Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Am I Doing Wrong With My Photos?  
User currently offlineBriceJohnson From Canada, joined Mar 2012, 113 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 9136 times:

Hey Everyone...

I am still trying to get some pics accepted here, and always get rejected files back with "grain" , "Quality" and "Soft". (To name so of the most common.)

Would upgrading to a higher quality lense help? I am shooting with a Nikon D3100, and a 55-200mm lense. I am thinking of the 70-300mm.

Thanks.


Calvin | image120
80 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6429 posts, RR: 38
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 9137 times:

1. Why start two threads when they can obviously be combined into one.

2. Depends if you can notice the difference yourself or if your settings are far from optimal for aviation photography/you're consistently using the tele end of your lens. Also depends on the conditions you shoot in. Obviously nobody can help you if you provide no samples.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently onlineKaphias From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 307 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 9120 times:

Upgrading your lens will generally help, yes. But if I can get pictures accepted with a point and shoot that's worth less than your current lens, I'd start by looking at some of the other possible issues before turning to equipment. Start by shooting still aircraft at a fairly close distance in optimal lighting. Once you get the hang of that, then expand both your skills and your equipment to suit your wishes.

Edit: That wasn't a dig at you, my apologies if it reads like that. Have you posted any pictures in the Photography Feedback forum to get some specific advice?

[Edited 2012-12-19 17:51:45]


Flown on: C150, C172, C206, Beaver, Otter, Jetstream 32, Q400, CRJ7/9, E135/40/45, A320, B732/4/7/8/9, B744, B752, B763
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 9056 times:

Quoting BriceJohnson (Thread starter):
Would upgrading to a higher quality lense help?

Not necessarily. While good quality equipment helps, the basics of photography still apply. Even with the whistles and bells of top of the line equipment, if you don't know how to get the best from it or use the light to your advantage, it won't help. Maybe you can post a couple of examples so we can point you in the right direction? The old saying applies; quality in = quality out, ie you need good quality photos and good camera technique in order to get the desires results to upload here. Post processing should only to make minor adjustments and not be relied upon to remove or correct flaws. You want to get it right in-camera first. I would say your problem isn't with equipment, you need to develop your photography technique before blaming equipment. Pretty much any DSLR body and even basic lenses can produce good results these days when used correctly and within their limits.

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 offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 12 hours ago) and read 9043 times:

Taking a look at your rejections, the problem in my opinion would be three-fold. First, half of your images are backlit or suffer from terrible lighting. Second, a quarter are taken from quite a distance, which will cause problems, either from atmospheric conditions, or having to crop a lot of the image. Third, the final quarter are not too bad, but need better editing to give them a chance. In short, a new lens might help with a few of them, but the vast majority of your rejections would not have been avoided with a better lens.

If you want to go into more details, better to provide some examples for everyone to see, and take the discussion to the Feedback forum.


User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 12 hours ago) and read 9041 times:

It's OK. I've been taking photos for 35 years with decent equipment and I can't get any accepted either.
Whatever you do, don't buy equipment just to get accepted here. Upgrade your equipment to satisfy yourself.
If, as a by-product, they end up good enough for here then that's a bonus.

Acceptance here is mostly do with processing and manipulating the resulting image and seems sometimes to have little to do with actual photography.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineviv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 9017 times:

Quoting derekf (Reply 5):
Acceptance here is mostly do with processing and manipulating the resulting image and seems sometimes to have little to do with actual photography.

I disagree. A good image from the camera needs very little processing to get accepted here.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 8 hours ago) and read 8971 times:

Quoting derekf (Reply 5):
Acceptance here is mostly do with processing and manipulating the resulting image and seems sometimes to have little to do with actual photography.

I would agree with Viv and disagree with your statement. I rarely spend more than a minute or two in post and it's just a case of checking levelling, final composition etc and a bit of sharpening. If things are right in-camera, there's very little to do in post so manipulation is not the issue. Basic photography skills are the key to getting photos accepted here, not editing skills or equipment (although they do help).

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 offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 8951 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BriceJohnson (Thread starter):
Would upgrading to a higher quality lense help?

