Aps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1520 times:
Well..... he we go "its spit dummy out time"
after uploading 6 images of which i thought YUP no problem with acceptance here ! ALL were rejected
I honestly think that this site IS getting beyond the realms of reallity !! .. I dont think for one minute im on my own in these thoughts either ?
I really would like to know on what they base "rejection/acceptance" I am fully aware that they need 3 OK's but the uploads this time were better than some pictures i have on AN . Come on people lets not accept or reject the qualities of Paint Shop or whatever ... have a look beyond software ! I may take some flack for this thread but "judge the photo not the software used" For example (you know what i mean) if its raining cats and dogs and summat either a first or unusual comes in at the local airport you want a picture no matter what (within reasonable quality of course) ! You want to show it off .. It really needs to be addressed or AN will loose people.
Jer32382 From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 34 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
No complaints here Aps. Things are getting ridiculously out of hand. Someone needs to remind the screeners that no picture is going to be perfect. There will always be some sort of flaw on it. I think they have kind of forgotten that and look for pics without flaws. Those sorts of pictures just don't exist. Never have, never will.
SJC-Alien From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 919 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1305 times:
The photos you posted here were OK by me, Aps........I tried one recently( UAL 737-200 N9010U) which would have been the only one on the database..and it was rejected. Very clear photo at SFO in mid '80's....I scanned and PS 3 times before sending,,,and it wasn't perfect, but good enough......I agree with you.
Screener4 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1311 times:
Well, I rejected the Dragonair & the last of the Emirates 777 (em777300.jpg) - I put the other 2 777 shots through as HQ, and one of my colleagues subsequently rejected them. Screeners are quite at liberty to reject photos from the HQ queue if they don't agree with the original screener's decision. To my mind, the 777 shots and the 767 shot fell JUST on the right side of acceptable, but I won't quibble with my colleague's decision (though you might!)
However, you should still have photos in the HQ queue, like the Ryanair Jaguar logojet, for example. I certainly don't see it among the rejects.
KingWide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
My two cents worth:
Air2000 - against the light, pale and washed out. The shot reminds me of when I used to do darkroom stuff and I used to get the exposure wrong by a stop or two.
773txi - Whilst the shot is sharp and nicely coloured, the fence just kills the shot stone dead for me.
773revth - Nice drama from the water but the shot isn't sharp theres loads of camera shake evident - presumably because you've been forced to select a low shutter with a longish lens. Compare your one to this one
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1279 times:
I have to agree with the rejections after reviewing the photos, except for the EK 773 spray shot. I think its one of the best spray shots at A.net, better than Chris's in my opinion because it simply looks 'real' (don't quote me on that one ). I just like it.
Other than that, did you notice that the AIH 763 was green? The Dragonair 743 is also noticeably washed out.
I think that the screeners are doing a good job, and some of the photographers on here are becoming a little complacent with their uploading (ie. expecting uploads). I've seen alot of photographers in the last couple of weeks who get irrate over rejection messages, come on guys!! sometimes all it needs is a little photoshop tweeking.
For what it's worth...just take the most oft quoted advice and shoot in good sunlight with the sun to your back. You really do stand a greater chance of having a shot rejected if the light is poor and the sky is a horrid dirty off white!
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 13, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1234 times:
Just think of it this way. The increasing standards will mean that A.net becomes the Benchmark for A.net, whatever does not cut it for this website, is considered sub-standard. Don't get me wrong, some great shots get rejected from here. But I think that everything that is uploaded here is A* quality, and whatever gets rejected will be improved to make that grade.
Just think of A.net as the Oxford University of the Aviation world. Don't think they are going to lower standards for you, you need to up the standards for them.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5035 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1208 times:
My idea is for airliners.net to have a special section devoted to the great photos that get rejected. Call it the amateur or beginner section and set the quality threshold much lower but not allowing anything - still keep certain standards. Or, take the current standards and name it "airliners.net PRO" and everything else goes in the "other" section. The current quality standards I believe are equal to professional quality.
Admins, any interest in this idea?
