Bapilot2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 928 posts, RR: 19 Posted (13 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 2276 times:
I just got an e-mail back concerning my 25 pictures that had passed the first screening stage. That is 25 out of 45 that passed the first screening stage. With the 25 accepted to the second screening stage I felt safe that quite a few would pass and be accepted into the database. Now if one got accepted I could live with it, but every single one??? Not a chance!
Now when i showed my friends in the chat room and I got comments of, Great Quality, Should Definately Make It and so on.......so WTF happened? Now I know the reosons that I was given for the rejection was a load of bull. Only a few I agreed with and they were separated from the main rejection batch. Here is the main batch!
"The following photos were NOT added to the database:
(Please see below)
- 2002_0216_134340AA.JPG (Atlantic Airlines Lockheed Electra)
- 2002_0216_125905AA.JPG (KLM UK Fokker 100)
- 2002_0216_124532AA.JPG (JMC Air Boeing 757-2Y0/ER)
- 2002_0216_124329AA.JPG (British Midland Airbus A330-243)
- 2002_0216_124047AA.JPG (British Airways Boeing 757-236/ER)
- 2002_0216_121000AA.JPG (US Airways Airbus A330-323X)
- 2002_0216_111736AA.JPG (Air Malta Boeing 737-3Y5)
- 2002_0216_111611AA.JPG (Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) Boeing 747-367)
- 2002_0216_111003AA.JPG (British Midland Airbus A320-232)
- 2002_0216_093918AA.JPG (US Airways Airbus A330-323X)
- 2002_0210_151305AA.JPG (Air France Airbus A320-211)
- 2002_0210_143723aa.jpg (Lufthansa Boeing 737-...)
- 2002_0210_142730aa.jpg (Iberia Airbus A320-214)
- 2002_0210_141747AA.JPG (British European British Aerospace Avro RJ-100 (146-RJ100))
- 2002_0208_131041AA.JPG (Continental Airlines Boeing 777-224/ER)
- 2002_0208_125747AA.JPG (British Airways British Aerospace BAe ATP)
- 2002_0208_123306AA.JPG (British Midland Airbus A330-243)
- 2002_0208_122821AA.JPG (Turkmenistan Boeing 757-22K)
- 2002_0208_122626AA.JPG (Lufthansa Airbus A321-131)
- 2002_0208_121354AA.JPG (Brit Air Canadair CL-600-2B19 Regional Jet 100ER)
- 2002_0208_120828AA.JPG (US Airways Airbus A330-323X)
- 2002_0208_101109AA.JPG (Britannia Airways Boeing 757-204)
The image quality of these photos are low. It could be caused by the scanner you are using, the way you scanned your photos, the (digital) camera, the light conditions when you shot the photos, object out of focus, improper photo manipulations or any combination thereof. Most of the time, the cause is either a bad scanner or that the scanner wasn't used properly. If you think this might be the cause, please read the documentation for your scanner and find the best DPI and color settings. Generally a higher DPI and color setting will make a higher quality image but only to a certain degree and it differs between different brands of scanners. Try many different settings until you find the best combination. If you are using an old or low quality scanner you might consider investing in a new or borrow one from your friend/workplace/school. If you are using a digital camera,
check camera settings."
I own a website that is having a gallery like a.nets uploaded within the next few days with a mission to be relaxed when screening, still keeping high standards but giving people more of a chance. Now I know Johan knows I own the site, so I feel discriminated agains because of this. I feel that overall my photo's were rejected bacause of my website.
Also Johan dont go deleting this post like I know you will, I think you ought to hear from everyone else this has happened to.
Now I am afraid if this is how airliners.net treats its photographers I have no will to upload here anymore. I think quite alot of photographers are starting to feel like this and i dont blame them one bit!
So come on guys, who else has had pictures rejected for the stupedest of reosons????
(Webmaster Of Aviation-Careers.Net)
P.S - Sorry for the length of this but i want this point to go out and get into peoples heads.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
Steve, yeah I agree, crap weather...
I can tell you one thing, when shooting in bad weather it is really hard to get good results, and unless you know what you are doing, you aren't going to have much luck..
