Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Help With A Rejected Picture - I Like This One  
User currently offlineAndreas.E From Norway, joined Apr 2002, 11 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

This is copies of the one that i sendt to Airliners.net

1. Standard one
http://www.oslosnowboardklubb.no/Document/Fotos/Andreas_Eriksson/Karlstad02062002_F16_302_01.jpg

2. With drawn horizontal lines to show that it's not that bad
http://www.oslosnowboardklubb.no/Document/Fotos/Andreas_Eriksson/Karlstad02062002_F16_302_02.jpg

-----
It was rejected with the following comment: 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....

A comment from the screener regarding this upload: "RNOAF_F16_Karlstad_01.jpg: Check the sign for being vertical. Otherwise a nice shot!"
-----

I cant understand this comment, i mean the horizon is perfectly align and the plane is align with the horizon...What should i have done different, trespassed the airfield and straitened that sign !!!

Greatfull for any comments / Kind regards
Andreas Eriksson

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

That is indeed what you should have done  Big thumbs up
This is one of those shots that are a no-win situation at this site. If you rotate it to get the sign leveled, it will be rejected because the horizon is not. If you clone out the sign, it will be rejected for being manipulated or for "part of the aircraft is missing" (wing obscured) or "too far in the distance".
You could try to appeal it, giving an explanation. Sometimes it works.

Got something similar last night, shot rejected for being 'blurry'. Only blurry thing in it were the helicopter rotor blades, and that was quite on purpose.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 3 hours ago) and read 3597 times:

I think if you straightened it with the signs the horizon would be irelevant as you don't really have a good visual point to make a decision on. The ground in the foreground is not associated with the background.

Excellent shot, made any money from it yet.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 3 hours ago) and read 3595 times:

Yeah, some screeners went mad about leveling photos. It force me to level them even if the terrain is not flat  Smile

User currently offlineAndreas.E From Norway, joined Apr 2002, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 3 hours ago) and read 3591 times:

Glenn

I will try that...and no, still no offers  Wink/being sarcastic


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 3579 times:

Andreas,

Get rid of the black borders around the image before you reupload - these would be grounds for a rejection.


Andy


User currently offlineAndreas.E From Norway, joined Apr 2002, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 3569 times:

Any,

These are copies, the original that where uploaded to Airliners did not have the black border.


User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 3572 times:

Andreas,

Great shot, there is no doubt about it. You'll have to straighten it though because the screeners don't look at the picture they look at the horizon. Soon we will become www.levelhorizons.net  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

It's high time the screeners started look at the subject of the photos rather than the background. Sometimes you actually miss the key point of the image, THE PLANE! Remember, that is what we upload here!!!!

To me, this is the warning you use when you've got no real other reason to reject the shot...... .5 of a degree doesn't make or break a photo guys (no girl screeners yet!).

Here's a laugh for you, some dingbat rejected this one...... the tarmac goes uphill and the Beech 1900 sits nose high (even mentioned this in the comments for them!!!!!) but that doesn't matter! It was even the first shot of this aircraft in the database. I of course appealed it, and I apologise already for wasting Johans time as it should never have had to be looked at by him.

http://www.planepictures.net/u/in/1023276170.jpg

Start looking at the subject, you'll often find that most people have already done the hard work for you by getting the image looking as good as possible!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Uploads!


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 3558 times:

Maybe a stupid remark, but in my opinion the stop-sign is not straight. The aircraft is straight but not the sign.

This must be really frustrating for you that this one is rejected.

I would appeal it and write down in the comments field that it is not the aircraft but the sign that is not level.

And btw: is this really so important for the picture? It is a great shot, to be honnest, it just doesn't interest me if that sign is horizontal or not.

Regards,
Frederic


User currently offlineDee-see-eit From Spain, joined Jan 2000, 435 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 3542 times:

Maybe that F16 shot is not a real badangle, but there are many other shots that definitively should be rejected for that reason. Its just a matter of asking the contributors to spend some time trying to add only the best image (angle, dirt, distance...) quality.

In any case it helps a lot if the photographer explains in the remark field the reason for some uploads which can be teoretically rejected.

DC8


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months ago) and read 3517 times:

Hi!
About the F-16:
Are the signs leaning to the right or are my eyes misleading me?
Craig:
May be the apron is going uphills but do they build those fence-poles leaning to the right in Australia on purpose? And what the hell is a dingbat?
Peter



-
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months ago) and read 3510 times:

ding·bat Pronunciation Key (dngbt)
n.

Slang.

An empty-headed or silly person.
An object, such as a brick or stone, used as a missile.

Slang.
An unspecified gadget or other small article, especially one whose name is unknown or forgotten.

Printing.

A typographical ornament or symbol.


User currently offlineAndreas.E From Norway, joined Apr 2002, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months ago) and read 3500 times:

PUnmuth@VIE:

The sign is slightly leaning to the right, maybe one or two degrees

To all the other postings:

Thank you for your comments and tips&hints


User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months ago) and read 3490 times:

This is definetley getting out of hand with the horizon- every time now that i have a non-level horizon on an airport ramp, and an airplane that sits slightly tail heavy- i need to worry about a nice shot getting rejected because any way i do it, it may be good for some but bad for others. Meanwhile ive been seeing uploaded some photos with airplanes totally on the bottom of the frame, and crooked horizon. whats going on guys?

Joe


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months ago) and read 3490 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

Craig, so I am a dingbat?

