Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pre- Screening Thread No. 4  
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9320 posts, RR: 69
Posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11130 times:

Hi everybody,

the "Pre- Screen Thread No. 3" was getting a little slow and already 152 replies.

So here is the new one.

If you want to check out the old one: here is the link to it:


Keep the pictures coming, queue is down to about 2 days maximum (2000 pics).  thumbsup 

WILCO737 (MD11F)

304 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineJetfreak From Austria, joined Jul 2007, 286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11119 times:

Quoting WILCO737 (Thread starter):
Keep the pictures coming, queue is down to about 2 days maximum (2000 pics).

that's great!!! so i'll start:

what about this shot:

Thanks in advance,


User currently offlinePiloteAlpha From Mauritius, joined Mar 2007, 133 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11099 times:

IMO, the bottom of the aircraft is a bit dark (but i'm not sure of this). Otherwise everthing looks fine to me.


The way I see it, you can either work for a living or you can fly airplanes. Me, I'd rather fly.
User currently offlineOthic From Sweden, joined Jun 2007, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11096 times:

for me it looks soft/blurry

A boy learn's much more at the airport then he do at school
User currently offlineStaff From Australia, joined Dec 2005, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11086 times:

What about this one (posted it at the end of thread #3)?  Smile


I have an identical shot where focus is on the winglet instead of the window frame-- do you think that one would be better?


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9320 posts, RR: 69
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11083 times:

Quoting Staff (Reply 4):
I have an identical shot where focus is on the winglet instead of the window frame-- do you think that one would be better?

Personally I would say: set the focus to the winglet instead of the window. But I am no pro, it is just my personal impression.

WILCO737 (MD11F)

User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3349 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 11074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jetfreak (Reply 1):

As said above, bottom looks a bit dark. Should be salvageable though.

Quoting Staff (Reply 4):
What about this one (posted it at the end of thread #3)?

Personally, I love it. But post the other one with the focus on the winglet so that we may compare.


www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineStaff From Australia, joined Dec 2005, 4 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11064 times:

Okay, here's the alternative one, with focus put on the winglet instead of the window frame.


What do you think?

User currently offlineOthic From Sweden, joined Jun 2007, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 11057 times:

how about this photos??



A boy learn's much more at the airport then he do at school
User currently offlineJonasJ From Sweden, joined Aug 2005, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day ago) and read 11055 times:

How about these two? Any chance of getting through?



[Edited 2008-09-07 11:32:29]

User currently offlineLegoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3317 posts, RR: 35
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 11024 times:

Would any of these stand a remote chance? I quite like them all however they're most likely not up to the standards here.







Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
User currently offlineUnitedJumboJet From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 11022 times:

Will this one make it or will I see a motive rejection for the clipped tail?
*post edited because picture didn't fit*

[Edited 2008-09-07 17:32:22]

User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3349 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 11016 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Staff (Reply 7):
Okay, here's the alternative one, with focus put on the winglet instead of the window frame.

Much better. I say upload, but it's risky either way.

Quoting JonasJ (Reply 9):
How about these two? Any chance of getting through?

First one is a bit grainy, second is blurry. Don't think so, sorry.

Quoting UnitedJumboJet (Reply 11):
*post edited because picture didn't fit*

Yes, the clipped tail is definitely a rejection. Sorry!


www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineIamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 11013 times:

I'm not sure about motive, the way over-blown background, or the dead bugs all over the place (I already cloned the bigger ones off the propeller cap...hope that's not forbidden), but I like this one and would like opinions:


In addition to normal pre-screening opinions on this one, are potentially identifiable faces (no opportunity to ask for permission) acceptable?


User currently offlineDeaphen From India, joined Jul 2005, 1432 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10965 times:


hows this?

I want every single airport and airplane in India to be on A.net!
User currently offlineAirKas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 4436 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10919 times:

Quoting Iamlucky13 (Reply 13):
In addition to normal pre-screening opinions on this one, are potentially identifiable faces (no opportunity to ask for permission) acceptable?

Hmm... I'd say that OK for uploading, but don't know if you will get something in the likes of a BadPeople rejection.

Quoting Iamlucky13 (Reply 13):
(I already cloned the bigger ones off the propeller cap...hope that's not forbidden)

No, just don't tell anyone  Wink (assuming you made it virtually impossible to discover it).

My turn. I'm having a hard time deciding which of the 2 shots below I should upload. Both will give me a double-rejection.


Any opinions welcome!

User currently offlineUltimateDelta From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2333 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 10899 times:

How does this one fare? I'm guessing not too well, but I guess I'll find out.
Big version: Width: 1385 Height: 1094 File size: 751kb

Midwest Airlines- 1984-2010
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 10893 times:

Quoting AirKas1 (Reply 15):
I'm having a hard time deciding which of the 2 shots below I should upload. Both will give me a double-rejection.

IMHO, the second one is an awful crop. I like the first one, but I'd prefer it at 3:2 rather than 4:3.

Quoting UltimateDelta (Reply 16):
I'm guessing not too well,

you're guessing right.

I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineIamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10883 times:

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 10):

I like the first one although it could maybe use a tiny bit more contrast, but I don't think the second has the quality and might also get a distance rejection.

Airkas, your first looks great. Go with that one.

User currently offline772LR From Australia, joined Sep 2008, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 10872 times:

Anyone like my pictures?


[Edited 2008-09-10 02:32:32]

Flown : 717,733,734,737,738,762ER,763ER,772ER,A320,A333,A343,E-170,E-190
User currently offlineJetfreak From Austria, joined Jul 2007, 286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 10855 times:

Quoting Deaphen (Reply 14):

should get accepted



User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 10850 times:

Quoting 772LR (Reply 19):

Um, this is a pre-screening thread, not show and tell. If you have specific shot you'd like an opinion on, post it.

