AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 49 Posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2749 times:
This should not be treated as a complain, just want to start a nice discussion....that's all.
Has a.net going Digital all the way.
It seems to me that the standards have risen quite a bit in the last couple of months, especially once the database was flooded with Digital images.
I don't have a problem with Digital at all, but you have to draw the line somewhere, between Digital and Analog photography. No one, even the top photographers are able to produce the same quality with a SLR than some others with a Digital SLR.
I have seen some Digital images where I was asking myself, has this only be accepted b/c it is Digital, the motiv sucked and it was an overcast day, the plane to far in the distance etc......
This is not a petition to lower the quality standards, rather than looking at pictures taken with an analog SLR in a different way. (Screeners)
I know it is hard to seperate, but we have to ask ourselves or Johan:
where is this heading.....????
Anyone cares to comment.
Pls be constructive. I don't want this to end in a whining and bitching session
Fly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3133 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2563 times:
I see a link to older discussions on whether $$$$ equipment was required to have photos accepted here. Back then the outcome of those discussions was no, you can still achieve good results with standard equipment.
But now, digital SLRs are taking such a giant leap forward in photo quality that the answer now seems to be yes.
From the a.net view, only the result counts, i.e. high quality pictures, but from the photog's standpoint, those without digital SLRs might appreciate if their photos aren't judged the same way as digital pics.
I have no idea if this dilemma can be solved.
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
G-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2548 times:
I think Vasco is right - its very difficult to get shots accepted using traditional print film, unless you have a decent negative scanner. Same for slides. Some scanned images from a print will be able to "sneak in" but the vast majority of the additions of late have been clearly digital. Certainly the underlying trend will be towards digital (arguments about film processing costs aside) as this is the best medium to display images on the net.
Tonimr From Spain, joined Jan 2001, 325 posts, RR: 24 Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2507 times:
Yes!, I've also found that there are some digital shots that shouldn't have been accepted (IMHO): dull conditions, bad tone balance setting, totally unreal colours... No, I'm not going to link to some examples, but I'm sure some of you now what I mean. Please, note that I've said "some"...
Anyway, I don't think that scanned film uploads are more difficult to get accepted now (at least I haven't experienced this with mines).
I was tempted to start a discusion like this so thanks, Vasco, you've saved me the effort...
There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
Dee-see-eit From Spain, joined Jan 2000, 435 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2509 times:
From my point of view Johan has always carried the "quality-flag" very high, and this together with all the other features has made this site so unique.
Quality standards rise everytime and everywhere (cars, houses, work...) and its normal that a.net should "honour" the better quality of digital cameras. Unfortunatelly the d-SLR's are still very expensive and not accessible for many guys. But what would most of you say if a D60 or a D100 would cost 1.000,- USD or less? Would you still argue or buy it and upload here at once?
Its clear that the screeners have an easier time screening photos from digicams then from older scanners. Sometimes you've to reject scans from all-time and hardcore contributors, just because their scanner is not 'state of the art' any more, they are dirty or not scanned with enough dedication.
I think the question is very easy: Which importancy does a.net have for you and your hobby? If this grade is high, I suggest to buy a d-SLR or a high-end slide scanner. You will be able to forget this kind of discussions and provide this site with the most perfect result of your photographic work.
BTW: A d-SLR is also good for other kind of photography. I've enjoyed a lot my D30 during a recent holiday trip. Some photos are in an album at Yahoo and can be send to friends and family around the globe, other have been printed on photo paper with an amazing result.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
This happens sometimes. It doesnt mean that someone out of a specific category (digital, print, slide, 1st class photographer, not 1st class, .... ) is going away with almost everything.
I think everyone sees pictures sometimes where she/he might think "What the hell is this good for?". But if you dont like it dont open it. Variety is the spice of life isnt it?
There are a lots of different tastes out there so lets have a lot of different views on here.
Speaking for myself i also think sometimes, man theres only fog and a shadow visible, but you don't have to open the big one and if you do and dont like it well then it wasnt your taste and that was it.
It has nothing to do with the equipment you took the shot. If the quality is OK it will show up here.
Maybe my point of view is too simple but thats me
And theres no offense intended here.
