the first time most of the time. Sure, I still get photos rejected but most of the times they are shots that I'm not sure will make it in the first place. Although there were a few I had rejected yesterday that have left me scratching my head. But I don't give up, I'll rescan them and upload them again and they are usually accepted. Once you upload a few photos and they are accepted, you will start to figure out what Johan likes and won't be wasting time upload low quality images and getting rejection notices! Don't give up so easily. With a little work I'm sure you can get photos accepted. But I definitely know how you feel. It took me about a month from the time I first uploaded a photo till I got one accepted.

Jason Knutson - Austin, TX


User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Well, thanks for your comments Danny and AUS_Spotter. But I have decided to shoot the shots that I think are appealing. And I want to share those.
I haven't given up. I've expanded my horizons. And in doing so, I encourage you gentlemen to post all the shots that appeal to you, as having merit, on the Internet anyway, regardless of what you contribute here.

You should not aim your camera, and your editing, for someone else's tastes and technical parameters. That's a mistake. Especially so for an aspiring, amateur photographer. Which is what we all are. And there is very little leeway, artistically, on airliners.net. And that is the direction I want to go and the one I think will be the most rewarding.

I wish you guys the best of luck. There's lots of places to share them in addition to webshots. You can even create Yahoo and/or Excite! clubs. Just because you upload something here is no reason not to upload it wherever you can, to increase your exposure.

This is your hobby, your pasttime. Don't become a robot in the process. Much less a slave robot. Shoot what you think is good, post it, and let the world give you its opinion. Not one man.

The proof is out there.


Hmmmm...

some of my recent work




An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3263 times:

Hmmmm...:

I felt *EXACTLY* the same way you do now, when I first started trying to get photos on. Rejection, after rejection, after rejection, after rejection, after rejection, after rejection! I began to feel like a robot. A slave. Well, I went to every point I could to improve, got a new(used) camera, completely changed what film i use and where i get it developed, how i composed and took the pictures, and now I have 6 photos in the database, and working toward more.

My photos on airliners.net:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=C.%20Wassell

My first upload attempt:
http://www.geocities.com/aviationspotter/0008.jpg

We all have to start somewhere. Don't just go to Webshots, how will you become a better photographer on Webshots? The reason I am better now is because of these requirements! In a way, Airliners.net is a photography lesson. A really good one. Webshots is NOT that way. Please consider what I am telling you. Also, let me add that I enjoy it now. I dont feel like a robot or slave anymore.

Listen, i'll be glad to tell you what i do when i scan. If you want me to, tell me in a reply to this post.

Regards,
C. Wassell



-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

I had the same problems, I used to get most of my photos rejected. So I went away bought a new auto-focus Canon EOS 3000, worked on my scanning and now I have quite a few in the data base. http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=ben pritchard (sorry if that link didnt work, search for ben pritchard

User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (13 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3249 times:

Surround your addresses with "<>" to make them into links. Also where there would be a space instead put a "%20"

Example:

C.%20Wassell instead of C. Wassell


Regards,
C. Wassell



-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
25 Hmmmm... : Shooting for someone else's tastes will not make you a better photographer. Technically, anyone can take a photo of a plane sitting on a runway, with
26 Post contains links Brick : Hmmmm... I'm getting really tired of your pissing and moaning in this forum. If you don't like this website and its photo acceptance criterian then WH
27 Danny : Okay guys, first of all - back off! Put yourself in Mark's place...some of you might have been lucky and gotten acceted the first time you tried, but
28 Post contains images Nscaler : Danny - I think you are confusing Mark with someone else. He pretty much knows what he is doing Saul
29 Mirage : You can be frustated because your photos are not accepted, I can live with that and understand it. But who do you think you are to come here and call
30 Post contains links Administrator : Hmmmm..., >Shooting for someone else's tastes will not make you a better photographer. So you suggest I accept all photos that are sent in? I don't th
31 AUS_Spotter : Hmmmm..., >Shooting for someone else's tastes will not make you a better photographer. I don't shoot for someone else's tastes. I take the pictures I
32 Post contains links USAir_757 : Johan has a taste for GOOD aviation photos,and I accept that. And there are plenty of "artsy" photos here on airliners.net. Please go here: http://www
33 Post contains images Ab.400 : I think that the quality-standard for having a picture taken into the data-base has become somewhat high. In my opinion this has it´s good and it´s
34 Post contains images USAir_757 : I do agree with that. I'd love to see more photos from Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton(ABE / KABE) airport. I'd also REALLY LOVE to see some photos of INSI
35 Hmmmm... : Well, look like I touched some nerves. That's what happens when you say things the way they really are, but things that are not supposed to be said. T
36 FastGlass : Last time I checked, this was an Airliner photo database, NOT an artsy-fartsy photo gallery. I assume that's why the "Great Shots" library was created
37 Post contains links Hmmmm... : Here's the fixed link to some of my first shots. Others coming soon. click In way your right, FastGlass. This is an airliner photo database, not a pho
38 Nikonman : Hmmm... Someone needs to go out to Anger Managment Class now!!
39 Mirage : I saw your pictures, some are very nice but I don't understand why do you think they are so special or unique and why do you cry so much, anyone can p
40 Post contains links Qantas737 : I am also not happy with my photos being rejected but thats life! I can tell you that the photos that have been chosen over mine are of very high qual
41 Hmmmm... : There is nothing fatally wrong with any of those shots in your gallery. If they were rejected as they are, then you have to ask why were they rejected
42 USAir_757 : Well instead of wasting your time writing 30+ lines posts, why not try re-scanning those photos, re-editing them, and sending them in again. Use 150 d
43 Post contains images Administrator : Hmmmm, this is getting silly. You sound like a spoiled child, whining when he doesn't get what he wants. >you say things the way they really are, >but
44 Post contains images Danny : Okay, good people...why don't we all just calm down and forget everything? Mark, just keep trying and you'll get them up there someday. Johan - sheesc
45 Post contains links and images Lauda 777 : Hmmmm.....: When I started to upload photos to airliners.net It took a while (couple of mounts) for me to get ONE single picture accepted. But the ha
46 USAir_757 : Hmmmm...: It took me 2 and a half months to get a photo accepted!!!!!!!!!! Stop with this bullcrap and just follow the orders here. Trust me. Do a sea
47 Mirage : The point here is the scanner, you may have good photos but if your scanner is bad don't loose your time trying to upload. It seems to be the case but
48 AUS_Spotter : Hmmmm... First of all, I don't see what you think is so special about your photos. Anyone here could probably take those kinds of pictures. Second, ev
49 Post contains links USAir_757 : Hmmmm...: Please look at this pic. http://www.geocities.com/aviationspotter/usair-a319.jpg The following was done to get that image how it looks now(A
50 Ckw : "I assume all the photographers would like to know the candid reason why their shot was not added. " Unsharp and poorly scanned. Simple. These reasons
51 Hmmmm... : This is not getting silly, Johan. It is getting to the crux of the matter of your whole business. Welcome to the thread. The photos you saw at webshot
52 FastGlass : As with other similar threads, these posts/complaints may not be silly, but rather redundant. Photog "A" has problems with uploads whilst Photogs "B"
53 Mirage : You're so funny, first you come here talking about your photos and now you changed your arguments using all the photographers backup. I don't give you
54 Administrator : Sorry for that outburst Hmmmm..., I should not have written that post in anger. I am aware of that the photo upload and process systems can be improve
55 777boy : Thought that I would share my knowlege since I had a situation similar to yours. Trying using unsharp mask with a radius setting of .5 instead of 1 an
56 Post contains links and images Qantas737 : Hmmmmm..... I have now gotten 4 pics accepted on airliners.net! If you keep trying you'll get there. I tried my first upload around the same time, but
57 Hmmmm... : Believe you me, I have spent a lot of time scanning and editing my photos. Many hours. I've re-scanned some of the shots that I thought needed it and
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...
What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Thu Sep 29 2005 02:17:11 by Olympus69
BadQuality - What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Mon Jul 25 2005 20:16:42 by Pixuk
What Am I Doing Wrong? (Now With Working Links) posted Tue May 17 2005 00:01:45 by Whoop
What Am I Doing Wrong posted Thu Jul 18 2002 04:32:13 by AndrewAir
What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Sat Sep 16 2000 18:41:00 by Hmmmm...
What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Sat May 13 2000 22:01:24 by Hypermike
Am I Doing Better? Part II posted Sat Aug 26 2006 17:26:12 by Lufthansi
Am I Doing Better? posted Wed Aug 23 2006 22:14:47 by Lufthansi
"category" Help: What Am I Missing? posted Sat Dec 24 2005 18:19:49 by Eksath
What Did I Do Wrong? Reject Help. :) posted Tue Nov 29 2005 03:13:34 by Fiveholer