Chances are, upgrading your photographic skills would help more. I don't mean that as an insult; it's just the way it is. I submitted my first bunch of photos with a cheap DSLR and cheap lens. Certainly can be done.

Quoting derekf (Reply 5):
Acceptance here is mostly do with processing and manipulating the resulting image and seems sometimes to have little to do with actual photography.

I'll have to go with Darren and Viv on this one.

Sure, I've "rescued" images in post-processing, but it's a heck of a lot easier and more consistent if you have a good image to start with.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 hour ago) and read 8910 times:

Whatever. I've had clear, sharp, ISO 100, perfectly exposed images rejected for grain, contrast, any number of non-existent issues. There is nothing wrong with my photographic skills or quality of the equipment I use, therefore it is the processing where the rejections are arising.
Having countless images rejected for grain, contrast and sharpness has very little to do with getting it right in camera and everything to do with how they are processed.

Anyway, to the OP, buy a new lens to take photos you like - not to satisfy some acceptance criteria that exists here.



Whatever.......
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8854 times:

Quoting derekf (Reply 9):
There is nothing wrong with my photographic skills or quality of the equipment I use

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is, but to say ...

Quoting derekf (Reply 5):
Acceptance here is mostly do with processing and manipulating the resulting image

simply isn't true. Of course a small amount of post-processing is required and you need a basic grasp of it, but all we're saying is as long as the original frame is of good quality, you need to do very little in order to bring it up to the standard required here and therefore there's very little 'manipulation' required. It's just minor tweeks to bring out the best from the photo and present it to a particular style. My upload ratio at the moment is well over 90% and I'm no photography or Photoshop expert so it shows it can be done.

Quoting derekf (Reply 9):
Anyway, to the OP, buy a new lens to take photos you like - not to satisfy some acceptance criteria that exists here.

I'd fully agree with that, but from Dana's post (as the OP hasn't provided any examples), there are technique and photographic basics that need to be mastered before relying on equipment.

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 offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8844 times:

My acceptance ration is 4% so I get very little payback for the time spent - so I stopped uploading for a while. I've taken thousands of photos for over 30 years but according a.net's criteria, I am getting worse? No. I don't believe that for a second - in my case it has all to do with post-processing. I have tried all sorts of techniques, I have tried Elements and Paint Shop Pro (I'm not foolhardy enough with money to try Photoshop). I have tried very little post-processing, lots of post processing. I have on a hard drive any number of perfectly exposed sharp clear images, most of which were rejected for soft, grain, contrast etc. - things introduced by the processing. I have tried pre-screening threads, post screening threads, any tips and advice picked up has made little or no difference, indeed some seem to have made it worse.
So it is either post processing or some other screening criteria that I fail to meet . It would be nice to get a higher acceptance ratio but it's patently not going to happen so I don't get upset by it any more. It is airliners.net's loss, not mine.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineAlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8838 times:

I notice that the head screener mentions backlit photos. I'd advise folks to avoid uploading anything that is even vaguely backlit, they just won't be accepted. Well anyway, that's been my experience.

User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8823 times:

Quoting derekf (Reply 11):
So it is either post processing or some other screening criteria that I fail to meet

I'm more than happy to help out as it can just be simple things that can make the difference. I use PS Elements as the full version of PS isn't really needed for the post-pocessing required for uploading here. You don't need any advanced techniques, just a basic understanding of processing them. If you want to contact me through my profile, i'm more than happy to go through my workflow with you. I can't take any photos at the moment with the poor weather and my main lens being in the workshop for the 3rd time in 2 months due to a problem caused by an initial repair, so have time on my hands!

Quoting AlexC (Reply 12):
I'd advise folks to avoid uploading anything that is even vaguely backlit,

Which is exactly what we're trying to point out to the original poster. A new lens won't help until the basics of photography are mastered, ie getting the best from your equipment and understanding lighting.

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 offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 11):
in my case it has all to do with post-processing.

