Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Thread For Rejected Photos  
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4164 posts, RR: 52
Posted (14 years 1 week ago) and read 3000 times:

Thought it would be a idea to start a thread for posting pictures which where rejected. Not for "standard" shots but for mmh way of different shots. Don't know exactly how to say instead i am just posting mine.
Any more?

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineFredrik Hjort From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

Cool shot... but it would be even better, I think, if you tried to center the wingtip just a bit. Then it would be perfect.


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (14 years 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2881 times:

The logo is very annoying, it takes your attention from the main subject.


User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (14 years 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2875 times:

i really hate to say it, but, quite honestly i dont really like it... i appreciate the idea of it... also like luis mentioned, the first thing i really looked at was the watermark...


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (14 years 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2869 times:

I would say: "parts of aircraft not visible"  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Naaaah, on a serious note: I like the idea, but the contrast of the picture does not support what you tried to show with your pic.


dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (14 years 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2852 times:

I think one of two things would make this pic work. Either if the wingtip was completely in silhouette, so you were just looking at shapes, or else if there was sunlight falling on the wingtip so we could clearly see the logo. This pic is halfway in between, so doesn't work for me. (But it DOES make me want to fly Air Berlin, just to photograph the wingtips!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy)

Oh, and definitely remove your logo from the corner of the pic - it totally kills it!

User currently offlineAviationIvi From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 777 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (14 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2823 times:

Hi Peter,
I like this kind of photography but I guess they would be rejected due to too much grain.
But keep on trying!

by the way: I would remove the 747 logo. It sucks!

User currently offlineAviationIvi From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 777 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (14 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2819 times:

ups, actually I wanted to reply to your 2nd topic. Sorry!


User currently offlineSydneybuses From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 112 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (14 years 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2801 times:

Good idea Peter. Here are 4 of mine that were rejected again. I tried the Qantas SP photo previosuly (it was rejected), now I tried to fix it up, but it was rejected again.

I feel this one is quite good, besides the yellowishness which I can't seem to get rid of

Same sort of deal

This ones alright, isn't it?

I admit it, not the best photo in the world

User currently offlineDutchair From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 105 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (14 years 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

Hi all,

I got this photo rejected by a screener this morning.

The photo in from 1986 and taken during the airshow at Scheveningen Beach (The Hague, The Netherlands).
BTW, if anyone a way to improve it please let me know.


Miguel Snoep

"People are assholes when flying"
User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (14 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2768 times:


there's something not quite right with your contrast and colours. The whites are so bright they make my teeth hurt, but they don't seem really WHITE, and the colours seem dark and muddy. Perhaps this could be improved by toning down the colour saturation some, reducing the contrast a little, and then tweaking the overall colour balance to either reduce the red a little or increase the blue. If the original is too yellow, this can also be fixed by a boost to the blue element.


looks to me like the problem is a slight lack of crispness. There's already a little grain there, so sharpening is only going to worsen it. I just tried running it through the sharpen filter, and this improves the aircraft, while making the sky too grainy, so perhaps you could mask the sky and just gently sharpen the plane, enough to crisp it up a little, without adding jaggies.

User currently offlineDutchair From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 105 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (14 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Thanks Chris.

I've tried to sharpen the plane a bit and left the sky as it was. I think the photo has improved a bit, so let's hope it'll get through this time  Smile

Thanks again,

"People are assholes when flying"
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11960 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (14 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2734 times:

I'm still a little puzzled over this one.  Sad


"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineFallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (14 years 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

I love that picture Thom@s, no clue why it wasn't uploaded.

Mark McWhirter...Contrails Photography
User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (14 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

I'm guessing but I think it was rejected for a combination of being too far away and the point of sharp focus being in the wrong place. The plane isn't really pin sharp. If you look at the tarmac in the foreground, it's sharp but you seem to lose sharpness towards the back [unfortunately where your subject is because it's not close enough] of the frame.

I'd expect in those conditions for you to be able to set a really small aperture and get really big depth of field so this wouldn;t be a problem.

It's a shame really 'cause it's a great subject.


Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
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...
New Photos, No Results/Have I Got A Thread For 4U posted Tue Jan 31 2006 06:54:02 by Tappan
Any Opinions On This Rejected Photos posted Sun Sep 3 2006 09:32:37 by AirMalta
What Focal Lenght Do You Use For Cockpit Photos? posted Fri Jun 30 2006 05:38:15 by AirSpare
Rejected Photos Any Help Pls? posted Sat May 20 2006 17:26:44 by AirMalta
CS2 Advise For These Photos. posted Sun Mar 26 2006 19:29:27 by CYEGsTankers
Any Votes For These Photos? posted Thu Mar 23 2006 12:13:11 by AirMalta
Rejected Photos Any Tips Pls? posted Mon Mar 20 2006 06:26:13 by AirMalta
Portable Storage For Digital Photos In The Field posted Tue Mar 14 2006 09:28:12 by LGW
Best LAX Hotel for Aircraft Photos? posted Sun Feb 12 2006 21:06:58 by JAT74L
Heads Up For People's Photos On This Site! posted Thu Dec 1 2005 16:55:21 by LHRsunriser