Some days later I received a rejection message with the following reason :
"The angle of the camera does not seem to be straight compared to the horizon. In the future, make sure you always hold the camera absolutely level. This particularly applies to pictures of aircraft on the ground. For shots of aircraft in flight where the ground is visible (take-offs and landings in particular), the general rule is that the camera should be level with the horizon and the aircraft be at an angle. There may be exceptions to this rule if the composition of the picture is unique and having a level horizon would detract from the aesthetic value of the picture (such cases will be rare).
Such problems can often be fixed by carefully rotating and cropping the picture. If you think you have been able to improve the photos, please re-upload them. "
Well, OK.. Besides the fact that you can't see the horizon on this photo I agreed that the lamp pilar looked not completely vertical and corrected the image accordingly by rotating it 0,5 Degrees to the right in order to have the lamp (as only indication of direction) vertical. So I re-uploaded the picture again - and got another rejection message, this time :
"The image quality of these photos are low. This may be the result of several perceived problems happening simultaneously, such as grain, blur, lighting, contrast or color defects, which would lead us to believe that a fresh scan would be necessary, rather than a simple adjustment to the uploaded file."
Well well, so it seems that suddenly the horizon question is ok, but the picture as such is not good enough anymore? (nb : This would have been the only night photo of a Luxair ERJ in the database...).
Anyway, it is a matter of taste if you like this picture or not, but I honestly feel somehow fooled if I am asked to rotate it first, only to get it completely rejected afterwards.
LZ-TLT From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 431 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
Even if you wanted, you couldn't write something worth going down the tube as this. In fact, the image might look somehow tilted, but not for the reason of the lamp post. Look in the background, the fence creates somehow the illusion, the image is tilted, especially in the area over the ERJ.
As fort "it's grainy and the quality is low as well" - compare this with other night shots posted to airliners.net - do you think they are much more higher quality? THINK, goddamn, THINK!!!!
Also, what you are seeing as "graininess" at the photo can be just as natural in cold evenings night and very humid air. But(excuse me...I just noticed in your profile, you're from a part of the world, where airconditioning is so widespread nobody knows how it can look on a cold, wet winter evening)
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1291 times:
just to clear up any misunderstandings :
The photo I have linked is already the corrected version. The original version was indeed a bit tilted, but a little 0.5 Degree rotation did the trick.
It was not raining while the photo was taken, but a rainshower had just passed by so that there was still a lot of moisture and a light fog in the air. I thought that this would create a special atmosphere on the photo...
But anyway, the purpose of this posting was not to whine that this pic was rejected, I was just a bit confused about the contradicting responses I got for the same picture... but I guess that simply shows that the screeners are also only human beings with different tastes
764er From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
LZ-TLT: I think you need a break... OOOH, the evils of air conditioning. Please don't tell me you're one of "those."
I think the pic could be a little sharper. I'd say play around with the histogram and unsharp mask and see if there's anything else you can do. You might also think about blurring the sky a bit to reduce some of the graininess.
I also think it looks kind of weird with the planes in the background being lit better than the front one. And there's something strange going on on the top of the aircraft. It looks "splotchy."
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1260 times:
Sure, will play a bit with the image because I really like it. Your hints migt help me to get this one ready for another upload try again...
BTW, the reason why the aircraft in the background are lit better than the one in front is simple : There is no lamp in front of it, so only the aircraft behind it and of course the other side of the front aircraft are properly lit. Maybe I should write a request to Luxemborg Findel airport to add a lamp
The "splotchy" look on the top if the aircraft is resulting from the humidity settling on the cold fuselage, it is simply a good amount of dew. Anyway this was not an effct of playing around with Paintshop Pro, it was REALLY there.
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1210 times:
I just think this pic is not quite good enough. The detail on the fuselage isn't quite as sharp as it should be, and there's not enough light falling on the main subject for it to be a successful night shot. You only have to look at the ERJ behind to see what I mean - see how much better lit it is? If LX-LGY was lit the same as that, you would have a much better shot, and probably no problems in getting it added.