That may very well be true, but I just wouldn't make a blanket statement that:

Quoting derekf (Reply 5):
Acceptance here is mostly do with processing and manipulating the resulting image and seems sometimes to have little to do with actual photography.

...since it can be done without too much processing and manipulation (and the less, the better, in my opinion). I'll fully admit that it took me quite awhile to figure all that out.

Quoting derekf (Reply 9):
Having countless images rejected for grain, contrast and sharpness has very little to do with getting it right in camera and everything to do with how they are processed.

Not sure what you mean. If the lighting is low contrast and you have to introduce contrast in post-processing, it'll increase grain. If the photo is soft and you have to sharpen a lot in post, it'll increase grain. So they're all related, and will certainly be affected by the quality of the original photo.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8754 times:

There are two sides to every story and I can empathise with both sides. Like it or not, this site and (the majority of) its images are not representative of photography; it's all about the editing. I've had some truly awful images (or certainly images I'd consider truly awful) accepted here, but some amazing ones turned away. This tells me that my editing isn't consistent, rather than my photography; as someone with over 20 years' experience photographing aircraft I can safely say my photography is fine.

Images here are manipulated, for sure, but that's what Photoshop's allowed us to do - and mainly for the better. We all take stinkers at times and wish we'd done better, but it's nice every once in a while to be able to rescue that all important shot. It was nigh impossible with film/slide!

Trouble is, looking at images here it will always bee very difficult to see how good the original photograph was (it's interesting that we talk about photos and images here, sometimes as though they're two separate things) - i.e. how well the photographer did with composition, exposure, colour, contrast, etc. Of course Photoshop can fix it all but I'm a firm believer in getting it as close to perfect as you can in the camera. We may have poor photographers here who can work wonders with Photoshop and get tons of photos accepted - just as there are clearly some awesome photographers who just struggle to adapt to Photoshop and this site's requirements. We're never really going to be able to distinguish between the two.

Finally, going back to the whole 'photos and images' thing, I consider the original file to be the photograph and the edited version to be the image.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8751 times:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 14):
Not sure what you mean. If the lighting is low contrast and you have to introduce contrast in post-processing, it'll increase grain. If the photo is soft and you have to sharpen a lot in post, it'll increase grain. So they're all related, and will certainly be affected by the quality of the original photo.

If I may I'll add just a comment or two. If the lighting is that low there's not much you're going to do that will look really good. Increasing contrast should be done in small amounts or it will be too much and obvious. Sharpening is always done due to the nature of a digital sensor but not to "sharpen" a soft or blurred picture. If the picture is even slightly underexposed using PP to brighten it will add noise. Also as I'm sure you know high ISO will add noise too. Noise can be eliminated with noise reduction in PP but again too much will soften the picture. In the end you must consider all the ingredients to get the best picture, lens, light, motion and composition. An error in any of these will result in a less than super pic.
My first attempt to submit photos here was rejected due to my lack, at the time, of all those considerations and mine had noise and dust on the sensor. I've learned a lot over the last few years and my last photo was rejected because "there were too many like this" which kinda surprised me considering all the interior shots I see and would never shoot. I may try again in the future but it's not a huge priority. Like another post said do it for yourself. I participate in another photography website and can tell you no photo is ever completely free of criticism if enough people comment on it so if you like it cool, if you learn something that will help you improve then that's great. Have fun!


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 8695 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
We may have poor photographers here who can work wonders with Photoshop and get tons of photos accepted - just as there are clearly some awesome photographers who just struggle to adapt to Photoshop and this site's requirements. We're never really going to be able to distinguish between the two.

Absolutely. But that doesn't negate the fact that by nailing it in-camera, you can save yourself a lot of editing, and need for more advanced editing skills.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineviv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8673 times:

I do very little editing - about 2 minutes per photo - because I don't know how and have no interest in learning.

My acceptance ratio here is 68 per cent.

Get it right when you shoot, not afterwards.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 8672 times:

Viv,

I can add nothing further that would be as effective! I think your succinct comment concludes the thread!!!