User currently offline777MechSys From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 350 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 10837 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Deaphen (Reply 14):

hows this?

Looks like it could use some CW rotation.

User currently offlineFlamedude707 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10828 times:

how are these?
Big version: Width: 1200 Height: 720 File size: 567kb
Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 599kb



Time you enjoy wasting, is not wasted.
User currently offlineIamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10815 times:

Quoting Flamedude707 (Reply 23):
how are these?

You've got jaggies, especially on the stripes, and the saturation looks a little too high (just my opinion). They're also fairly common scenes, so they're likely to get very close scrutiny.

25 Iamlucky13 : I tried to respond to your PM, but apparently the most basic membership level doesn't allow that. To my eyes, the edit you shared looks great. I hope
26 Post contains links Othic : asking again..... how about this photos?? #1 http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sukhoihz4.jpg #2 http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sehoj1i
27 Post contains images JohnKrist : Don't think you will get a people rejection, crew like pilots etc are OK. But it's also a bit soft around the reg and titles and some jaggies which m
28 Post contains images Rsg85 : honest opinions please, ive got a bunch more like this.
29 UltimateDelta : " target=_blank>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/...b.jpg Motive, and it's unlevel.
30 Post contains links Legoguy : Thanks for your help, in the end I submitted this edited version of the photograph. http://www.flickr.com/photos/22682700@N02/2847333244/sizes/o/ By
31 Post contains links and images SFO2SVO : Hi! Actually, a post-screening: this one was rejected for colour only: I am still trying to learn to see colour casts: any advice on which colour is o
32 ANITIX87 : Very slight green cast. Be careful about uploading again though. This may have gotten rejected ONLY for Color, but it is quite soft, especially up fr
33 Post contains links Mjgbtv : Dave, Have you already seen this? http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ation_photography/read.main/176590 This thread is referenced under the 'edit
34 Post contains links Flynavy : To quote your reply to another member's shot in reply 29: Motive, and it's unlevel. Zero chance. What are you trying to show here? I have noticed you
35 Swiftski : It looks like a very quick opportunistic snapshot; nothing more.
36 Legoguy : Hey Marty, thanks for the link, that was exactly what I was looking for. I believe my photo's have been edited within the rules. Phew! I just had two
37 Post contains images ANITIX87 : Hi, everyone! I'm back for more pre-screening! I feel I should take advantage of the short queue and try to get some more shots uploaded. I'm unsure a
38 Post contains links and images Neophyte : Hey guys, what do think about this two shots? Cheers Timo
39 ANITIX87 : Air Berlin tail might be a bit too sharp. Condor might be a bit oversharpened on the fuselage titles at the front and at the tail. TIS
40 TransIsland : #1 crop closer to the left wing #2 crop closer to the right wing That's just from the perviews, can't say anything else, as I am on a crap screen.
41 ANITIX87 : The reason I cropped like I did was to make the aircraft more centered. I figured making it look centered would take preference over actually croppin
42 Mjgbtv : Hi TIS, Royal Air Maroc - The red line on the rudder and the stripes around the rear door look a bit jagged. I see your point on the cropping. You mi
43 Post contains links McG1967 : What about this Typhoon shot? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/IMG_0921-Edit.jpg Regards Mark
44 Post contains links Othic : how about this photos?? #1 http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sukhoihz4.jpg #2 http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sehoj1ia6.jpg #3 http://i
45 Post contains images UltimateDelta : OK, Next try:
46 TupolevTu154 : I personally would prefer the shot if the front portion of the fuselage were in focus. A fantastic shot nonetheless! Haven't you already posted these
47 UltimateDelta : Will do. I finally figured out how to in my editor. Thanks!
48 Post contains images ANITIX87 : Here's a differently cropped version of the Air India shot. Is this better? Is either one acceptable? Or should I forget this shot? Any feedback on th
49 Post contains links and images Neophyte : Thanks for your help TIS, looks better now? Cheers Timo
50 Post contains images Sovietjet : I'm debating on whether I should upload this one. This was shot during heavy rain. The "noise" you see is actually rain and I thought it was a cool ef
51 Post contains links and images Varig767 : Hello all ! Two years ago, I gave up uploading to airliners.net; I couldn't get up with the good work with my point-and-shoot dimage z3. This summer I
52 Whappeh : Pretty good motive and a nice line up, but will still get rejected for quality.
53 Post contains links and images Deaphen : Is this a motive reject?
54 Sovietjet : Those look good to me if they aren't even processed yet. I'm 99% sure they'll get in after some editing.
55 Post contains images Sovietjet : I have a second photo which I'm having doubts about. This was taken at sunset with a low sun, I'm wondering if the colors and contrast seem OK.
56 Post contains links and images Varig767 : I enhanced my 'long-shutter-speed' KLM 737; what do you think of the picture? kind regards, Martijn
57 Mjgbtv : Cool indeed! My worry, though, would be that the effect of the rain just looks too much like everyday graininess. Looks like a good motive to me. I t
58 Iamlucky13 : I sure hope not! That's really nice in my opinion.
59 Swiftski : Can we have it so that you don't post a question about your own picture without first commenting (at least) on the previous picture?
60 TupolevTu154 : In theory, it would work. But there are plenty of people here that are asking about their shots, which may be flawed. If they can't find problems wit
