Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Critisize Me Please...  
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1592 times:

Hi all!
Before I upload them I would please like to hear some comments (Any screeners out there with some spare time Big grin ) If they would even have a chance to reach Johan or much better to be accepted. The files are between 400 and 800 kB and I have to admit they are very extreme because it was already dark when i tried those and the cam was set to ISO 400, 800 and 1600.
Number 1
Number 2
Number 3
Number 4
Number 5
Number 6

So come on let the comments come, so that I know which ones I should try to upload and which not. I already have a feeling about the number which I should may be try ...
Thanks in advance
Peter




-
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1491 times:

Number 1 is only 512x768.
"The photos must be bigger than 800x600 pixels and of high quality."

The rest, especially # 4, are too grainy. I don't think there is much chance they will get past the screeners.

BTW, I love the title of this post.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1478 times:

About No. 1: In the last time i make all my portrait format pictures in this size becaues I had problemes with other sizes many times.
Peter



-
User currently offlineChris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Number 1 is only 512x768.
"The photos must be bigger than 800x600 pixels and of high quality."




ahh but no larger than 1024x768...

#1 is fine, note the width (768)



just thought i'd mention that

CHRIS





User currently offlineKingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Grain definitely an issue but then you expect that at 1600 ISO.

1: Interesting composition but I think you'll get binned for being too small. Maybe if the plane was at the top of the frame?

2: Neat idea but I think it falls in between, 'deliberate slow shutter to emphasise real speed' and 'sharp'. I suspect it'll get dumped.

3: OK, not really special enough to justify the high ISO and attendant grain and lack of sharpness.

4: Way too much grain and flare.

5: I like this. The grain's OK given the high ASA, the flare is nice and the tail is nicely lit up, it's pretty sharp too. [I might just have to go to LHR in the dark and have a go at this  Big grin]

6: Too much grain and flare.


I reckon 5 is by far your best bet here. I think they might have worked better if it had actually been darker so you're getting less of a cold blue sort of tone. Also, if you'd had something in the background you could have set some low shutter speeds, kept the ISO down for the grain and produced some really FAST  Wow! looking shots.


J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineAviationIvi From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 777 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1454 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!

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


User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

Hi Peter,

Sorry, but the logo has to go. Please note the rejection reason Johan wrote for "Copyright". This is the text you would recieve if you send these in:

$badcopyright_text = "
Please do not add any text or graphics to your photos. A small copyright notice (your name & e-mail) in a corner is recommended but remove any other text or graphics from your photos (Including URLs). You will find
more info in the Upload-FAQ. When done, please re-upload them.";

About the pictures - nice tries, but pictures such as these will really have to be pin sharp before Johan would accept them.

S2


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

When I looked at the first photo I thought: "Hey nice composition with that 747 flying far away!"

but one second later I realized it was the logo. It kills the photos.

Luis


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1436 times:

As this seems to become a discussion about the logo I would like to point out that there are several photographers in here which have logos on their pics, and I think at least one of them is a screener too. So same rules for all or not??  Angry
This was not meant to be a how do you like my logo thread. I like it some like it not so thats different taste. ok. but no need to point it out in every discussion.  Sad On the other hand i wrote critisize me so thats ok.
So i learned my stuff and would like to thank for the few construvtice comments and wont save storage on the server and screeners time any more and just upload them in the future without asking for opinions before.

Peter



-
User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3122 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1420 times:

Since you ask so many times for comments on your photos, you should be prepared to receive sincere opinions.

Luis


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

A lot of the photos that have logos are older. @ one time, I don't think Johan had any rules again logos.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5486 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1402 times:

I think 3 had the best shot, if mr. grainy screens them, he'll probably reject them for grain.

User currently offlineScreener5 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

Playing with ISO settings on dig cams can really get you into trouble. I do understand though that sometimes it's required, if you don't trust the Auto-ISO setting.

#1 Just a so-so shot. Why did you shoot it vertically?

#2 I like this shot, with landing lights ablaze and cabin lighting visible through the windows.

#3 Now we are starting to see some digital noise, especially on the lower fuselage.

#4 No Way Jose! The noise in sky is simply unacceptable.

