Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can This Be Classed As Creative? Any Chance?  
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3698 times:

Hi all,

Dug out this image this evening, taken years ago at LHR. I was just mucking around waiting for the sun to fully rise and spotted an opportunity for something different.

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 296kb


Now obviously the 'plane is slightly blurry but that of course was intentional.

It's in the queue - shall I pull it or leave it be?

Cheers,

Karl

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3691 times:

I would leave it in the queue. For me it's a nice shot.


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineChachu201 From New Zealand, joined Apr 2006, 857 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3680 times:

It actually reminds me slightly of Tim's image that was added to the db just recently, which was used as an example of what can be done with the new creative rules. I like it, but the "creative" label is very subjective, so I wouldnt take any advice of mine!

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3632 times:

Now one thing I was also going to ask about the new creative rules.....

Do they mean that we can do such things as play around with hue and saturation, for example, to enhance the look of the image?

I played around with the above shot of mine and came up with this, which in my opinion looks far better.

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 383kb


All opinions more than welcome!

Thanks,

Karl


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3615 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

I'm no expert, but here's what I came up with:

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 440kb


2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineDlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3593 times:

I personally liked the first version... the second two are little over-saturated/contrasty.

I'd definitely put it in the queue... good luck getting it in!


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

This is.....
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Lockheed-A-12/1387904/L/

your's should definitely be.

I think we are seeing a new all time low watermark.


User currently offlineIndyzachn224wn From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

the edited versions have better lighting but is not very creative

User currently offlineNWA783 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

I like the original the best. I think it is quite creative.

Good Luck!!

- Josh -



"I'd like to give a pilot report" " Ok go ahead sir" "Its a beautiful day in the neighborhood"
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3525 times:

OK, thanks for all the pleasant commenst guys! I agree now, the original is more subtle than the edits and seems to capture the moment in a more natural fashion. The light appears softer and more aesthetic.

I'm very surprised everyone likes it as I really thought folks seriously might not - especially since this is the first of a limited creative selection I've chosen to upload.

Of course more opinions welcome, good or bad.

Thanks again,

Karl


User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3483 times:



Quoting JakTrax (Thread starter):
Now obviously the 'plane is slightly blurry but that of course was intentional.

Now, personally speaking, regardless of whether it would be acceptable or not, for me the blur is too little for being intentional.

It just doesn't really work with a very slightly blurred aircraft. The time of the day (i.e. sunlight) is not too favourable too for the shot, but that's just my opinion.

Next time, maybe simply focus on the poles and use a shutter speed like 1/50th. Should be no problem to keep the cam steady and thus the poles sharp, but you'll get some mighty nice blur  Smile

Florian



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineUltimateDelta From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2146 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

The first is the best. The others have too much contrast and grain.


Midwest Airlines- 1984-2010
User currently offlineDlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3287 times:



Quoting JakTrax (Thread starter):
It's in the queue - shall I pull it or leave it be?

Cheers,

Karl

I see you got it in. Congrats!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karl Nixon



User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3279 times:

Yeah, thanks. Nail-biting wait though, while these new creative rules are still being defined.

Karl


User currently offlineSwiftski From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

Struggling to find your reg for you:

AA0046 From Chicago,O'Hare,Il N794AN 777 23/08/2005 08:43
AA0047 To Chicago,O'Hare,Il N762AN 777 23/08/2005 14:53
AA0056 From Miami, Florida, USA N779AN 777 23/08/2005 09:00
AA0057 To Miami, Florida, USA N787AL 777 23/08/2005 10:45
AA0066 From Chicago,O'Hare,Il N782AN 777 23/08/2005 06:50
AA0067 To Chicago,O'Hare,Il N798AN 777 23/08/2005 12:47
AA0086 From Chicago,O'Hare,Il N799AN 777 23/08/2005 05:28
AA0087 To Chicago,O'Hare,Il N799AN 777 23/08/2005 10:52
AA0091 To Chicago,O'Hare,Il N755AN 777 23/08/2005 17:04
AA0098 From Chicago,O'Hare,Il N773AN 777 23/08/2005 10:32
AA0099 To Chicago,O'Hare,Il N790AN 777 23/08/2005 06:57
AA0100 From JFK, New York N792AN 777 23/08/2005 05:53
AA0101 To JFK, New York N782AN 777 23/08/2005 10:58
AA0104 From JFK, New York N750AN 777 23/08/2005 07:01
AA0105 To JFK, New York N794AN 777 23/08/2005 12:09
AA0107 To JFK, New York N752AN 777 23/08/2005 18:19
AA0108 From Boston, Mass., USA N787AL 777 23/08/2005 05:45
AA0109 To Boston, Mass., USA N750AN 777 23/08/2005 11:27
AA0115 To JFK, New York N792AN 777 23/08/2005 07:25
AA0116 From JFK, New York N777AN 777 23/08/2005 10:17
AA0122 From JFK, New York N788AN 777 23/08/2005 06:11
AA0131 To JFK, New York N773AN 777 23/08/2005 17:03
AA0132 From JFK, New York N751AN 777 23/08/2005 08:09
AA0134 From Los Angeles, USA N752AN 777 23/08/2005 14:16
AA0136 From Los Angeles, USA N755AN 777 23/08/2005 11:16
AA0137 To Los Angeles, USA N788AN 777 23/08/2005 11:47
AA0141 To JFK, New York N751AN 777 23/08/2005 18:52
AA0142 From JFK, New York N775AN 777 23/08/2005 19:01
AA0155 To Boston, Mass., USA N777AN 777 23/08/2005 18:02
AA0156 From Boston, Mass., USA N761AJ 777 23/08/2005 19:33


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2616 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3240 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How do you find registrations like that?

User currently offlineMictheslik From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3212 times:

Well....you can narrow it down to these....

AA0086 From Chicago,O'Hare,Il N799AN 777 23/08/2005 05:28
AA0108 From Boston, Mass., USA N787AL 777 23/08/2005 05:45
AA0100 From JFK, New York N792AN 777 23/08/2005 05:53
AA0122 From JFK, New York N788AN 777 23/08/2005 06:11
AA0066 From Chicago,O'Hare,Il N782AN 777 23/08/2005 06:50
AA0104 From JFK, New York N750AN 777 23/08/2005 07:01
AA0132 From JFK, New York N751AN 777 23/08/2005 08:09
AA0046 From Chicago,O'Hare,Il N794AN 777 23/08/2005 08:43

All the AA arrivals between 5 and 9

Now all you have to do is check the time on the photo  Smile

Info can be found at http://www.lhr-lgw.co.uk/  Wink

.mic


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...
Why Can't This Be In The Rejection? Bit Annoying. posted Tue Jan 15 2008 11:19:17 by TweetDriver
Can This Be Saved? posted Fri Dec 14 2007 20:41:36 by Jawed
Can This Be Saved? posted Sat Oct 27 2007 21:44:47 by Monteycarlos
Would This Be Considered As A Double? posted Thu Aug 30 2007 16:04:05 by KLM772ER
How Can This Be A Double? posted Sun Jan 14 2007 21:20:01 by XAAPB
Can This Be Saved? posted Sun Oct 22 2006 12:22:26 by Cosec59
How Can This Be Improved? posted Sat Sep 16 2006 00:34:52 by Flamedude707
Can This Be Priority? posted Mon Jul 17 2006 09:21:24 by OD720
How Can This Be Bad Distance? posted Sat Apr 15 2006 00:23:02 by PilotNTrng
Can This Be Saved? posted Wed Mar 15 2006 00:42:08 by Walter2222