Karl


User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8661 times:

I don't disagree that getting it right in the camera is a good start - but that is by and large what I do...and end up with a 4% acceptance ratio. I can only assume therefor that there is something else that is stopping me from getting pictures accepted. I also do very little to my photos, most don't appear to need very much and yet a decent acceptance ratio is elusive. Therefore the reason my photos are rejected is in the editing.
There is no doubt that the acceptance bar is raised higher each year, sadly my editing skills have not kept pace.
I try my luck uploading every few months, have a good laugh at the rejection reasons then disappear again sighing "Oh well...."
I've plenty of other hobbies that are far more rewarding than trying to get photos accepted here.



Whatever.......
User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8649 times:

Quoting derekf (Reply 20):
I also do very little to my photos, most don't appear to need very much and yet a decent acceptance ratio is elusive. Therefore the reason my photos are rejected is in the editing.
There is no doubt that the acceptance bar is raised higher each year, sadly my editing skills have not kept pace.

My offer still stands in reply 13 Derek. I'm no master at editing, but I know what is required for here so can hopefully steer you in the right direction if you wish.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 19):
I can add nothing further that would be as effective! I think your succinct comment concludes the thread!!!

  

Merry Christmas everyone. I hope Santa brings you something nice   

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 offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8643 times:

Thanks for the kind offer Darren. I may take you up on it sometime.

It appears others have decided that the discussion has been concluded so I'll leave it there.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8613 times:

Derek,

There's nothing wrong with your photos I dare say. Despite claims to the contrary the 'standards' are continually raised, to the point where no camera can actually naturally produce the kind of images sought. Your example is indicative of how the site is based around editing rather than photography. But hey-ho.....

Quoting derekf (Reply 20):
I've plenty of other hobbies that are far more rewarding than trying to get photos accepted here

I love this hobby and fanatically spend all my spare time doing it. Uploading here is just a sideline but nothing beats a hard day's work (and a pub visit with the lads afterwards!), followed by coming home to view your efforts on the big screen. THAT's the rewarding part - pleasing yourself! I much prefer looking at my high-res originals than my overly sharp 1200 pixel edits.

Happy Xmas!

Karl


User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4811 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8473 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting derekf (Reply 20):

Everyone who is saying that a good capture will require very little editing to get accepted here is correct.

The key to acceptance is not the amount of editing, it's to recognize what an acceptable photo looks like and edit accordingly. There is a very small margin for error so you have to aim for that sweet spot in all areas of the editing process. A little anticipation is needed too. I'm sharpening for the screeners' screens, not mine. In other words, I over sharpen according to my screen because I have figured out that if I aim for "perfect" on my screen, my shots will be rejected for soft. You need to make adjustments as you get rejections. And since the standards are always going up, you have to be on your toes and adjust along the way to keep up.

It shouldn't take a lot of editing to get an acceptance. It takes proper editing, as defined by the site.

Quoting AlexC (Reply 12):
I notice that the head screener mentions backlit photos. I'd advise folks to avoid uploading anything that is even vaguely backlit, they just won't be accepted. Well anyway, that's been my experience.