(who is thinking he knows which photo Vasco is talking about )
F27 From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 212 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2467 times:
I think that more and more digital shots are being added here but less of the standard shots are being added. yes digital cameras have come a long way but i think there should be a box to tick when you upload as to weather it is a digital shot or scanned from a neg or slide so a little bit of give and take can be given.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2460 times:
Vasco (and all),
I know that with my conventional SLR and lenses, I can produce an image every bit as sharp as pretty much any digital shooter. The difference is that my result ends up on film, their's ends up on a HD or CD.
Having looked through a lot of images on a.net over the year or so I've been here, I also know that I can scan a slide and get a result that holds its own against the rest of the scanned images - a reasonable result, and certainly one that is usually accepted here.
However, I also know that I cannot usually produce a scanned image that has the same smoothness, the same lack of grain, as is exhibited by the results from the quality end of the digital market - and note, I say the quality end. I also think that some of the far more experienced photographers who scan images have the same problem, or at least I think they do if I compare their results with some of the best of the digital stuff that's around.
I know there are standards, and I believe that these standards are currently set at a level that means that a photographer who goes about scanning in a consistant and quality oriented manner can still get results accepted, here. But it must be awefully difficult for the screeners - OK, so digital images can have their own unique problems, but faced with a super-smooth and sharp digital image, and following on from that a scan which probably doesn't have the quite the same look (has grain, etc), it must be tempting to reject the scanned image because it isn't as good as the previously viewed digital image in some way or another. As digital original images get more and more prevalent, probably because of the convenience if nothing else, this apparent gap is going to get more and more noticable - the screeners will see more and more digital images, and less scanned images, and the perception of quality difference in this reducing number of scanned images will subjectively get more and more marked. I suspect it inevitable that eventually the bar will be raised to the point where all but the very very best users of scanners will find themselves excluded, at least for regular material that can be catpured by anyone - the rare material is of course a different matter, where much of it simply isn't available on digital anyway.
Of course, all of this only applies to images that end up in a digital environment. I've yet to be convinced that a digital camera can produce a hard copy image to as high a quality as a good slide, certainly at higher print sizes.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2453 times:
I don't think stuff should be judged based upon the equipment used, only the final result.
But, I think it should be looked more on the aesthetic qualities of the shot. Everyone who has tried to scan a slide shot in dull weather will know that you will get a lot of grain and noise in the scan, which makes it very hard to get a good result. This doesn't seem to be the same on digital cameras, so what do we get? Loads of shots taken in crappy weather that are aesthetically unpleasing (dull, washed out colours), they aren't bad, but they could be so much better. Just because it isn't blurry or has visible grain it doesn't make it a good shot.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
F27 said: I think there should be a box to tick when you upload as to weather it is a digital shot or scanned from a neg or slide so a little bit of give and take can be given
I think you'll find that Johan is keen that pictures are judged on the same basis, where digital or scanned, and that the only exceptions are "rare" subjects. In general I agree with that approach. I actually don't think that the look of digital images will get much better than they are now, at least not at current screen resolutions (note I mean the look of them on screen, rather than the quality of the base image on a hard disk or CD). The problem is that quality digital images are going to get more prevalent, and thus the perceived slightly lower quality many of the scanned images will get more and more noticable, to the point where eventually the standards bar gets raised again.
Tguse From Germany, joined Jan 2001, 108 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2332 times:
I fully agree with Vasco and Andy (Skymonster).
I shoot slides for my collection and it's part of my hobby to exchange them and to meet other guys at the conventions. And as Andy said, no digital SLR can produce the same quality as any conventional SLR on slide film.
So I don't want to change to digital!!! (It's not because of the price of the digital SLR's, which seem to be very cheap for me when I think about the money I spend for the loads of Kodachrome rolls that I shoot)
But the digital pictures turn out far better on the monitor than scanned slides. And that's the point! A few month ago I have had an acceptance rate of more than 90% here at a.net! Over the last weeks the rate completely changed to less than 10% without any changes in the quality of my scans. Well, I have to say that the rate went much higher after appealing for some of the rejections, but I also think that nowadays it's much harder to have scanned pictures accepted than pictures taken with a digital camera.
Fly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3133 posts, RR: 52 Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
Andy, I'm fully with you, and that's my major concern.
I'm totally happy with my slides, but my three-year old scanner is now at its limits. Now, do I buy a new scanner or a digital SLR? Problem is, I still want to continue with my slide collection AND contribute to a.net. Solution would be to shoot both, if a D60 was more affordable...
