Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Do You See Wrong In This Photo?  
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Posted (6 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5783 times:

Had this one rejected, I like it, I like the prespective and "attitude" of this A310 but I fail to see what's wrong, looking for some opinions to enlight me.

Anything can be improved in this picture?

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 370kb


thanks
Luis

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5775 times:

What was the rejection reason?


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5757 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 1):
What was the rejection reason?

I'm looking for unbiased opinions so for now it doesn't matter what was the rejection reason(s), just look at the image and tell me what can be improved.

thanks
Luis


User currently offlineTupolevTu154 From Germany, joined Aug 2004, 2178 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5748 times:

Oversharpening is probably your main problem, especially around the tail and engines. I like the shot though!

Tom 

[Edited 2008-07-26 14:38:46]


Atheists - Winning since 33 A.D.
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5743 times:



Quoting Mirage (Reply 2):
'm looking for unbiased opinions so for now it doesn't matter what was the rejection reason(s), just look at the image and tell me what can be improved.

Don't waste my time. I am not here to second-guess the screeners.

But, since you ask so nicely, your shot is soft in parts and oversharpened in parts.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5743 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello Luis.

I hope this finds you well.

Okay I am going to have a guess that they didn't like the centring of this image. I can imagine some thinking that the 'centre of gravity' of the image is towards the bottom left.

Is the colouring somewhat less 'vibrant' than you might expect? The red of the 'P' seems a bit muted.

Take good care.

Paul


User currently offlineAirKas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 3968 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5740 times:

It looks grainy and oversharpened (almost looks like you used too much noise reduction..(from what I usually get when I do that))

User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5730 times:

I'd say a centering rejection. It looks like an awkward composition with too much dead space on the right hand side of the photo.

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4770 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5721 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mirage (Reply 2):
I'm looking for unbiased opinions so for now it doesn't matter what was the rejection reason(s), just look at the image and tell me what can be improved.

Well for one thing, if the rejection was for motiv, then this thread would be entirely useless as something like that cannot be fixed.

But anyway, something looks strange with the sky. I want to say dirty, but I can't tell if it's just the way the clouds are in the distance.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3906 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5713 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 4):
Don't waste my time. I am not here to second-guess the screeners.

I agree, but since I rather like the shot:

The 'centre of gravity' is not in the middle but the tailfin provides an excuse for that in my opinion. Maybe it would look better with a little bit more wing, though.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 8):
if the rejection was for motiv, then this thread would be entirely useless as something like that cannot be fixed.

Depends on the original.

As others have said, it looks oversharpened and the colours look flat. The aircraft's butt looks a little dark. A curves correction could improve upon that and the flat colours.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offline76794p From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5666 times:

probably the angel of the shot


There's always money IN the banana stand.
User currently offlineAdamWright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5653 times:

is there a dead pixel on the P?

User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5625 times:



Quoting AdamWright (Reply 11):
is there a dead pixel on the P?

which one? there are 6 P's.



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2323 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5620 times:



Quoting Mirage (Reply 2):
so for now it doesn't matter what was the rejection reason(s),

I think close to every possible rejection reason has been given for this one particular shot.

You gonna give us a hint?



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1664 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5610 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

This is the type of thread in this forum that drives me mad.
I rejected this image and with a brief personal which explained what was wrong. He appealed and the Head Screeners agreed with me.
The personal was.......
colour is off, red cast very evident on sky
The initial reason was personal grainy, colour and common (120 + on db already)

Whilst others have skirted around the colour fault (Paul I am disappointed), no-one has totally got it, but take another look now.

I leave a lot of personals, particularly when I think the contributor might not see the problem. Here it is for all to see - take another look. There is a bluey-red cast which has also resulted in the muted reds as mentioned by Paul.

I have tried to correct it and it is not actually easy, even when the sky is right the colours look flat and horrible so I wonder if the WB was wrong when taking the shot.

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5570 times:

Colour cast definately. Why common? Not much of frames like this one.

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5538 times:

Thanks a lot for the opinions, this photo was rejected for:

- quality
- colour
- grainy
- common

I asked your opinions because I don't see those reasons in my monitor, I don't see the grain, I don't see the off colour, I don't see any red cast (it was a dark grey sky, not a beautiful Algarve sunny day) and I think it's sharp and clean. Maybe the problem is my monitor, I used a CRT for 10 years but now I'm using a LCD which is tricky to edit photos. I'm not here to demand my photo to be accepted, just to read opinions, that's one of the purposes of this forum.

Quoting Viv (Reply 4):
Don't waste my time. I am not here to second-guess the screeners

If you don't want to waste time, don't reply.

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 14):
This is the type of thread in this forum that drives me mad.

What do you mean? Did I made something wrong?

Luis


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1664 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5534 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER



Quoting Mirage (Reply 16):
What do you mean? Did I do something wrong?

Luis
Yes, you did in my eyes.
I left you a personal which in a few words explained the problem. You appealed and evidently the Headscreenrs agreed with me otherwise they would have changed my decision.
I feel that it is rude, simply bad manners, that you ignored that when you started this thread. I tend to leave a lot of personals whenever I think it will help the contributor and my comment was intended to do just that, help you - I pointed out the cast.
If you would rather take help from the forum rather than the screener in future, please say so. I hope that at least others do appreciate the personals !
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5518 times:



Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 17):
Luis
Yes, you did in my eyes.
I left you a personal which in a few words explained the problem. You appealed and evidently the Headscreenrs agreed with me otherwise they would have changed my decision.
I feel that it is rude, simply bad manners, that you ignored that when you started this thread. I tend to leave a lot of personals whenever I think it will help the contributor and my comment was intended to do just that, help you - I pointed out the cast.
If you would rather take help from the forum rather than the screener in future, please say so. I hope that at least others do appreciate the personals !
Mick Bajcar

geez! so many assumptions you're making, hold on please, I'm sorry to say but you're wrong in those assumptions, I'm trying to improve the picture so I want more opinions, that's all, I feel free to ask opinions, I'm not judging the rejection or complaining, no need to get annoyed.