61 Swiftski : I think it's often a lot easier to find flaws with others shots as you can disconnect from the personal side of the picture.
62 Post contains links and images AirKas1 : Thanks. A 3:2 version will look like this (more empty space on both sides): (sorry for the late reply btw) Another one though, was rejected a while a
63 Post contains links Thetford569 : Here are a couple of photos I would like to submit but I'm not too shure about: http://www.3alarmmedia.com/anet/82-0034-f15c-eg-58fs-2.jpg http://www.
64 ANITIX87 : I'd go for the first one (you can't upload both since they're the same aircraft). However, you should add some contrast and crop much tighter to the
65 Mjgbtv : Kas, I would consider cropping wide enough to at least include all of the landing gear. As it is there just seem to be too many cut-off parts. Marty
66 Post contains links Dwitty : I captured this Southwest beauty landing at SNA. The levels are slightly adjusted, and I sharpened it up just a tad. Anything else I can do that might
67 Whappeh : Lower the size from 1600 to 1024. Also, make sure your aspect ratios are acceptable (4:3 or 3:2). Do those and I'd upload if it was my shot.
68 Thetford569 : thanks! I thought the first was better. I wish I could get the other one sharper without adding so much noise but I just needed a longer lens. I'll c
69 Post contains links Bottie : a few months since I've been uploading again: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/VT-JWE-EBBR-15092008.jpg http://www.airliners.net/addphotos
70 Lanas : No, very good one! I don´t know why I´d maybe try framing the nose and engine a bit higher. Can´t comment on quality right now but: Jet: Centering
71 Post contains images JakTrax : Hi all, How's this one? Quite rare I believe, and in the queue now. I've ticked it as a business jet but I'm really not sure - will that be OK? Cheers
72 Mjgbtv : Hi Karl, The red door outline looks just a bit jagged to me. Maybe government? Marty
73 TransIsland : Could use a kick more contrast.
74 Post contains images Jobu7282 :
75 JakTrax : An impressive line-up indeed but a clearly unlevel one. Level, re-crop then resize to 1024x683. Karl
76 AirKas1 : Thanks Marty. In my opinion in doesn't look as good as the closer crop, but there's a version with the complete gear in the Q.
77 Post contains links and images WithaK : They all look good to me (mind you I'm working off the laptop.) The only thing I can see is perhaps the third shot needs a little bit of clockwise ro
78 Post contains links and images Sluger020889 : So what's the ruling on a crooked horizon shot while in a turn? (Please excuse the border and size) Joey
79 WILCO737 : Eiher it's me or something is wrong with the link, doesn't work for me. WILCO737 (MD11F)
80 TransIsland : Link doesn't work for me either.
81 Post contains links Michlis : Some input on FRED? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/87-0038_1_mjl.jpg
82 Whappeh : Drag and drop the link into the address bar.
83 Iamlucky13 : " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...l.jpg The upper side could stand to be a little less bright. There's some sharpening noise on
84 Post contains links Sluger020889 : huh, the picture was there when i posted the message...owell. Try this... http://www.pbase.com/sluger020889/image/103273449 Again, I'm just wondering
85 Jetfreak : it's a bit too small to see better if it's good enough, but it doesn't look bad. it maybe is too dark, but as i said, it's too small for me to be sur
86 Post contains links and images WithaK : Sorry to post again but the photos I posted previously are only 800px wide for whatever reason. Here they are at their proper size (I hope.) Also I pu
87 Post contains images Jobu7282 : Here is another one
88 Post contains links Eyes2thesky : This has basically no editing, except for a resolution downsize. I think this can be sharpened nicely. But I don't have a good feel for how the colors
89 Post contains links and images Dreamliner84 : I reuploaded my Beluga's shot after having increased the contrast to make it darker like the screener suggested me to do after his rejection. Here's t
90 Post contains links and images WILCO737 : Hi guys, 2 in the queue. Back from 2005. Do they stand any chance? Any comment appreciated. WILCO737 (MD11F)
91 Dreamliner84 : You shouln't have any problems for their acceptance I think!!! What do you think about the one of the Beluga I reuploaded and linked to you in reply#
92 WILCO737 : I'm not so sure But thanks. I am no expert. But it looks to me if it could need a tad more contrast. You see it on the fuselage. But that's just my o
93 Michlis : Good point. If it makes the cut I'll re-submit the photo with the watermark positioned not to cover the landing gear.
94 Post contains links and images Varig767 : Hello all ! Got this one rejected for 'colour' and 'dark' (as you predicted Tom...). Now, I modified the RAW-file; I changed the white balance to 'day
95 Post contains images Mjgbtv : Hi, Is there any chance for this one? Is the fuselage too blown out? Other problems? Thanks, Marty
96 Post contains links Ranger703 : Hi, My previous upload of this shot was eventually, after much consideration and a final viewing by the headscreeners, rejected for dark. This is a sl
97 Post contains links UnitedJumboJet : Any opinions for this one? http://www.flickr.com/photos/10037058@N08/2876562387/sizes/l/
98 Mjgbtv : Hi Andy, I think it's a great shot; I would like it even without the lights from the plane. The lighting looks about right to me. I would leave it in
99 Post contains links and images Whappeh : The impossible photo! Someone help me level this, please: According to the cone and the white piling, this is a level photograph, however, the wings (
100 Varig767 : Hey Whappeh, Try 1.1 degrees CW. In that way, left gear and right gear are perfectly aligned. kind regards, Martijn
101 Post contains links and images Varig767 : Hello all, Today I experimented with some long shutter delay shots. These three are in my opinion the best ones: Are they good enough for the database
102 Whappeh : Thanks very much. I gave that a try and it looks correct to my eyes as well.
103 Post contains links Damien846 : Hi Guys, A couple of shots to think about #1, Backlit. Bit I like the compersion (IMHO) http://www.flickr.com/photos/tupperware_pilot/2879003083/ #2 h