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2314 times:
I've made my decision - it is going to be very painful because of the initial cost, but I'm getting more and more convinced. I am going to have a digital SLR, probably a D60, and probably not too far into the future. I am not doing this for airliners.net, but rather because of the other benefits digital will bring for me - reduced film costs, opportunities to try out new creative ideas without costing me in sometimes wasted film and processing, permanency and durability of the results (I think a CD will last longer than a negative or slide), ease of getting prints without having to send a potentially valuable slide to a photo processor, the ability to suddenly increase the ISO setting if I need to, etc, etc.
However, I cannot and will not give up on slides and will therefore have to retain two bodies - one for slides for the more special subjects, ramp shots, etc, and the other digital for the rest. As for airliners... as and when I have a digital camera, I suspect that the majority of my submissions will come from it rather than from film.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2308 times:
> I think a CD will last longer than a negative or slide
> Yes, but who knows which new standards/formats
> there will be in the future? Just think how rapid the
> development has been over the last years.
Backwards compatibility will mean CDs will be around for a long time, and facilities to copy them onto any new media that comes along will be available even longer. And copying a digital image can be done without degredation of the result, which isn't true of film where a new generation copy reduces the quality of the original.
On this subject, [I think it was] Charles Falk said something very significant on this forum recently - something to the effect that he was scanning all of his slides for archival purposes. Makes you think...
Zander From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 610 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2285 times:
I totally agree with you Vasco!
In my opinion airliners.net should be a site where photographers can upload photos no matter if you shoot prints, slides or digital.
But as you said Vasco, it feels like airliners.net is going digital all the way. It is getting harder and harder to get prints and slides accepted.
I think it's a pity that everyone think the ones that shoot digital are the best photographers. In matter of fact it's often the camera that makes them good as photographers. If you are good photographer it's you that make the camera good. One example:
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
A question to all of you who use both a digital SLR and a conventional one: What do you do if you're shooting approaches? You certainly won't manage to use both cameras for one plane.
That's the main reason why I keep with my slides. I would like to have my shots stored on one media (slides because that is the most common) with the same quality. Beside the rapid development on the digital SLR market with better and more expensive new products in the future I also hope for a new "generation" of slide scanners which can produce digital images with a quality that is close to the one produced by digital SLRs.
Concerning airliners.net: I don't think that shots should be seperated into digital and non-digital. The screeners should judge by quality only, but as it was said before, the quality standard should not be increased just because a new digital SLR appeared on the market. Remember that there are far more slide and print shooters out there than those with digital cameras. The majority of them doesn't upload to this site, but perhaps they intend to do so in the future. All those beautiful shots from the past are not digital and it would certainly make no sense to reject them because they don't reach the increasing quality standards.
Nevertheless, I would still appreciate if the photographers add if their pic is digital or on slide/print film either as a comment or in a new equipment section which has already been proposed by several member of this forum.
The reason why some slide shooters think that "a digital SLR owner just have to go out no matter what the weather is like and press the button" in order to get some shots accepted at airliners.net is quite simple: they just do it! If you take slides you wouldn't even think about going out in bad conditions, but if you own a digital SLR you think: why not? It's for free.
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2267 times:
"If you are good photographer it's you that make the camera good."
Well said. But if you are a good photographer and have a digital SLR you certainly have an advantage. I don't think that people with digital SLRs are good photographers, but Chris, Jason, Gary and Peter certainly are excellent!
1st class photographer
Frank Unterspann - Hamburg, Germany
25 PUnmuth@VIE: Uuups Thanks Frank Peter (photographer not belonging to any class)
26 Jan Mogren: Hey Zander, you mean I have a crappy camera? j/k /JM
27 EGGD: It is getting harder and harder to get prints and slides accepted. I think you will find that the standards are increasing for everything, not just sl
28 LGW: Well. I feel that digital really has more chance. A good digital image has a 'rounder' lok to it (if you know what I mean!) I have had experiance with
29 Jofa: Yo FUAirliner, what kinda weirdass comment was this?! "I don't think that people with digital SLRs are good photographers".
30 KingWide: I think Frank meant that he didn't think that people with digital SLRs are automatically good photographers. J
31 KingWide: As far as I can see, all shots are given a fair chance. They go through screening and each shot is assessed on its merits. If the shot meets the site'
32 FUAirliner: Jofa, I don't think that people with digital SLRs are automatically good photographers, ... Thanks, Jason. Frank
33 EGGD: I agree, a digital camera of any type doesn't mean you are any better as a photographer. In fact, digital SLR most of all, some digital-SLR shots I ha