Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
At Wit's End  
User currently offlineBistro1200 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 337 posts, RR: 4
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3941 times:

I have unsuccessfully tried to submit several photos, each was rejected due to reasons that escape me. At first, most were due to the softness of images. I read this forum and download Fergul's PDF on sharpening. I use layers in photoshop and it looks pretty good. Submitted, and summarily rejected. I try other pics, and they are also rejected for the same reasons.

I have the equipment: Nikon D80, Nikon 80-400mm & 18-200mm lenses, 24" iMac (3.06 GHz) with Photoshop Elements 6. I also have big, bright images as a source, and follow Fergul's instructions to the letter. I have been in photography for 15 years, and used to work for a newspaper and a photo studio, both time shooting with a fully manual F2SB. I've also had an aircraft image published. Nonetheless, it isn't working.

It is not in my nature to complain, and this is not what I am trying to do. Rather I am frustrated with the process and objectively look at my submitted images and do not see the multiple flaws that the screeners see. The sharpness tolerance is especially small IMO. After getting several "softness" rejections, I was extra careful in my sharpening. After submitting, it too was rejected for "jagged edges and grain". Well no kidding! It's either soft or jagged it seems, the spread between those two are tighter than a gnat's ass stretched over a rain barrel.

I have two pics in the database already, submitted in 2002. I had no issues with those. Understandably, standards are higher now. My experience in the last two weeks has soured my expectations of Airliners.net and frankly don't understand why I see some photos in the DB that have questionable quality, while mine are rejected. Remember, I am following Fergul's excellent PDF to the letter. That's what's needed to get photos accepted, correct?

Latest rejection due to...
The image quality of these photo(s) does not meet the very high standards of Airliners.Net, There is too much grain or digital noise in these photo(s), The transition between solid lines on these photos have a very jagged appearance. (When the sharpness standards are what they appear to be, yes there will be grain and jagged edges. I have submitted a similar photo below that was too soft. WTF?)


Other rejections include:
TOO SOFT:


TOO DARK:


My personal rejections page on pbase.com:
http://www.pbase.com/dux/airliners_net_submissions

Some examples of what I've shot (unsubmitted):
http://www.pbase.com/dux/chicago_ohare&page=all

Conclusion: I'll listen to constructive criticism, but frankly I have little tolerance for a process that requires standards that, for whatever reason, are impossible to meet. I'm hoping by laying out what I have so far, someone can see a "magic bullet" that I can fix. I've been an Airliners.net fan for 10+ years. I've followed the processes on this forum to get photos into the database, yet they are summarily rejected. I'd hate it if A.net turns out to be nothing but a frustrating waste of time.


Measure to the millimeter, mark with a crayon, cut with an axe.
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm happy to give feedback but please see the version that were rejected.

Honestly, if you got your editing workflow under control it should not be too hard to get images accepted here. Always look at your own work critically and have others look at it ciritcally before blaming our standards. People usually struggle at first and then blame our high standards. usually when they get a little more experience editing and understanding our rules the process becomes a lot more understandable.

From what I se ethe first 747 is extremely soft, anyone will tell you that. let's see some shots you are trying to submit now and I'll try and give some feedback.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2901 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3919 times:

I'm more than happy to give you some pointers if you want to contact me via my profile and email a couple of photos. I'll go through the editing steps with you. I've not failed to help someone get photos accepted yet (now there's a challnge!).

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3909 times:

A.net can be frustrating at times but it is simply a case of understanding what they want and adapting a workflow to process the desired output.

Look through the database and compare your images to similar shots and look for the differences. Look at different workflows - I have two published, one for simple adjustment which should work with Elements

http://www.jid.me.uk/workflow/index.html

The other a slightly more advanced workflow for the more experienced user.

http://www.jid.me.uk/workflow/Workflow2/index.html

The one thing you must do and this will save you a great deal of time is to look at an image before it is processed and know if it will atain the quality you need to meet the site's requirements. There are plenty more workflows out there and you need to find and adapt one that suites you.

Good luck .. Jid



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3887 times:

Are you sharpening the whole image and not just the aircraft? This would account for the grain.

The Nikon 18-200 is a good general-purpose lens, but is not ultra-sharp.

