PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Posted (12 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1471 times:
Before I upload them I would please like to hear some comments (Any screeners out there with some spare time ) 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
KingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 20 Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1347 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 ]
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 looking shots.
Screener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1328 times:
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.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1315 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??
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. 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.
Screener2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1242 times:
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".
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1218 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! )
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.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1217 times:
THX for the comments. But i didnt call anybodys name did I? (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.