Craigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2021 times:
My first thoughts on seeing this post was "stop criticising other photos", but when I looked at the large version, I see what you mean.
First of all, it is a very nice picture quality wise. It probably got through as it is the (first?) 763 in the new livery.
However, there is no reason for this to be off by so many degrees. There is ample room around the aircraft for a rotate and crop. After all the recent debates on sloping runways, level horizons and vertical posts, I would not expect this to get in because it could be fixed so easily.
737heavy From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 601 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2009 times:
Thanks for the criticism boys. This is due to be fixed. I had 2 copies of this, one was this and the other was corrected. Now you've told me I can upload the proper one.
It's the first of the registration not the first in the new colours.
737heavy From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 601 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1979 times:
Thats ok, thanks for the info. I spent that long looking at the pictures I got of it, and then sorting to find the better ones, then importing and editing. I had a couple of goes with it to try and get the best settings. Obviously saved it a couple of times with different settings and uploaded the wrong one.
Screener5 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
I added that pic because when I screened it, it WAS the first of that reg#, in that livery. At the time I added, it was during the backup of last week. Good to hear that a better version is on its way.
If you have a problem with dizziness, may I suggest a visit to the Chemist and ask for Dramamine.
Craigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1946 times:
Lee,
Don't take this 'flaming' as criticism of you. Your pics are superb . I see you had a good day on 2 May with the TUI, Air 2000 and Astraeus liveries.
I don't know if you read the forums a few month back, but there was a huge debate about level horizons. It seemed to be THE most critical aspect of a photo for a while. There were people having photos rejected for not being level when the runways were in fact on a slope, which could be easily proved by vertical marker posts and radio masts. This debate went on and on, so that is why I think this issue has been raised again.
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1921 times:
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1902 times:
I don't see a problem with a shot being a degree or so out *if* it has some overriding reason for the standards to be lowered like, in this case, being the first of a type in new c/s or whatever. A shot of something like JA8962 [pokemon to those not au fait with the numbers] with a horizon out by half a degree should be an immediate reject though
Leftseat86 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1771 times:
Jonathon, yours isn't as dizzying as the above, because there is no horizon reference...the first one did get my head spinning a lttle though Its really nice though
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2001, 2364 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