The Nikon 80-400 lens is sharpest at f/9.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineBistro1200 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 337 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3861 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 4):
Are you sharpening the whole image and not just the aircraft?

I was, then I started using Fegul's PDF using layers and sharpening ONLY the aircraft. But, it seems that it's not sharpened enough or oversharpened, resulting in grain.

Quoting Jid (Reply 3):
Look through the database and compare your images to similar shots and look for the differences. Look at different workflows - I have two published, one for simple adjustment which should work with Elements

http://www.jid.me.uk/workflow/index.html

So I should be sharpening BEFORE applying color adjustments, and AFTER resizing? My process now (based on Fergul's PDF) is COLOR > CROP > RESIZE > LAYERS > SHARPEN > FLATTEN.

If anyone is interested, I uploaded some source images to my website to see if there is anything wrong with them.

http://www.pbase.com/dux/airliners_net_submissions
Be sure to click "original size" under the photo.



Measure to the millimeter, mark with a crayon, cut with an axe.
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Bistro: I looked at the evergeen originals and they look quite blurry and underexposed. Since they are pretty grainy too that is not a good combo if you want to sharpening/lighten the image a lot

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3852 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

You will definitely want to pay attention to your camera settings, I see many of your shots are at f/5.6, at something like 1/640 of a second. You need to trade f stop for shutter speed, especially with those VR lenses. Try shooting in Aperture priority mode, shoot at f/8 and you will see better results. And you might crank the ISO from 100 to 200 on those snowy/cloudy days.

User currently offlineBistro1200 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 337 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3845 times:



Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 6):
I looked at the evergeen originals and they look quite blurry and underexposed. Since they are pretty grainy too that is not a good combo if you want to sharpening/lighten the image a lot

I'm starting to think that myself. As you can see by the EXIF data, I use -2/3 stop EC so that the highlights don't get blown (the D80 is notorious for doing this). I also use f5.6.

I am off to ORD today and try and get a few more new images. I'll shoot RAW, at f8 or f9 and see how that goes.



Measure to the millimeter, mark with a crayon, cut with an axe.
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3826 times:



Quoting Bistro1200 (Thread starter):
use layers in photoshop and it looks pretty good. Submitted, and summarily rejected. I try other pics, and they are also rejected for the same reasons.

IMO layers are not needed. Just about all of my shots in the DB here have been sharpened without layers. If you practice a bit you can get shots accepted here with one or two passes with USM and not use layers.

Quoting Bistro1200 (Thread starter):
Remember, I am following Fergul's excellent PDF to the letter. That's what's needed to get photos accepted, correct?

Ferguls PDF is great but only for a starting point. From there I would adivse a ton of practice and buying a book on PS. I bought one 5 years ago and still read it all the time for reference.

Quoting Bistro1200 (Thread starter):
When the sharpness standards are what they appear to be, yes there will be grain and jagged edges. I have submitted a similar photo below that was too soft. WTF?)

I disagree, you may get some jaggies but if you keep your shutter speed and ISO low you won't have grain issues and if you practice with USM you will not get jaggies to the point where they will be a problem.

Quoting Viv (Reply 4):
Are you sharpening the whole image and not just the aircraft? This would account for the grain.

That too.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 7):
especially with those VR lenses. Try shooting in Aperture priority mode, shoot at f/8 and you will see better results. And you might crank the ISO from 100 to 200 on those snowy/cloudy days.

Good advice though if you still want to stick with manual on a day with good lighting conditions try F8 or F9 and 1/640 will work just keep that thing steady while holding it and bump it to a little faster if they are overexposed while keeping an low ISO,

Quoting Bistro1200 (Reply 8):
I use -2/3 stop EC so that the highlights don't get blown (the D80 is notorious for doing this). I also use f5.6.

Not sure about the D80 but my D70 and D200 work fine with no EC. Unless your shooting with a harsh sun lighting source.


User currently offlineCaliSam From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

Some others have posted some good tips!

Shooting telephoto @ f/5.6 is not a good idea. Stop down your aperture to 8 or 9, and bump your ISO to 200. Also, ALWAYS... ALWAYS.. ALWAYS put on your lens hood. I cannot stress this enough. I've done thorough testing and I've found to have significantly more contrast, sharpness and saturation with a lens hood on, even on overcast days.