I am pretty sure I put my name in the rejection comment box. Did you not see that.

I did not add your pic to Planepictures but if I came across it I would have rejected also.

Now that you have a 2000GBP plus digital camera, you may need to spend some time standing straight.

If you have problems, mail me personally. Thanks.

Gary


User currently offlineFly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3154 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3461 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I agree that it sometimes is very difficult to keep everything straight and level, horizon, aircraft, lightpoles and all. Isn't it even an optical issue with the lens? Yet since I got so many photos rejected, I've learned and tried to improve on this account. I think we can find an acceptable level between perfectionism and a realistic treatment of this issue.

Konstantin



Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

thanks all i ask for...

====================

I think we can find an acceptable level between perfectionism and a realistic treatment of this issue.

Konstantin


User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

"most people have already done the hard work for you by getting the image looking as good as possible!"

...no, in fact most people do the bare minimum to get the image looking ok before uploading and some don't even go that far. This comment is not aimed at the people talking here, by the way, before anyone takes offence - it's merely a general observation on the photos that are uploaded.

Guys, this doesn't have to become a big issue, surely? I have had a number of shots of mine rejected for a non-level horizon, so I go back, re-edit them and re-upload them. It's an extra 5 minutes work or so. What's the point in making a big fuss, really? Is it getting us anywhere? Here we have another thread with people getting irritated at each other - and it's not achieving anything.

As to a rotation of .5 - 1.0 degree or so, it depends on the subject and the angle, but it can make a difference. Maybe it's being a little too critical on the part of the person screening the pic, but in the time it takes to complain you could have gone back, tweaked the pic, and then uploaded it again.

[I'm not really concerned on this subject one way or the other - I only posted this message to dispel rumours that I have died  Smile/happy/getting dizzy]


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5057 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3407 times:

I know what you all mean about the level craze. I got one in particular rejected for that. The plane was perfectly level and so was the ground but the Control Tower looked like the Leaning Tower of Pisa a little bit. It's a no-win.

The angle of the plane relative to my position and the tower's position in the line of sight means SOMETHING won't be level in my picture.

I can see how the Stop sign in your pic is not level but it's very close. Seems to me that the screeners have gone a bit crazy with horizons lately. Maybe its part of a plan to "raise" the quality bar for uploads yet again....



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

Chris, i respectfully disagree- one screener sees it as xxx degrees and unnacceptable while another sees it as not too bad and accepts it- OR- the ground is not level and the airplane is nose heavy- so the photographer has to struggle with which to keep straight the fuselage or the road. If you simply say "the aircraft always first to be straight" then you have a standard that we can all agree on- but if its left in the air as it is now- we're gonna continue to suffer through these posts- again and again and again.

Joe

=====================================
As to a rotation of .5 - 1.0 degree or so, it depends on the subject and the angle, but it can make a difference. Maybe it's being a little too critical on the part of the person screening the pic, but in the time it takes to complain you could have gone back, tweaked the pic, and then uploaded it again.


User currently offlineAndreas.E From Norway, joined Apr 2002, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3384 times:

For your information

I have rotated the image aprx 1.0 deg (now the bl**** sign is level)  Wink/being sarcastic and its been uploaded.

Kind regards

Andreas


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5057 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

If you really want a no-win situation try a shot of a 727.

They all seem to be lower in the front than the rear!



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Andreas,
Regardless of the anally retentive rejection, it's a GREAT shot. Very funny. The idea that this fighter jock is looking both ways before he crosses the street is a great, expressive image. Perfect timing on your part.

I would "rotate canvas" about 2° CCW in Photoshop to strike a happy medium between the angle of the sign and the fuselage.

Again, great photograph.

ER


User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

Oops.

Just tried it in Photoshop. Joe's right. 0.5 degrees CCW is enough...

ER


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3348 times:

When I rotate a photo after the final scan it looses definition so I always make a new scan. It's not "just rotate it", it's a complete new scan.

Don't this happen to you?

Luis


25 Post contains images Cathay111 : Glad there's some good discussion going on! Peter, the shot is .2 degree's un-level.... I've checked it. The fence poles are what we look at now are t
26 ADG : And "dingbat" isn't an offensive peice of slang! No need for anyone to be offended, it's what we would call polite slang! Twist, duck, weave, evade ..
27 Airlinelover : Here's a laugh for you, some dingbat rejected this one...... the tarmac goes uphill and the Beech 1900 sits nose high (even mentioned this in the comm
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Help With Rejected Picture - Why? posted Wed Nov 13 2002 14:38:35 by Boeingholiday
Could You Help With The Quality Of This One? posted Sat Nov 9 2002 20:19:23 by Airplanenut
Do You Like This One? posted Fri Apr 28 2006 12:17:55 by Lufthansi
Help With "picture Not Level" Rejection posted Sun Mar 12 2006 04:20:40 by SNATH
How Do You Like This One posted Sat Nov 12 2005 02:37:09 by Corey07850
Need Help With The Reg Of This Aircraft posted Thu Jun 30 2005 19:12:12 by DLX737200
Help With Rejected Images posted Sun Jun 19 2005 21:11:12 by Airportopz
Help With 2 Rejected Photos posted Mon Jun 6 2005 15:59:50 by Sfilipowicz
Do Yall Like This One? posted Tue Mar 22 2005 19:44:28 by JetJock22
Need Help With Rejected Shot. posted Mon Nov 15 2004 10:58:13 by Crank