Just look in the database, tell my why so many photos are taken in good weather? Because it is much easier to get good results in good light!
And when someone is new to photography (including myself), why try to upload photos taken in conditions that you aren't experienced enough to work in?
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
With bad weather it's more difficult to make good photos. I went thur some of the pics, and I agree with the screeners and Johan on all of them. Some of them would have had a chance, if they would have been taken in good weather, but that alone wasn't the reason for the rejections, in my opinion. There also some problems with sharpness, colors and composition.
dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 1950 times:
Bad weather = Bad light = Bad photos.
Noting insane about that comment. While you can get acceptable photos in poor light, you'll get a better photo in good light. If you're shooting normal approach shots and its cloudy you might as well go home unless you're waiting for a hot! new! item. If you're trying to get a special poor weather condition type of shot than thats a different story. So yes, bad weather (clouds) = Bad light = Bad photos.
S. .. while those photos you showed were accepted they (to me) certainly don't qualify for a good shot. I like sun and LOTS of it. Cloudy slides in my opinion are useless.
Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW SITE ADMIN
If your skills and equipment isn't up for it (which it obviously isn't), you're taking a major risk shooting in bad weather. It takes years of experience to be able to make such shots look good. I'm not saying you are far from "Airliners.net quality" some shots are border cases but if you want to get more accepted, shoot from angels and weather that you can handle with your level of skill and equipment.
I understand you spent a long time working on uploading these photos and that you're quite irritated over the large number of rejections but you can't blame me either for not liking your attitude. You know Airliners.net is difficult and you know that whatever the screeners forward to me are border cases, shots that can go either way. As the aircraft pictured weren't rare in any way, I had no reason to lower our rejection levels and they were all rejected and rightfully so.
I hate to burst your bubble but no - I did not know you owned a webpage and frankly do no care (and didn't even look at your name when screening your photos - it's irrelevant!). Photos are rejected or accepted by their merits alone and nothing you do can change that. I admit the subjective views on what a "good" photo looks like together with our moving rejection levels depending on photo rarity can make it difficult to understand sometimes but I don't think you understand how insulting it is that you're insinuating that I'm not fair.
Airliners.net lives and dies with the "same rules for everyone" motto and every suggestion that we do things differently makes me quite irritated. We have nothing to win from unfair treatment of photos! Why is that so damn hard to understand?
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
Atco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 16 hours ago) and read 1900 times:
I used to get annoyed about rejections here, and then I remembered that I took the photos in the first place for MY own pleasure and enjoyment.
If you go out taking pictures looking to get a.net uploads, you are doing it for all the wrong reasons.
Do not get disgruntled or have a pop at Johan for rejections, use it to spur you on.........I did, and with a bit of help, saving for a decent bit of kit and many hours learning photoshop, I can now get consistent uploads.......but at the same time, I never go out shooting just to get pics here.
What I am saying really is, keep plugging away, maybe take it as your motivation to improve, it is possible to get pics uploaded here with a high acceptance rate, so don't give up............who knows 10 years from now, you may be the next Andy Hunt or Gary Watt, when you have learned the art of being a good airliner photographer, and have the equipment to carry off what you want to achieve.
Keep going, don't get down, and keep enjoying taking those pictures.......I think you have some nice compositions there. To criticsise, I felt that a lot of the pics were over-sharpened and I could see distinct halos on the edges........be selective with your unsharp mask, also one of the Turkmenistan shots was not straight........little things like that can earn frustrating rejections, make sure there are no little details like that, that can earn you a knock back before uploading.
I feel too that poor weather conditions should not be a bar from having photos uploaded here...........not everyone is lucky enough to live in the USA, or Far East, and I think it would be grossly unfair to be discriminated against simply because of where you live. I was told recently by the editor of a very major airline magazine that he feels that side on shots in the sun are extremely boring indeed !
Keep going mate, and maybe a wee apology to Johan might be in order, because you did go a bit far IMHO.
PS: Where did you get those shots from, it must be near the airport pub.....did you have a step ladder to see over the fence?