Luis


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5503 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Luis

The image is horrendous and correctly rejected by Mick.

Spend some time re-processing the image as per the rejection e-mail.

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5493 times:

I am sorry to say this, but it appears to me that the real purpose of the initial posting was to elicit opinions that would fail to support the reasons for rejection that had been given. This, in turn, would have supported the conviction of the person posting that his shot was of uploadable quality and that the screener was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with posting rejected shots for comments, but the rejection reasons should be stated, in order to give viewers a real basis for comment. Not to do so is unfair to all concerned - not least the owner of the shot, who may be told that his shot is deficient in aspects not even mentioned by the screener - as indeed happened in this case.

It is generally better to post shots for comment before uploading them rather than after rejection.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5488 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 20):
I am sorry to say this, but it appears to me that the real purpose of the initial posting was to elicit opinions that would fail to support the reasons for rejection that had been given. This, in turn, would have supported the conviction of the person posting that his shot was of uploadable quality and that the screener was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with posting rejected shots for comments, but the rejection reasons should be stated, in order to give viewers a real basis for comment. Not to do so is unfair to all concerned - not least the owner of the shot, who may be told that his shot is deficient in aspects not even mentioned by the screener - as indeed happened in this case.

It is generally better to post shots for comment before uploading them rather than after rejection.

No, sorry, that's not my point, I wanted more opinions to help me improve the photo, I'm not judging the rejection and I'm not complaining.

Luis


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5482 times:



Quoting Mirage (Reply 21):
I'm not judging the rejection

Yes you are. You said:

Quoting Mirage (Thread starter):
I fail to see what's wrong

and

Quoting Mirage (Reply 16):
I don't see the grain, I don't see the off colour, I don't see any red cast (it was a dark grey sky, not a beautiful Algarve sunny day) and I think it's sharp and clean.




Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5475 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 22):
Quoting Mirage (Reply 21):
I'm not judging the rejection

Yes you are. You said:

Quoting Mirage (Thread starter):
I fail to see what's wrong

and

Quoting Mirage (Reply 16):
I don't see the grain, I don't see the off colour, I don't see any red cast (it was a dark grey sky, not a beautiful Algarve sunny day) and I think it's sharp and clean.

Correct, I fail to see what's wrong so I come to the forum asking more feedback, rejection was correct, but I want to improve the picture.

Luis


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5473 times:



Quoting Mirage (Reply 23):
I want to improve the picture

Unless the original is in RAW, you will not be able to improve the colour cast.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
25 Mirage : It's RAW, I can send it to you by email if you want. Luis
26 UnattendedBag : believe me, we do!! It is a tremendous help to receive a clue as to why the photo was rejected.
27 Dreamflight : Hi Mick, The personal of a screener is a sign of repect against the photographer. So yes, I really appreciate this. Cheers, Jan
28 SlamClick : Gutsy move, asking for freestyle criticism like that. Reminds me of the woman who stepped out from behind the screen, fully nude and asked the man in
29 Mirage : lol, I've no problem with that, I'm adult enough to accept critics, that's what I asked for. ok, that's your opinion, not my purpose. thanks Luis
30 Post contains images Shep2 : Photo in question - definitely not one of Luis's best... He put a discussion on the table - some bit hard - some bit easy - some take life too serious
31 Walter2222 : Much appreciated, Mick!!!! First of all, I learned a lot of it and - for me - it makes a rejection less hard I also do not see the rejection as a neg
32 Scotland1979 : Yes, obviously the colour is off Why should I try RAW? It could hurt colour quality to upload - I set camera in large size and it keep colours accura
33 Post contains links Javibi : Maybe you should, maybe you shouldn't. I recommend you read this and then decide: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...rstanding-series/u-raw-files
34 Scotland1979 : Thanks Javibi with the link After I read this and I still struggling abit to understand this. Meanwhile I stay with Large version in camera set for no
35 Lamyl_hhlco : wow ,I didn't know we have to be super pro on taking pictures and buying the 1000$ camera to be accepted on this site. I mean you guys reject pictures
36 JakTrax : Maybe so, but it keeps everyone on their toes. We know 99.9% of the time the viewing public doesn't give a **** if it's a millimatre off centre of if
37 Mirage : Belive it or not, I still don't notice the red cast. It was a dark sky, sun was high, day was hazy and cloudy at the same time, we had some rain minu
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 Do You Guys Think Of This....? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 17:30:20 by Nirmalmakadia
What Do You Think About This Photo In The Database posted Sat Oct 28 2000 12:40:25 by LGW
What Do You Think Of This Photo? posted Sun Dec 9 2007 12:59:07 by LongbowPilot
What Do You Think Of This 'hot Shot' Photo? posted Wed Apr 7 2004 12:43:35 by A3204eva
What Do You Think Of This Photo? posted Tue Mar 23 2004 18:44:57 by A3204eva
What Do You Think Of This Photo? posted Sun Sep 30 2001 06:30:43 by YKA
What Do You Think About This One? posted Fri Jan 25 2008 12:22:07 by JetCrazy
What Do You Think Of This? posted Mon Sep 10 2007 03:21:40 by WestJetYQQ
What Do You Think About This Bizzer posted Thu Aug 2 2007 09:38:38 by Stefan171288
What Do You Think Of This One? posted Sun Aug 27 2006 19:22:25 by Airplanepics