There is some truth to this and frankly, it's crap. If done correctly, backlighting can enhance the mood of a photo. It kills me when I see photos shot down for being backlit or in less than "favorable" light.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
25 derekf : That's exactly what I've been saying - getting photos accepted is all about editing. You say a good picture needs very little editing and then go on t
26 Silver1SWA : Agreed. I have learned with Airliners.net, it is what it is. It's interesting... I learned how to use my camera and how to edit using photoshop thank
27 dazbo5 : I still maintain the emphasis is on the photography and not the editing, but of course editing (post-processing) comes in to it in the digital era. I
28 ckw : I think 'false' is a bit strong, but I know where you're coming from. I prefer to think of the criteria as a house style - either you work with it or
29 JakTrax : I'm not sure Darren, I have seen some tremendously bad photos make it here once edited (a few have been my own!). Composition to me is a very importa
30 Psych : Some wise words in this interesting thread. I particularly agree with the notion that A.net has a 'house style'. Part of achieving that accepted style
31 Post contains links and images walter2222 : There are, however, exceptions, as shown here: View Large View MediumPhoto © Walter Van Bel When I was shooting this, I noticed the different shades
32 Post contains links dazbo5 : I agree Karl, there's no question that a knowledge of Photoshop or similar software can be useful in pulling back photos that would otherwise have be
33 JakTrax : Hi Darren, I'm actually agreeing with much of what you say, as I too prefer to get everything (or nearly everything as you sometimes can't help the li
34 vikkyvik : Define "false standards" and "real photography" first, and then we can discuss. But going back to what you originally said: Many people have posted t
35 darreno1 : I look at sites like these as learning tools and encourage all newbies to do the same. I don't have to upload here and have my own albums which I shar
36 derekf : I think the problem may be those of us who were taking photos a long time before airliners.net was invented. We took photos for ourselves, the only th
37 NZ107 : You agree that things change over time.. The internet has evolved a lot since then (I didn't have knowledge of this thing called a digital camera unt
38 vikkyvik : Yes, the editing takes some work, especially when you're starting out. But: I feel the same way, with the exception that I don't care if someone's onl
39 dendrobatid : Derek Getting it right in camera is still the best option, then it was the ONLY option ! Those who, like me, did their own printing still used to adj
40 NZ107 : It'd be a very expensive hobby if you only wanted to upload to A.Net, that's all I was trying to mean.
41 Post contains images BriceJohnson : Thanks for all the responses! They will help me in my decision. Does anyone know if the 70-300mm has a fast AF system? Is it still tack sharp at the 3
42 ptrjong : Just as expensive actually.
43 Post contains images yerbol : Dear Calvin, Nikon 70-300mm AF-S lens is a very good lens. It is faster and obviously longer than 55-200mm. Closing aperture to f8 should give you sha
44 BriceJohnson : Hello Yerbol. Thanks for the response... it should help me in my purchasing decision! Happy New Year all!
45 megatop412 : Interesting how this subject comes up again and again, all that changes is who is saying it. Derek I sympathize with your arguments as I have had much
46 dendrobatid : Another site has a rule against no backlit shots (I think) but that is not the case here. Backlit shots are however far more difficult to get right b
47 JakTrax : I too have a critical eye (I'm sure a certain someone with whom I travelled to the States recently would be happy to testify as to how picky I can be
48 ckw : As an objective (non-uploading) observer, I'm curious as to how (and why) the standards evolve ... the noise thing in particular (as it seems to cause
49 JakTrax : Colin/All, I remember a year or so back being told that the screeners were basically powerless to change the way the process works; I simply don't see
50 Silver1SWA : Excellent post. In my experience, the average viewer doesn't care about the high standards. They are more interested in the subject, not all the tech
51 Kaphias : I don't know of the specific images that you're speaking of Karl; but from my experience uploading here, I've found the biggest factor to be the uniq
52 Post contains images Psych : It's good to read a thread like this, though the focus has moved somewhat from the thread starter's question. My sense is that a screener opens an ima
53 Post contains images ckw : I'm pretty sure there is an element of truth in this (whether subconscious or otherwise is another matter). And certainly I never come back from a sh
54 LOCsta : I am using the same equipment for almost 5 years, and my acceptance ratio is as bad as its ever been. Shots from a given shooting day 3 years ago woul