104 Post contains images UltimateDelta : All right, next try: (Oh, and I already resized it.)[Edited 2008-09-22 16:44:36]
105 Iamlucky13 : I feel a little unqualified to give too much advice, but having received very good help here before, I hate to see so many comments getting no respons
106 Whappeh : My guess is a rejection for quality.
107 Post contains images Braby : Hi everyone, can i ask for some opinions on this shot please? Regards Braby
108 Dreamliner84 : I see it a bit undersharpened, It seems to be out of focus but surely it's for the reflection on the its fuselage... but for other things it looks me
109 Post contains links and images Ehvk : Hi Everybody, I have got these picture's in the Que and i would like to have your opion about them. do you guys think that i should pull them from the
110 Braby : Nice Photos! From my limited editing skills it looks like all 3 could do with a touch more contrast as they have a slighty washed out look. Hope this
111 Post contains links JGR : Hi guys, Any chance for this one ? Light was not very good, perhaps a little dark ? I love this banking http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/I
112 TupolevTu154 : Motiv, there's nothing really interesting in the photograph. Just a slightly awkward looking wing view. There are also reflections under the lower fl
113 Varig767 : Hello all, Somehow, my question about three pics is ignored in this forum. I appreciate your comments on reply number 101. kind regards, Martijn
114 G-CIVP : Re reply 101. I wouldn't bother in dull weather. The contrast isn't there. Some fantastic shots can be achieved at AMS; if anything, the best time of
115 Gliderpilot08 : There is really nothing all that spectacular about the pictures Leon has. I will say that they are a rare catch but that's it. Overall OK pictures. A
116 Ehvk : Someone on an other forum where i posted my pics had fround out that the following Iraq Aircraft should be stored at Amman: Boeing 707: YI-AGE, AGF, A
117 Post contains links and images EagleSpirit : Hello, Should I upload this one ?
118 Viv : No. Backlit, unflattering angle, dark.
119 TimdeGroot : I think it's a nice image
120 Post contains links and images EagleSpirit : Thanks for your replies. What about this one?
121 Post contains links JGR : I agree, I like this shot. What about this shot ? a bit "darkcreative" ? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/IMG_11650z2fd.jpg Javier
122 Jetmatt777 : The motive is fine, I think...by the new creative rules, but the sky is un-appealing, and dull, if the sky had some nice clouds or a orange tint, lik
123 Post contains links and images Gietje : What do you think about this one?
124 JohnKrist : Very nice, and it can't be backlit as you can the the sun in the fuselage. Lovely pic of a boring livery I'd say
125 ANITIX87 : Sorry, Gietje. This won't make it because of the yellow block in front of the wheels and because of part of the engine being cut off on the left side
126 TransIsland : As a portrait crop it might work better, motive-wise, despite the dull sky, though the heat haze is probably a killer. Nonetheless it's got more smok
127 Post contains links Gietje : Ok, I see. I though I'd give it a try. Anyways, this guy seems to have it too... It was on the same day as I went as well. http://www.airliners.net/p
128 Post contains links and images Chuck9941 : Feedback please. Keep in queue? Thanks
129 Post contains links G-CIVP : OK - I've added my opinion to some of the above. Revenge or constructive comments on... http://www.airliners.net./addphotos/big/ready/hstgotaalhrjan08
130 ANITIX87 : And in his the furthest engine is cut off...yours might be OK in that regard, but the blocked gear still kills it unfortunately. No, sorry. Very grai
131 Post contains links JGR : Hi, Thanks for your useful comment, I agree with dull sky. Is this version better than previous one ? Here we can see more smoke and only 1 of 3 aircr
132 Post contains images Sovietjet : What do you guys think about this?
133 Post contains images Gliderpilot08 : Very nice shot, Ivan.... Just one thing I noticed about the picture is that the visible area of the fuselage (left side) is a little blurry. Towards t
134 TransIsland : Don't do nothing for me. Looks as if it were a photo where you had the wrong lens with too much zoom on the camera.
135 Post contains links UnitedJumboJet : Any thoughts on this wing shot? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/DLM88cloudsD.jpg Also should I upload this one? http://www.flickr.com/pho
136 Post contains links and images Chuck9941 : Thoughts, suggestions, etc. Thanks
137 Post contains links and images Varig767 : Three pictures.... my best of today.... The speedbird was taken at 1/15 and F25 and what do you think of the motive in the UA777? Looking forward to c
138 TimdeGroot : 737 is softish but can be saved, the birds in the UA image are more of a distraction than a good motive here IMO
139 Sovietjet : I think that is blurring caused by the jet blast of the left engine. Well, I used a 100-400. But the plane was actually very close...the whole point
140 G-CIVP : If anyone was looking; I've binned the phone linked above. Digressing, the AZ B777 above is over-exposed; looks 'blown'.
141 Post contains links and images Supermansam : Well I'm pretty much new to this so I am expecting tons of room for improvement. Thanks in advance for any help. Sam
142 Sovietjet : That looks overexposed to me
143 Post contains links AirMalta : http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b..._HARRIER_MALCOLM_BEZZINA_MALTA.jpg anyone can tell me if this will have a chance?I wanted to take a shot with a
144 Post contains links and images Legoguy : Since this thread is a real sucess, I was wondering if any of these would potentially be good enough. I was out spotting at BHD this morning and the s
145 Mjgbtv : Hi Dave, These look pretty good to me. I would not say that these fuselages look too bright. One thing I might change is to raise the aircraft slight
146 Post contains links and images WithaK : How are these two? Any opinions will be greatly appreciated. Kris