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Jer32382 From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 34 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1198 times:
I agree. This site is really geared for people who have the more expensive equipment, ie cameras, scanners, photo editing software, etc. I can't lay down 600 bucks for a camera, 200 for paintshop pro, or photoshop 6.0 and then another 400 for a scanner and another 100 for a mediocre lens. I just don't have the money.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 24 Reply 21, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1187 times:
This idea has been suggested before but it isn't going to happen. But you're right Jer32382. The standards are getting so high unless you're willing to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours, there isn't much of chance of things being accepted. I've now spend $1,800 in the last 9 months and I'm not going to spend anymore.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1188 times:
I concur with that idea also, personally if I had the money, I would have an high-end Sony or one of those other smaller digitals, but I like most people can't lay about that much money for a hobby.
Well there always is starting another website. Just an idea, one that would be more geared to the people showing off their best pictures, but it doesn't nessarly need to be the highest quality.
Sorry Johan for suggesting this but it does seem that you are only accepting pro quality stuff, but there are people out ther that want to show their stuff off but they don't have the money to produce pro-quality pictures.
MDL_777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1175 times:
"This site is really geared for people who have the more expensive equipment, ie cameras, scanners, photo editing software, etc."
"The standards are getting so high unless you're willing to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours, there isn't much of chance of things being accepted."
Guys, I have to tell you that you do not have to spend a lot of money on equipment to get pictures added to the database on this site. I have eight pictures in the database so far, and all eight were taken with a Vivitar "point & shoot" camera with standard Fuji 100 film, the kind that costs you about $5 for a box of four rolls. Here are three examples:
To be clear, I'm not posting my pictues here in this thread to say how great they are, but to show you that it is possible to get shots accepted here without having to shell out tons of money on equipment and software. Sure, a lot of the photographers that contribute the majority of the pictures here have really expensive cameras, lenses, scanners and software. But that's because many of them are serious photographers (I'm sure some of them are professional or semi-professional). I'm sure they started out like a lot of us did, with second-hand cameras, P&S's and whatever they could get their hands on. They've now worked their way up to that equipment.
As I said, I currently have eight photos on this website, and I worked like hell to get them there. It was a long process of submissions and rejections. But you know what? I took each rejection as the opportunity to become a better photographer. There were several times where I would upload a picture that I thought was a "sure thing" to get uploaded, only to have it rejected. And sure enough, just about every time I would go back and really look at the photo, I would say to myself, "you know what, they're right." I can say personally that I'm glad the standards are so high here, and I hope they never lower them. It's those standards that have forced me to get better. I want the standards to be high, so that if I get a picture accepted, then I know it's good, because, as the song says, "if I can make it here, I'll make it anywhere."
For what it's worth, here is my philosphy when it comes to taking pictures:
1. Always use the light to your advantage
2. Use the right film
3. Work within the limitations of your equipment
4. Look for interesting angles and compositions
That's it. That's all you really need. I would add one more, and it's maybe the most important of all: Shoot for yourself. When you shoot, make sure it's a shot you like. Don't be preoccupied with "gee, if I take this picture from this angle, will it be an 'Airliners.net shot?'"
Finally, instead of complaining about the standards, post your rejections in this forum and get some feedback. That's what I did. And that's how I got better. There are plenty of people here that will be more than happy to give you some pointers. I can think of a few who almost always respond to those types of posts. And don't give up and quit and think that the standards are so high that you'll never get any shots accepted. If you keep working at it, you will have success. I speak from experience.
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1169 times:
"I've now spend $1,800 in the last 9 months and I'm not going to spend anymore."
I have spent about US$1000 (+film) for my equipment in the last four years and since I started uploading (June 2001) then I got 23 photos accepted with only one rejection (aesthetic reasons). Conclusion: Money is not everything. Effort is what counts.
"Well there always is starting another website."
You can start another website if you want to, but there are already enough websites that host photos which are far worse than the worst rejected ones here at airliners.net.
If you want to show your photos to the public, with 40 000 hits a day (I think) airliners.net is the best place, while other photo databases need months to achieve this rate.
Btw, it takes far more time to create a website like airliners.net than editing photos in a graphics program to increase their quality.