55 Silver1SWA : EXCELLENT post, Kevin. More like which of the 3 photogs would I like to be! The third, of course! Which is why I don't upload here much anymore.
56 NZ107 : Well I'd say that depends entirely on the camera you have.. I have the 40D and that's great at ISO100. Then I started comparing my images to those ta
57 ckw : Well yes, at a technical level, I agree with you entirely - which is why when my 7D was trashed I replaced it with an OM-D. BUT the point is that its
58 dazbo5 : Firstly, Happy New Year to everyone. I think most time zones are in 2013 by now! And secondly, I think it's great we've been allowed to run with this
59 Post contains images dendrobatid : I have just had a count up from stats available to me and a touch under 60% of images submitted are accepted onto the database but I think it is the v
60 JakTrax : But the screenming process clearly puts the blame on the photographer for 'allowing' the grain to manifest. The majority are sunny side-ons though. T
61 ckw : Mmm - not sure if this should factor. I've always maintained there are no bonus points for "degree of difficulty" in photography. The photo works for
62 JakTrax : Colin, Perhaps incorrectly worded...... Take the blurry wingtips image I keep mentioning. The screener will quite often see a 'quality issue' and - pe
63 Post contains images Silver1SWA : Clearly by "song and dance" you don't mean vent in the feedback forum about picky rejections... Ding ding! We are our own worst enemies sometimes. Re
64 JakTrax : I like to express my grievances and concerns but that doesn't mean I'm all cut up inside about rejections. I LOVE this hobby way too much to let anyt
65 Silver1SWA : I NEVER take rejections personally or question my abilities as a photographer because of them. When I do get upset, that is never the reason why. I g
66 dendrobatid : Colin is quite right in what he says in that comment and that covers the majority of what is submitted. It is certainly the majority of what I submit
67 gunship01 : Ha! Got you beat... 2.2% acceptance rate.... I think my monitor is not calibrated right. The pictures look darker when I finish exporting them to a fo
68 JakTrax : I have to admit that I worded that one pretty badly. What I was getting at is that more faith should be put in (consistently reputable) photographers
69 Post contains images vikkyvik : New rejection reason - "Equipment poorly designed by manufacturer". You got that right. I see accepted shots that have noise, look slightly blurry, o
70 dazbo5 : I take your point Karl, but I don't ever see that working here!! There are times though, that I feel there are some really silly rejection reasons be
71 JakTrax : Of course. That's why the comments box is there. As I said, it's up to the photographer to judge whether the anomaly is likely to be seen as natural,
72 Post contains images vikkyvik : Problem is, screeners certainly can't engage in a discussion with photographers about all uploads, or even 25% of uploads, without adding a lot of ti
73 JakTrax : There's a myth that Canons lean towards a red hue, whereas Nikons lean towards blue. While this may be so it's actually more down to the user selecti
74 Post contains images vikkyvik : I know what you're talking about, but I'm not talking about a myth (that's why I said "my camera" and not "50Ds" or "Canons" ). I'm talking about in-
75 dazbo5 : I wouldn't be so sure it's a myth Karl, both my 50D's and the 350D before them produce a subtle red cast and the firmware update 1.0.7 was partly to
76 JakTrax : I was careful in my choice of words - MUCH of it is down to how the camera selects the colour temperature. The default AWB on Canons is set in favour
77 Silver1SWA : Depends on the Canon camera, actually. Not all Canons are the same. My 40D handles AWB much differently than my 7D which has different tendencies tha
78 JakTrax : Yeah, sorry, should have been more specific. I've had Canons where the AWB has (generally) had a slight blue bias. What I'm saying is that, ultimatel
79 AlexC : The comment that karl makes above about yellow tints in the early morning (or the early evening in my case) is a good one. I've had one or two shots r
80 ckw : The problem the designers face is that an infinite range of real world colours need to be mapped to a finite range of colours in a defined colour spa
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...
What Am I Doing Wrong With These Shots? posted Mon Mar 9 2009 03:49:28 by SAA738
What Am I Doing Wrong? (Now With Working Links) posted Tue May 17 2005 00:01:45 by Whoop
What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Sat Jun 13 2009 12:03:16 by MidEx216
What Am I Doing Wrong?NOT Related To A.NET Reject posted Mon Apr 24 2006 21:50:10 by Deaphen
What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Thu Sep 29 2005 02:17:11 by Olympus69
BadQuality - What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Mon Jul 25 2005 20:16:42 by Pixuk
What Am I Doing Wrong posted Thu Jul 18 2002 04:32:13 by AndrewAir
What Am I Doing Wrong? posted Sat Sep 16 2000 18:41:00 by Hmmmm...
What's Wrong With My Photo? posted Thu Jan 17 2008 10:25:21 by SP01L3R
What Is Wrong With My Shots? posted Tue Apr 24 2007 18:49:26 by Omoo