147 Post contains links and images Whappeh : I shot this a while ago, in marginal weather (that is putting it kindly). I let it sit for a while, but after knowing a few new editing techniques, I
148 Post contains links and images Coxmaster : Any chance on this? It is a start at editing, I just have a feeling the shadow is going to be a problem. Is it worth my time? I thought having the win
149 Post contains images UltimateDelta : Ok, so the rest haven't done well at all, but I am stil trying. Here's the next one: BTW: How problematic is the background?
150 Whappeh : Quality and blurry. That seems to be a theme with your photos, Ultimate. I'm willing to bet its your camera that is the limiting factor.
151 Mjgbtv : The overall impression of OE-LTH is a bit dark, although the aircraft itself seems fairly well lit. I don't know if that will be a problem. The reg l
152 Post contains links Dwitty : Still looking to get my first accepted photo. I am thinking about uploading these two. Any comments, criticism, advice or suggestions from you pro's o
153 Eyes2thesky : Iamlucky13 - thanks for the comments.
154 Post contains links and images JohnKrist : Coxmaster, the shadow can be a problem, but not necessarily as you can see in my shot below. It's basically up to the screeners to see if they total i
155 Post contains links JohnKrist : Long time since I tried uploading anything but I rather liked this one from today: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/An1241024five.jpg It w
156 Varig767 : I guess the birds will cause rejection. regards, Martijn
157 Post contains links and images Varig767 : I hope I am on the right way back in uploading some acceptable pictures. What about this 767?? Kind regards, Martijn
158 JohnKrist : Why? IMO they are not distracting and not covering any part of the aircraft... About your shot, personally I like it, for what it's worth
159 Post contains links and images TupolevTu154 : You need to crop out the dead space in front of the nose. Could to with a kick of sharpening on the nose too. One from me. I think that either distan
160 JohnKrist : Possibly, but with some careful cloning that can be removed. Distance, normally yes, but I'd say this an artistic shot, and a nice one.
161 Varig767 : Once at this site, I received a comment that nearly every visible bird was seen as a dustspot. Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
162 Coxmaster : OK, so the shadow isnt a problem.. but how is the quality otherwise? Need any sharpening? See any major issues otherwise or should i just upload and
163 UltimateDelta : What specifically should I do?
164 Mjgbtv : IMO: 1. Crop so the plane is slightly higher and the empty space on the right is reduced. 2. Resize to 1024 width and make the ratio 3:2. 3. Levels a
165 Whappeh : The area around the tail looks as splotchy as a painting. It looks as if it was shot with a 2-3 megapixel camera, which will never be accepted here i
166 Iamlucky13 : I like that angle on a Harrier. However, my main concern would be it's a little dark, and there's a lot of grain on the fuselage. Looks like sharpeni
167 Post contains links Jonwait : Funny ... i got the exact same photo rejected from a.net, as i appealed the photo disapear, link is not available anymore.. http://images3.jetphotos.n
168 Post contains links JohnKrist : First, there is a very nice thread dealing with rejected shots: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...tion_photography/read.main/318657/ But, I thin
169 Post contains images CaliSam : Wondering how these are, shot over the weekend
170 Post contains links and images Varig767 : Amir, the pictures are not 'clickable' so we are not able to see them at their original size. What about this Triple Seven @ AMS? regards, Martijn
171 Post contains links CaliSam : Apologies.. here's the original sizes http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/IMG_4148.jpg http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/IMG_4261.
172 TupolevTu154 : Leave some breathing space around the nose and tail. It almost looks like you've cut parts of it off. Could be a tad higher in the frame, but also lo
173 JohnKrist : Amir, nice action filled shots, but as Tu154 said, grain and also lacks sharpness around the edges. Some of it is due to condensation, but not all. Ma
174 CaliSam : Thanks guys, I figured they'd get shot down for grain. I've pretty much concluded that I'm wasting my time with the Canon Rebel XT/350D. I took 1900 r
175 TupolevTu154 : If I can the screeners certainly can Apart from that, the colour seems a tad off and it's not the most flattering angle. Wish I could see one of thes
176 Post contains images UltimateDelta : So, based on the assumption that the previous one would be rejected, I'm trying yet another:
177 Whappeh : Quality rejection.
178 UltimateDelta : What should I fix?
179 Post contains links Dav08 : Hello, please take a look at this picture and tell me what is wrong with it, I have been rejected twice because of unlevel reasons, but i cant find an
180 Whappeh : Quality can't be fixed. You can buy a new camera. The photos you always post just don't have enough resolution among other things. Compare the photo
181 JohnKrist : I think unlevel was the first rejection reason they found as it was obvious, but there are also other problems like soft and jaggies so I don't think
182 Varig767 : To Dav08, The picture doesn't look level. Although it is difficult to level the picture in an objective way, the pic needs some CW rotation. I am now
183 Dav08 : To JohnKrist Thanks for your response, yeah I think the unlevel part is a problem, but it gets a point were is difficult to level because of the iregu
184 Dav08 : To Varig767 Thank you I appreciate it, can you tell me your email????
185 Varig767 : Dav08, just click on my username in this forum and then click on 'Contact'. kind regards, Martijn
186 TupolevTu154 : Like Whappeh said, no way of fixing it. It has a very odd blotchy effect making it look like a watercolour painting. Consider getting some new equipm
187 Post contains links Dav08 : Hello, another photo. Will these one get accepted?? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/tae6.jpg
188 Whappeh : " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...6.jpg My guess is no. It has a strong contrast and a strange motive (Why cut off the engine in