Another thing, airliners.net was designed for aviation photographers. If you have already been a serious aviation photographer, you only need a slide/negative scanner and a few weeks to learn scanning and then you will be able to produce quality digital images which are accepted by airliners.net. If you try to get images accepted which were taken by a simple point-and-shoot camera, you won't succeed (in most cases), but those shots are not expected to be accepted.
Johan has designed airliners.net for serious aviation photographers!
FUAirliner (Frank Unterspann)
Frank Unterspann - Hamburg, Germany
25 Bruce: Those pics that you got accepted with the point & shoot were most likely because they are rare views of aircraft you don't see all the time. I got som
26 Staffan: Instead of spending tons of money on new equipment, learn to use the stuff you've allready got! It seems as if some people here think they'll become p
27 EGGD: Staffan - It will Seriously though, I don't see why you need to buy expensive equipment, because you don't need it (I use my digital camera for alot o
28 Jer32382: Michael, keep in mind. Your pictures are of military aircraft. The standards for getting military aircraft pics are way different than for regular air
29 Jer32382: "All you need is, an SLR, virtually any, some film and a cheap slide scanner. It can cost as low as $500" You guys are missing the point. Who has an e
30 Chris28_17: Instead of spending tons of money on new equipment, learn to use the stuff you've allready got! It seems as if some people here think they'll become p
31 PUnmuth@VIE: Edwin Olinowetz is also submitting scanned prints and he gets accepted: See http://airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=edwin%20Olinow
32 Screener4: to Jer32382: you said "The standards for getting military aircraft pics are way different than for regular airliners. " No, they aren't. The standards
33 B757300: Chris, the $1,800 I spent I had been putting aside a little bit @ a time for over two years. I didn't spend it all @ once. If I was going to waste my
34 EGGD: You guys are missing the point. Who has an extra 500 dollars laying around to spend on that kind of equipment. I sure as hell don't. Well, if you can'
35 Screener2: Here's the type of mails my collegue is talking about. We get one of these about every day. Just got this one... The censuring is mine. YOU PEOPLE DON
36 LGW: Some of you seem to be in this hobby for the sole purpose of getting photos on airliners.net Although I do submit to airliners.net and I like having m
37 Staffan: S2, nice love letter! Did it come for Valentine's day? It would be cool if you posted some more of these, I was laughing when I read it! Staffan
38 Screener8: And here's the rejected shot to go with that nasty e-mail... TWA/AA 757-200 S-8
39 EGGD: Wow, i mean, wow. That is really crap. How come he did not notice that his photos suck? Please post more!!!!
40 Jan Mogren: Yeah, can't you see he takes better pictures than us a**h***s here ?? /JM
41 Thomasphoto60: Ahhhh..... it must be getting close to Spring. Like the return of the swallows from Capristrano, the yearly cries of the newbies and A.Net wannabies a
42 LGW: What a photo Kenny! lol I havent had such a good laugh in a long time LGW
43 Gerardo: Boy, you screeners need good nerves or a good portion of black humour . I think, Jan Mogren was right. The nice mister love-letter takes better pictur
44 Jer32382: EGGD, I do earn extra money. I work 2 jobs, 3 in the summer, but all of that money goes to paying for my flight lessons and school.
45 EGGD: Well concentrate on that then and not photography, can't do all 3 at once!!
46 FUAirliner: "You guys are missing the point. Who has an extra 500 dollars laying around to spend on that kind of equipment. I sure as hell don't." If you are not
47 Screener3: If only you guys saw the stuff we rejected...you would really wonder. That TW/AA picture was fairly good in comparason to some stuff I have seen. Thom
48 EGGD: Please please please could you give some examples of pictures and emails!!! I'd like to see some seriously terrible photos!!!
49 RoastedNutz: I'll add Brian Stevenson to that list. I dont understand why he continues to use prints and crappy equipment but in the end he gets fabulous results.
50 Aps: Thanks for the feedback guys .... i didnt know id get this response ..... for those who said no its a correct rejection .. have a look at the other Em
51 Da fwog: I understand why Tony has been particularly keen to post these pics: A 777-300 is extremely rare in the UK (I think the only regular is the daily Emir
52 Aps: Sorry to add again onto this thread , but i was having a complete read through all the comments.. there is a suggestion about equipment also the amoun