Bapilot2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 928 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 14 hours ago) and read 1897 times:
Sorry for what i said earlier, i posted soon after the e-mail, so i was pretty peeved after staying up till 5AM getting all the info to go into the comments. I apologise yo Johan also for saying what i did, and I now wish I could turn back tima and take most of what I said back. I was being an ignorant SOB which I shouldnt have.
I try my best with PSP 6, as I cannot afford after building up a huge £300 debt for my equipment to buy PhotoShop. Also I do take pride in my photography and try my best with the resources i have to improve any pictures.
Also thanks guys for giving me that little bit more confidence, but I dont see myself to be the next Chris Sheldon or Gary Watt, I may have the potential but what i need is the chances, but without them im nothing. Im only 16 yeah, and i started Aviation photography with the inspiration of the likes of Chris Sheldon and Gary Watt. I love shooting for my own pleasure but when othere people knock my photography it leaves a big blow in me.
Regarding my pics from MAn they was taken in my little spot next to the airport pub, no step ladders used .
Anyway im not in the best state to keep typing as i have just got back from the pub, ill post more in the morning when I can....
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30260 posts, RR: 57
Reply 16, posted (13 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 1822 times:
Finally something Goodbye and I agree on
(You would have to be in the non-aviation forum to get that one)
I gave up sending in photos about a year and a half ago. Of those I did send in, the ones that get the most attention and compliments are the ones that I got warnings about their quality from Johan when I submitted them.
I have figured out that Johan wants an "artsy" photo database. This is sometime confused with, "quality". I have on several occasions suggested that Johan have a "details" catagory so that model builders could submit photos of aircraft details that may want to be included on models such a landing gear closeups or the underside of deployed flaps, but I guess that is not the direction that Johan wants to go with the database.
That's fine, it is his site, But that doesn't mean that I have to submit photos it it either.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 1821 times:
the photos that you got rejected are not aviation-related (#1 and #2 clearly aren't while #3 is kind of a bordercase). The main subject is the city and not the plane so they don't fit to airliners.net although the quality is sufficient. #3 looks a bit boring to me, so I understand the rejection. Others might consider it interesting, but taste is subjective.
I have now given up sending my photos to airliners as the standards are too high.
As there are many different photographers who get their pictures accepted the standards are clearly not to high. airliners.net was designed for high-quality aviation pictures and not for crap. If you are not willing to improve your quality then you don't have to upload your shots. Nobody is forcing you to do so.
Goodbye From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 922 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (13 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1741 times:
I don't think calling my photos "crap" helps in any way frank, thanks for your (rude) words nonetheless.
And what is not aviation related? There is part of a wing in the shot, like so many other photos have. And #3 looks boring?? Excuse me?
Is this showing the city or the aircraft more, Frank?
Southflite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (13 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1679 times:
So what does he mean by that, AirNikon?
Those comments were made by NikonF100, not AirNikon ... which just goes to prove that you can't read
Regarding the Glenn Alderton photos you referred to:
That Sydney shot was simply spectacular ... comparing this shot with your window views is like comparing oranges with apples. I bet Glenn could have sold that shot for no small amount.
The shot of the LPH was a carry-over from airfighters.net when that database was merged into the main airliners.net one about a year ago. It is a perfectly acceptable military aviation shot (neat composition too, IMHO). Users of this website have the option on the front page of turning off the display of military subject matter, if they so wish.
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (13 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1617 times:
As NikonF100 correctly pointed out, I wasn't referring to your photos as "crap". The word crap was a used in a context with a general answer to your statement about the too high standards.
I really like your shots, but in my opinion they just don't belong to airliners.net. A photo is not aviation-related just because a part of the aircraft is displayed. The aircraft has to be the main subject!!!
Goodbye From Australia, joined Jan 2001, 922 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (13 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1611 times:
ok,ok, I am sorry, I guess I am just pissed at having waited weeks for shots which I thought were airliners.net quality be rejected. I understand that the main focus is not the airliner, but so are a lot of other photos.
I still enjoy airliners, but won't waste my time attempting to add photos that won't get in.