189 Post contains links and images Sovietjet : Also seems a bit blurry. Here's one I have in the queue but I keep debating on it. Thoughts?
190 Dav08 : Can u tell me some tips to correct it, can it be corrected?? Where is it blurry???
191 Dav08 : Thanks for your reply. Can u tell me where is blurry in the image. And also some tips to make it better on photoshop other than the blurry I know tha
192 Sovietjet : Never mind. It's not blurry, I was at a different monitor and so it seemed that way but it looks good now.
193 AAA578 : Thats a really nice picture, i like how the beacon is refected of the aircraft surfaces, i think that photo would get accecpted hands down[Edited 2008
194 Post contains images AAA578 : Any advice on this one, i have it waiting in the que, along with another these are my first pictures for Airliners
195 Iamlucky13 : Perhaps it's more evident in other images, but if it's lack of camera quality holding him back, it's hidden in that picture by serious over-processin
196 JohnKrist : I'm sorry, but that shot has no chance of making it, the aircraft is too high in the frame, grain + noise + soft + quality + too much space in front
197 Dav08 : Thanks for your reply. So now what about motive I had another reply saying that motive will be a problem, will a crop help? Sharpness of the images i
198 Post contains links Dav08 : Hello Another photo, opinions please, and suggestions if any errors. And as usual, will it be worth uploading it? Thanks http://img222.imageshack.us/m
199 Post contains links and images Ranger703 : Hi, Does this crop/motiv work for A.Net? I will most likely resharpen and lighten slightly prior to final upload. It has been liked elsewhere but am n
200 Dav08 : Hi, the image looks good, but maybe it will be rejected because the nose is cut out and also the tail. The good thing is that you have the pilots vis
201 Post contains links and images UnitedJumboJet : How 'bout this one? Okay here's some tips that I have found useful(though I still have a 0% acceptance ratio so this should be taken with a grain of s
202 Post contains links Wunaladreamin : Greets, your comments on this one would be appreciated. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...net_32_092108_usairways_n665aw.jpg And this one too. ht
203 AAA578 : Thanks for the advice matey, im not using a SLR camera, that photo has not been through any Photo Shop program yet... My camera is 7.1 mega pixels wi
204 Sovietjet : My first pictures on this site were made with a 5 megapixel Canon SD400. They were uploaded within the last year, so yes you CAN use a low megapixel p
205 Post contains links and images AAA578 : well i hope so, because its the effect i was going for with the water spraying out, maybe they will see that, as it is photos that show something exci
206 Post contains links and images JohnKrist : AAA578, this is the kind of quality you need even on a spray shot like yours: View Large View MediumPhoto © Jussi Seppala So even though you have
207 Post contains links and images Legoguy : Well I managed to get my first photo on A.net from the last lot of photos I posted here, and since I only submitted one pic, I'm hoping to get more of
208 TupolevTu154 : I think the quality problems with this photograph outweigh the creative aspects. It almost looks as though you haven't had enough time to zoom out bu
209 Post contains links Dav08 : Hello Could you give me your opinions on this photo, and tell me if it will get throught the screening process and get accepted Thanks http://img221.i
210 UltimateDelta : I don't know if this matters or not, but I did a fair amount of editing before I posted it (real good job, I know ) I'll try to post the original. Ma
211 Legoguy : Thanks Tom, the panning was unintentional so I was fairly pleased once I saw what the photos came out as. I already have 2 photos from my previous lo
212 TupolevTu154 : That's always the way Photos I intend to pan come out nasty, photos I just shoot end up panned!
213 Post contains links and images NicolasRubio : I have just uploaded 12 pictures but I have questions about 7 of them... SORRY! Too distant? What about this angle/centering? What about the shadows?
214 Post contains links and images Dwitty : Contemplating uploading these two. Anything I can do to improve the images? Waste of time? Thanks, ~Dave~ P.S. Nice to meet you fellow spotters out th
215 Post contains links Jonwait : Hello people, i need some help with choice. As i got the shot rejected 3 times now for these reasons : Aircraft not centered Bad Motive Poor Crop Part
216 Post contains images UltimateDelta : Okay, next try: (Please look at it full-size.)
217 ANITIX87 : Both are backlit so they don't stand much of a chance. The first one might be ok if you reduce the size to 1024 pixels, sharpen and brighten a bit, a
218 Post contains links Dav08 : Hello Can u take a look at this photo and tell me if it has a chance to be accepted? Also suggestions if any errors in the editing. Thanks DAVID http:
219 ANITIX87 : Hola, David. Here are a couple of notes. 1) Crop closer to the right engine to center the aircraft better. 2) Try and reduce grain and noise, especia
220 Dav08 : Thanks for your observations. I'll contact you ASAP. DAVID
221 Post contains links Dav08 : Another photo, what do u think of this?? http://s475.photobucket.com/albums/r.../?action=view¤t=mustang2.jpg
222 Post contains links Dav08 : Hello again, this is another edit of the LAN photo, I think looks pretty good but Im afraid of a motive rejection, Am I correct? Take a look at it and
223 NicolasRubio : Nobody?
224 ANITIX87 : You asked about too many, something I've been guilty of before. People won't take the time to analyze that many because if you're that indecisive abo
225 Post contains links and images Neophyte : Hey guys, what do you think about this two pictures?: Cheers Timo
226 Post contains links and images Neophyte : ... or maybe this one?
227 NicolasRubio : Thanks :P I knew they where a lot Argentina - Buenos Aires - Aeroparque Jorge Newbery (AEP / SABE) I spent half an hour on each levelling them accord
228 Post contains images UltimateDelta : Well, here's yet another one for your screening pleasure:
229 TupolevTu154 : What are you doing to your photographs? Yet another one that looks like a watercolour painting. Surely this is obvious on your monitor?
230 ANITIX87 : Looks very bizarre. I think Tupolove said it best. You should specify your editing process so we know what you're doing wrong. It looks like either w
231 JohnKrist : Extensive Neat Image use? Not only have you removed grain, you have also removed fuselage and concrete structure.
232 Post contains links and images EagleSpirit : Hello, I need your help on these pictures : 1. 2. 3. 4. Should I upload them ?
233 Post contains images UltimateDelta : Well, I looked over it again, and you are all right, it was horrible. I used this thing in my editor called Despeckle, which is apparently a noise re
234 ANITIX87 : Probably a good idea not to use Despeckle. Also, if you're very serious about uploading here, definitely get Photoshop. As for the new image, it look
235 Post contains links CFTOA : I would appreciate some initial thoughts. I only have one photo in the DB, so I am still getting a feel for this http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?im
236 Post contains images Mnazarinia : Hi there, What do you think about my picture? Cheers, Mehdi.
237 Post contains links Dav08 : Hello, please comment on this image so I can consider to upload, here is the link. http://img221.imageshack.us/my.php?image=fae3lg7.jpg Thanks DAVID
238 ANITIX87 : Hola David. Unfortunately, still the same issues. The buildings and the trees in the background look a bit weird. There may have been too much heat h
239 Dav08 : Hey Antonis, thanks for your reply, weird in what sense? is the photo lacking contrast? DAVID
240 Post contains links Dav08 : I was forgetting, here is a photo of a civil version of the CH 47 Chinook, what u think of it, is it worth uploading it? Please comments, thanks a lot
241 ANITIX87 : They look weird because it looks like you applied a Noise Reduction tool. But looking at it again, I think it's just a lot of heat haze, which means
242 Dav08 : Thanks for your reply TIS, I surely take this as a valuable criticism and thanks for the complements jeje. About the settings, I was using ISO Auto wh
243 UltimateDelta : OK. Thanks for the suggestions.
244 ANITIX87 : Good to see you taking constructive criticism to heart and not being discouraged. The lowest-end Canon and Nikons are all very good, and comparable i
245 Dav08 : Being discouraged is the last thing to do specially in aviation photography (this goes to the ones that are still finding some trouble getting photos
246 Post contains images Deradere : Sorry for posting this shot directly in the forum before. I had the wrong keywords in the thread search and thus could not find this one. What do you
247 Mnazarinia : Can I ask someone to have a look at this photo please?
248 Post contains links AA173HVY : I've been gone for a while but I went out with the misses last night and we stopped by the airport. I took a few long-exposure shots because I've alwa
249 Post contains links and images Neophyte : Hello, what do you think about this pictures? D-AIGB A6-EBO A6-EAI D-AHXH EP-IAG Cheers Timo
250 JohnKrist : Timo, this is what I think: 1 soft/blurry, can maybe be saved with little extra sharpening 2 Good, need a little more sharpening 3 This one I like, bu
251 Post contains links and images Jawed : just submitted - does it have a chance? any obvious flaws?
252 Post contains links and images NicolasRubio : I have some questions on some reuploads guys! Was rejected because of dark, quality, distance and dark. Rejected for borders and dark. Got in! View La
253 Post contains links and images Deradere : just into queue... your thoughts please Thanks a lot, Lars
254 Post contains images UltimateDelta : I wasn't planning on submitting this as-is, but I wanted some feedback on what else to do. So far, all I have done is level, crop, and resize this one
255 ANITIX87 : Nicolas the rules state that you are limited to two (2) wing views per flight you take. Therefore, these other ones will be rejected. The second one m
256 Post contains links and images Neophyte : Well, here are my new try´s with the pictures D-AIGB - the fuselage over the windows, the tail and the maingear are now sharper A6-EBO - scharped a
257 Post contains links Nikog : Hi to all, I need help with these two photos: The first one was rejected for softness, so i tryed to correct it.Is it okay now? Before: http://www.air
258 NicolasRubio : Even if they were shot on different legs? Two were taken during FDO-MDQ and two during MDQ-FDO. Another question about doubles: I shot LV-MFX at FDO
259 Post contains images UltimateDelta : Scratch that, screen this one instead:
260 Post contains links and images AAA578 : thoughts?
261 Post contains links AAA578 : Another http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/HS-TEKA330.jpg
262 Deradere : Sorry, out of focus or blurred way too much. Lars
263 Post contains links AA173HVY : http://pages.suddenlink.net/dragonheart0179/photos/DSCF2373EDIT.jpg
264 JohnKrist : Night shots are hard to pull off. Soft, blurry motive grain will be but a few rejection reasons. There are lots of equipment covering the aircraft an
265 Gliderpilot08 : Hi I really like this picture but I am a little concerned with the motive. (the purpose of the shot) If you notice the the aircraft towards the rear r
266 Gliderpilot08 : HI Love the tail of the a/c and how it relates to the darkness BUT like what John said! Those poles are very distracting but i would have to say the t
267 Post contains links and images Coxmaster : Im not really sure about this picture. All i have done thus far is decrease the file size a bit, and reduce the noise. Sharpening, center.. level.. al
268 AA173HVY : Thanks Luke and John for the tips / comments!!! I'll keep workin' at it!!!
269 JohnKrist : Coxmaster, what is really interresting in the pic is that it looks like a spotter inside the fence, spotting in the wrong direction so to say The main
270 Coxmaster : Haha, hes actually maintenance, not a spotter. Too bad lol I didn't even notice the aberration on the pic when i uploaded it. I have a feeling some of
271 Varig767 : I think it is due to your lens. Probably you have zoomed in rather far. In that way, some lenses produce chromatic abberation. kind regards, Martijn