#5 See #2.

#6 Very 'noisy'!

Peter, try to find a place that isn't foggy most of the time!  Big grin

...just some comments from a battered Screener.


User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1363 times:

Hi Peter,

As you see, a bunch of your pics have been uploaded in spite of the logo. This was done by the screeners, and basically means that although the logo really shouldn't be there, the pics were otherwise excellent, and considering that you uploaded a very large amount of pics, it was OK to let them through this time, but ask that you go back to your old copyright message you used to use, or something similar.

Please note that it is possible (I hope not) that Johan may fell that we screeners overstepped our bounds on this, and may do some "corrective action".

Regards,

S2


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1351 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Peter

I take it you mean my logo?

To be honest, your plane logo sticks out like a sore thumb.

Why not just have the wording and do away with the airplane??

Sorry to say this but it distracts me from your photo work.

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland
Screener with logo Big grin


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

I disagree with Charles. The photograher has the right to add a logo if he/she wants.

In a way it helps (only a little) from people using the image when they are not supposed to.

I started adding a logo after seeing Pixair's pictures. The logo adds a bit of professionalism to the picture. i think so anyway.

Johan told me once before, it is OK to add a logo if:

1. It does not show a URL
2. The logo is not clearly shown on the thumbnail.

OK....apart from the logo, Peter, your pictures are a little grainy.

Constructive criticism is the name of the game. Carry on with your pictures as you do take good shots.

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland


User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1339 times:

I think there are logos and logos. The ones that work are the semi-transparent type, not too large, that don't distract. The particular problem with Peter's logo is that it is airplane-shaped - and there's nothing MORE likely to distract (unless you maybe have a naked-woman shaped logo!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy)

I think Gary's logo looks professional, but it's a little too large for my liking - I prefer to see something rather more understated. The same logo, maybe just 75% of the size would work for me. (Good God - have we really descended into a discussion on the aesthetics of logos?)

I've thought of designing something small and professional looking for a while - but in the end, I never got around to it. And I don't really need it to be honest. Maybe it would make my photos look more professional.... but I'd rather my photos spoke for themselves at the end of the day.


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1338 times:

Hi!
THX for the comments. But i didnt call anybodys name did I? Big grin (No offenese intended)
I appreciate the construvtice criticism (very well said Gary THX very much) very much but i am glad that i didnt respond yesterday to some of the comments (it sucks is not very constructive). Lets say tastes are (thankfully) different and thats it. Variety is the spice of life isnt it??
So lets close the logo chapter.
And for posting pictures and asking comments isnt this what this forum is meant for? IMHO its better to post them first and ask then to upload them anyway and waste server storage space and screeners time and waiting time for all the others who want their pictures added.
Thanks very much again.
Peter




-
User currently offlineScreener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1335 times:

Hi Peter,

If anyone thought that it was a waste of time, they would not be posting. Gary is right - I forgot that Johan modified his rule a little bit to include logos which are not visible on the thumbnail.

(Aarg! I revived the topic! Sorry!)

Anyway, I think the possibility of asking people's opinions on this forum has been a tremendous help to a lot of photogs (myself not the least). Pls continue.

S2.



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...
Reject Reason: Colour Help Me Please posted Thu Nov 16 2006 18:19:37 by Andrei
Reject Reason: Personal Level . Help Me Please posted Sun May 28 2006 20:37:35 by Andrei
REJECT-personal Angle? Help Me Please posted Mon May 15 2006 15:00:21 by Andrei
Can Someone Explain This To Me Please? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 04:00:23 by Qantas077
Badquality? Help Me Please! posted Wed Jun 2 2004 20:26:56 by Jkw777
Help Me Please Post A Picture! posted Sun Feb 17 2002 16:41:22 by FlyinIsFreedom
Critique Me, Please posted Tue Jan 8 2002 05:06:52 by Usa4624
Critique Me Please! posted Sat Jan 5 2002 01:38:02 by ILS
Critisize Me Please... posted Sat Nov 24 2001 19:49:16 by PUnmuth@VIE
Help Me Please posted Mon Jun 25 2001 07:44:12 by Soki Air