User currently offlineDlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting CaliSam (Reply 10):
Also, ALWAYS... ALWAYS.. ALWAYS put on your lens hood.

Hmmm... interesting. Maybe I'll give that a shot next time.

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 6):
Bistro: I looked at the evergeen originals and they look quite blurry and underexposed.

I'd have to agree with Tim. I'd venture to guess (actually, no, I'm sure) that your problems lie not with your processing, but rather with the original shots to start with. They're all pretty soft and grainy, and as Tim said, sharpening a grainy photo only leads to more grain.

If I were you, I'd focus more on getting a quality shot in the first place, as that will make your processing that much easier.

Good luck.

Dana


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3705 times:

Try solving one variable of the equation at a time. Start with static subjects such as at a general aviation airport or a museum. After getting comfortable with those subjects getting accepted, work on moving subjects. That doesn't mean to stop taking pictures you enjoy for your own collection, just an attempt to break the goal of acceptable uploads into managable steps.
Good Luck,
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1979 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3571 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Bistro1200 (Reply 8):
I use -2/3 stop EC so that the highlights don't get blown

I had the same problem with my Canon 400D - on properly exposed shot in sunny weather some bright spots often came out overexposed and lost all the data. Also the shadows were way too dark; underexposing wold kill them altogether.

I solved the problem by lowering in-camera contrast settings by two notches when shooting jpeg. This way I don't have to underexpose to salvage bright spots. In fact, the shadows have more details this way too. The slight lack of contrast is easily fixable later in the Photoshop, and you can do it carefully so you don't lose shadows and highlights again...


User currently offlineSoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3489 times:



Quoting Bistro1200 (Thread starter):

Bistro, I have/had the same issues...I have a fairly good line up of gear, D2X, D300, mostly Nikon 2.8 lenses, the most recent being the 200-400 f4. they are all VR where possible...the last round of uploads outside of the USAirways crash images which for the life of me vaporized from the system...received the rejection rubber stamp. Now this lens is crystaline. In the final analysis I've decided it is just a crap shoot. Many of the uploaders are brainiaks when it comes to post processing. I can't do half of what they can but I don't believe you should have to electrinically "F" with your photos after you shot them especially when you have laid out a nice chunk of cash for equipment. If an expensive film camera had the ability to record an accurate image on a piece of film then why can't it do the same on a memory buffer...either way...it is what it is...A/NET standards may be extreme however!... this is the part I like...I had been at the point you are currently at....but I decided to change my view of their stringent requirements and use them to my advantage and learn more about this stuff. As much as I don't agree with all the button pushing, I have become very critical of my own work BEFORE I select shots to upload to A/NET. As a result my acceptance rating has gone up. I do only have a small group of shots on the site and I use the other site for the more mundane type shots. Much comes into play, your style of shooting, your bad and good habits, your equipment...like you, I have been shooting for a long time. I get grain rejections yet I'm recording at ISO 100...HUH?!...I don't over post process as I'm afraid of messing up the image. Tim De Groot knows how frustrated I've gotten as he has helped me along a few times. During the USAir event in the Hudson I uploaded shots for priority screening seven times, even received three confirmations...yet the images dissappeared...They were up close intimate shots...talk about frustrating... In short, I have applied a classroom mentality to my dealings with A/NET and decided to learn from it. I can only learn form it. And one of two things I will or should learn is that it is making me a better photogarpher in the technical sense or it is just too frustrating to deal with...but at this juncture I am finding success...Good Luck...j


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3479 times:



Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 14):
In the final analysis I've decided it is just a crap shoot. Many of the uploaders are brainiaks when it comes to post processing. I can't do half of what they can but I don't believe you should have to electrinically "F" with your photos after you shot them especially when you have laid out a nice chunk of cash for equipment.



Actually on many of my uploads it takes very little of PS to do the post processing. In fact if you have to enlist a lot of time or go deep into what PS can do on a capture it most likely not a good capture. Also your inferring that going out and buying a $5000 body and equal lens guarantees good results. Which is far from the truth. I will admit it does take some time to get an idea of what this site is looking for in terms of sharpness and such and practice is needed in PS to achieve this but your above statement is quite off base and counterproductive to the thread starter who is looking for help.

Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 14):
the last round of uploads outside of the USAirways crash images which for the life of me vaporized from the system..



Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 14):
During the USAir event in the Hudson I uploaded shots for priority screening seven times, even received three confirmations...yet the images dissappeared...They were up close intimate shots...talk about frustrating..

Did they have the watermark? If so that was touched upon.


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3475 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think most people would agree that this site has a steep learning curve. Getting help from other members/crew is very important in that respect.

I have seen people struggle terribly when they first started here. Then they got help from some great people here and now they are screeners!

Like Nik says my editing process is usually pretty straightforward. it's important to know what we look for though, espcially with regards to sharpness, level, contrast. To newbies that is often the most difficult step.

I can spot a truly bad image straightaway but I also see many good images that were let down by the photographer's editing process.

If you have a fellow a.net member nearby who's more experience give them a shout and ask if they are willing to sit down with you for two hours and edit some shots.


Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3470 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Bistro,

It's a shame you're not in the Boston area, otherwise I could give you a one-on-one. I too struggled mightily in my first few months of uploading, but now I have an 88% acceptance ratio and life is good. One thing that helped out muchly was switching to Photoshop CS3 and using Smart Sharpen. The other one was the new downsampling algorithms in CS3 are much better than those in earlier versions of PS. Even standard bicubic gives much better results than what I used to use (PS 7). The difference before and after, for me, was like night and day.

What's your workflow look like?

I'm also very tough on my own images. Often times I'll know pretty quick what will and will not cut it. That doesn't mean they're bad images, it just means that it might not be what this place is looking for. I've sold lots of prints of images that have been rejected. Of course making prints and making images targeted for here is two different workflows, but you get used to it soon enough.

If you have some questions you can always PM me with some pics or send me an instant message and I can send some info your way.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3461 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 17):
One thing that helped out muchly was switching to Photoshop CS3 and using Smart Sharpen.

Interesting that you say that.
I am still using CS2 but the smart sharpen in that makes life very much easier than when using USM.
Somewhere between about 65 and 80% at 0.3 radius, correcting for lens blur.
Starting at the high end of that range and then using Edit > fade smart sharpen is a very simple way of getting it right.
Smart sharpen is not available in all Photoshop Programmes but I think it is in Elements 6 and CS 2 and 3
I would hate to go back to USM !

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3453 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 18):
I would hate to go back to USM !

Mick,

Smart Sharpen automates a lot of things I would normally have to do with straight USM. for example using high pass layers to get the right local contrast... I haven't had to do it since I started using Smart Sharpen, because it does it for me.

If USM is a hatchet, Smart Sharpen is a scalpel. Just giving you the ability to tweak the highlight/shadow range without needing to make multiple layers and masks helps out so much.

It's not as good as PhotoKit sharpener but IMO Smart Sharpen does almost everything I need and I don't need to spend money on an additional plugin.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineSoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3383 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 15):

You echoed my point, the shot with expensive equipment should to some degree produce a photo that requires very little if any post work. Thats why you spend more money to get better options in your equipment...The level of equipment is relevent to this point and that typically does interpelate into $$$$ however an expensive camera does not make the photographer...two different points, the second of which I was not addressing.

As far as the USair uploads vaporizing...I worked with Eric, one of the screeners, for a couple of hours but to no avail, he deferred to Paulo...sadly days before his accident. Then I read threads about all kinds of issues regarding uploads,etc...so I backed off for a while especially since the passing of Paulo as that must have really affected the staff. Those images at this juncture are just water under the bridge. To answer your question...I'm not a big fan of water marks but on these images I think I did apply them...we tried so many times...

I hope no one takes offense to the term I used, "brainiaks" regarding photoshop editing...I meant it in the complimentry sense...I only wish I knew what you guys have forgotten...I'm of the OLD film persuassion at heart...j


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3358 times:



Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 20):
You echoed my point, the shot with expensive equipment should to some degree produce a photo that requires very little if any post work

 confused  Doesn't the person holding that expensive gear have something to do with it? I didn't echo your point. Fact is there is much more to the equation. Let's take an example. I shoot with a D200 which is 1200 dollars as opposed to 5000. The lens I use is also much cheaper yet if I use it correctly and use very little PS it gets accepted rather easily. Now your rant consisted of 10000 in gear and you said that you had to use more PS than you think is necessary. You also went on to say that successful uploaders here had to be very well versed in PS to get photos accepted when it takes very little in the way of knowledge of PS to get the desired result. Now if you don't practice and know what the screeners are looking for you are going to get frustrated but that is a different story. You seemed to be making the point that the most expensive gear should facilitate a better result. Where better equipment helps it does not guarantee good results.

Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 20):
I hope no one takes offense to the term I used, "brainiaks" regarding photoshop editing...I meant it in the complimentry sense...I only wish I knew what you guys have forgotten...I'm of the OLD film persuassion at heart...

Of course, which is why you feel the way you do. The DSLR changed things dramatically but if you spend some time you will see the trick is to get a feel for what the screeners want and you will see your time in PS shrink dramatically.


User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1979 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3343 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 21):
Where better equipment helps it does not guarantee good results.

Exactly right.

I know a few photographers here whose acceptance ratio went down dramatically after they switched from point-n-shoot to DSLR's. One was even frustrated to the point where he wanted to return Canon 50D + Canon 100-400 (if I remember correctly), because he tended to blame the gear for the poor results.

DSLR's are professional equipment and, unlike point-n-shoot, they require lot's of knowledge and experience, meaning that there would be a substantial learning curve to master them.

[Edited 2009-02-06 20:14:53]

User currently offlineSoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3319 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 21):

Yeh, I spend money on my gear because thats what I do, thats the business I am in. I put $$$ into my lenses because thats what it's all about. The better the optics, the better the image...film or digital...It would be silly of me to assume because I spent big dollars on my gear that every shot should be accepted on A/NET. And I don't need A/net to be my critics as I am my own worst critic. However, do I expect my image quality to be better because I spent more money on my gear, you bet I do.The point Bistro made, unless I misunderstood was that he mentioned that he felt his eqpt. was sufficient enough to yield him sharp photos at least sharp enough for acceptance. Maybe his equipment is fine but his post work needs some honning. That has been my issue...the post work. I related to him on this thread. Now I'm getting cornered because my point about better gear has been misconstreud. Big $$$ cameras do not GUARANTEE anything!...But if you know how to take good photos, good gear will give you better quality and more flexibilty yet they are more complex and present more issues to overcome, I have learned that recently as well, I got the D300 to back up my D2X...well that was a mistake as they both have different shooting characteristics...I should have two D2x's OR two D300's. Something Bistro should also consider is that many photos that I see win in the Aviation week photo contest, would never make the screeners cut here on A/NET. In addition, many cover shots on other aviation publications would never make the screeners cut. In short, I have found that for myself...trying to get my work accepted on this site is forcing me to learn more about digital imaging. I don't have many images on this site...I do have much more on the other site as their a bit more foregiving. I don't think that means the images are of lessor quality. I just found them less frustrating. I found the forum on A/NET to be an incredible source of learning material and I like the higher standard. Gives you something more to shoot for than planes...j


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3264 times:



Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 23):
Something Bistro should also consider is that many photos that I see win in the Aviation week photo contest, would never make the screeners cut here on A/NET. In addition, many cover shots on other aviation publications would never make the screeners cut.

Magazines and publications are great but the bar here is much higher. I had to laugh the other day, the staff photographer of the local paper here had a photo of someone at a town meeting make the cover. It was not the best quality and had the worst red eye. What made that worse is that even after capture he could have corrected it in PS and had a much better technical photo for that is not what he is used to. Fact is publications only look to document somtething so that is not a good comparison. The DB here is a whole different animal. Over time shooting pictures and uploading here forces you to think about these things while in the field or in front of your monitor while processing so the end product is a much higher quality.

Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 23):
In short, I have found that for myself...trying to get my work accepted on this site is forcing me to learn more about digital imaging

We are all pretty lucky in 40 years we can tell the young photogs who won't even know what film is that we were present when that all changed. Fact is Digital imaging is the new photography.



Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 23):
I don't have many images on this site...I do have much more on the other site as their a bit more foregiving. I don't think that means the images are of lessor quality. I just found them less frustrating.

It is all relative. It's a personal decision on what site you want to upload to.