272 Post contains links and images Varig767 : Do you think this KL 777 @ AMS (....common...??) is worth uploading??? kind regards, Martijn
273 ANITIX87 : Worth uploading if you get rid of the strong yellow color cast. The tail of the KLM plane should be white white white, not yellow. TIS
274 Coxmaster : Yep you are right, i just got home and looked at the original. It is still very obvious, though its not as bad as it looked in that picture. It is st
275 Post contains links Alasdair1982 : What do people think of this one taken on Tuesday of a United Airlines 744 taken at SFO from the open viewing spot at the Terminal 2 AirTrain Station?
276 Varig767 : Thanks for the advice, I will check the 'yellows' of the picture. regards, Martijn
277 Post contains links Alasdair1982 : Wrong link for the VS 744 I mentioned above. Here it is http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2125/2950349496_dcf1d88125_b.jpg
278 Gliderpilot08 : Just a few of my comments... " target=_blank>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2125/...b.jpg Good picture. One Concern... - Too much "open/unoccupied" sp
279 Post contains links and images Coxmaster : Ive got one more that i think might have potential. Its sorta rare in the fact that its the only plane painted like that.. What do you think? Hasnt be
280 Gliderpilot08 : The tarp in the top left hand corner. Also, the angle at which the viewer views the aircraft is a little awkward. You see to much of the planform (wi
281 Coxmaster : Thats all what i would consider to be processing requirements before uploading. It needs cropped.. and centered for sure. You think the odd angle wou
282 JohnKrist : UA 744, very nice shot. Borderline oversharpened and possibly a little tighter crop. I personally like the crop the way it is but Anet usually wants
283 Alasdair1982 : I know what you mean. It was either use the crop I uploaded to Flickr as as example, or upload the unedited image with the top of 'airbridges' and th
284 Post contains links and images Alasdair1982 : Here is a small version of the original image. To get the aircraft in the centre of the frame, meant including the tops of nearer aircraft or airport
285 Post contains links and images Coxmaster : Here's what i got after some cropping, editing, and centering. Hopefully its a little better. I had to keep some grass and some fence so it would meet
286 Gliderpilot08 : The picture looks a lot better. Well done. Are you going to consider submitting?... I think it's a really good picture, after the editing. Congrats!
287 Post contains links Jetmatt777 : Got two. Opinions please. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/jetmatt777-725SW.jpg and http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/jetmatt77
288 Post contains links and images Varig767 : Maybe a bit too much confidence in myself... I tried 1400 pixels wide: Is it worth uploading???? kind regards, Martijn
289 ANITIX87 : Both are dark. Yes, if you sharpen a little more, increase contrast, and brighten it up a little bit. It looks kind of dull as it is right now. TIS
290 Gliderpilot08 : " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...W.jpg Hi, Matt Both your pictures are good in terms of Motive but there is an issue with light
291 Post contains links and images Varig767 : The last 3 pictures of today: they are all 1200 pixels wide this time. What can I do to get them into the database?? kind regards, Martijn
292 Gliderpilot08 : to me, the second one and the third one are the best! Regards
293 Jetmatt777 : I don't use flash unless I am indoors, yeah, I know the Shutter Speed, Aperture, ISO relationship They were taken a few minutes before sunset, so it'
294 Coxmaster : Ya i think im going to submit that one now. I really like the way it turned out, and i think its got a chance. Thanks for the help. I'll post up anot
295 Post contains links Jetmatt777 : New edits of those last two: Opinions please. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/jetmatt777-725SW-1.jpg and http://www.airliners.net/addphot
296 Post contains images Timmay911 : I have 10 pictures that I MIGHT send for screening, but would like any viewers on here to critique them and give me their opinion/suggestions before s
297 Post contains links JakTrax : A friend of mine has just bought a 1000D and took the following pictures yesterday, which are in the queue. Now I've edited them for him but, due to m
298 Post contains links JakTrax : Oops! Posted a link to my Finnair instead of my friend's! Here's his version... http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/OH-LVE_MAN_181008_GB.JPG
299 Coxmaster : I really like pictures 2 and 6! They could possibly use a little crop and resize, but they definitely have potential!
300 Dlowwa : They have all been cropped to different ratios... try to keep the crops to standard 2:3 or 3:4 ratios. Furthermore, there are sharpness (too soft), n
301 Post contains links and images Lbox12 : How about
302 Dlowwa : Looks soft to me... Mods... at 300+ replies now, could we get another Pre-screening thread started?
303 JohnKrist : Very soft, and dark. Not sure where the light is coming from, looking at the aircraft in the distance they are well lit. Something looks wrong with t
304 Post contains links Gofly : I have started the 'Pre-Screening Thread No. 5' here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...tion_photography/read.main/320961/ Please feel free to co
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...
Pre-Screen Thread #2 posted Wed Jul 9 2008 15:17:46 by Diamond
Pre-screening posted Fri Mar 7 2008 15:35:06 by Thetford569
The Ultimate Pre-Screen Thread Part I posted Mon Mar 3 2008 19:19:04 by Jorge1812
Pre-screening Help posted Sat Mar 1 2008 17:56:49 by Carloscane
Pre-Screening Please posted Mon Feb 11 2008 23:43:07 by Carlos
Some (More!) Pre-screening Requested! posted Mon Feb 11 2008 14:08:00 by SNATH
Sea Harrier Pre-screening Help posted Sun Feb 3 2008 16:03:03 by Opso1
Pre-screening posted Sun Jan 27 2008 14:04:59 by Carloscane
Some Pre-screening For My Second Pic. posted Tue Jan 22 2008 13:27:16 by Deradere
Pre Pre Pre Screening Please - Screeners Opine! posted Wed Jan 16 2008 13:20:42 by Deaphen