Quoting Soon7x7 (Reply 23):
I found the forum on A/NET to be an incredible source of learning material and I like the higher standard. Gives you something more to shoot for than planes...j

The site has gone through a big transformation from the guys who shot slides and documented regis. Now you can go out there and do anything with any airframe you want.


25 Soon7x7 : I tell you one thing about digital. For the last twenty one years I have been travelling all over with my Hasslblad and all it's associated accessorie
26 Cpd : It goes with the game - I'm afraid. If you want to be in the digital media world, that's life, it's what we do.
27 Soon7x7 : Been in the game for a looooong time my friend...
28 Spurusho : Just a quick question: Does the photo file size get downsized by A.net after you upload? I just submitted a couple of photos to the screening queue an
29 Dazbo5 : Yes, the files get compressed when uploaded. Darren
30 Jid : Yes extra compression is added.
31 Spurusho : Thanks for the info. But that means the sharpness will be reduced? You have to predictively post-process the images to compensate for the drop in shar
32 Jid : The image is compressed not re-sized so your sharpening should not be changed.
33 Viv : Indeed, but most of my (non aviation) photography is on film, using Bronica ETSRI and Zeiss Ikon rangefinder cameras. These cameras give detail resol
34 Soon7x7 : Also...film offers latitude that digital does not...with digital thats the reason for all the button pushing after the capture...Three of my clients
35 Post contains links Bistro1200 : Hi, this is Bistro1200, the thread starter. I recently went out to ORD and shot at two of my favorite places on a COLD clear day. I shot Nikon RAW, f8
36 Spurusho : That's a nice photo. There is some noise, but it doesn't look like a deal-breaker IMHO. The angle is definitely a bit unusual though (too steep?).
37 PRM : Hi Bistro, Well I think you're getting closer (but I'm no expert) The Canada Jazz could take some more sharpening (esp. the rear looks a little soft/b
38 PRM : Oh, I missed the NW DC-9 Looks soft, and quality looks a bit off (again looks like an oversharpened image that started out on the blurry side) P
39 Eadster : And to Quote what JeffM said many moons ago and I totally agree with. If it takes longer than 2 minutes to get a shot looking right in Photoshop, the
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...
Spotting At PHX At End Of December posted Wed Dec 3 2003 04:39:37 by Jakbar
Help Please! End Of Tether Approaching At Speed posted Fri Jun 28 2002 16:48:38 by BigBob
QF11 At LAX posted Tue Nov 25 2008 06:36:28 by BoeingA380
Current Photography Opportunities At SJU? posted Thu Nov 20 2008 12:55:15 by Brick
Taking Photos At SIN posted Mon Nov 17 2008 06:13:42 by JensOBreuer
Spotting Locations At KCMH?! Help?! posted Fri Nov 14 2008 14:12:58 by BalZ18
Qantas A380 Departure Gate At LAX posted Tue Nov 11 2008 20:03:59 by Andrew50
Photography Locations At Tulsa OK? posted Mon Nov 10 2008 11:55:55 by Andyhunt
Shooting At Christchurch Airport posted Thu Nov 6 2008 15:55:28 by PrattWhitney
Spotting At Avex 2008 posted Sat Oct 25 2008 05:07:49 by Horusa380
Spotting At PHX At End Of December posted Wed Dec 3 2003 04:39:37 by Jakbar
Help Please! End Of Tether Approaching At Speed posted Fri Jun 28 2002 16:48:38 by BigBob
QF11 At LAX posted Tue Nov 25 2008 06:36:28 by BoeingA380
Current Photography Opportunities At SJU? posted Thu Nov 20 2008 12:55:15 by Brick
Taking Photos At SIN posted Mon Nov 17 2008 06:13:42 by JensOBreuer
Spotting Locations At KCMH?! Help?! posted Fri Nov 14 2008 14:12:58 by BalZ18
Qantas A380 Departure Gate At LAX posted Tue Nov 11 2008 20:03:59 by Andrew50
Photography Locations At Tulsa OK? posted Mon Nov 10 2008 11:55:55 by Andyhunt
Shooting At Christchurch Airport posted Thu Nov 6 2008 15:55:28 by PrattWhitney
Spotting At Avex 2008 posted Sat Oct 25 2008 05:07:49 by Horusa380