-----
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
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1915 times:
That is indeed what you should have done
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.
Glenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1909 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.
Cathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 18 Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1884 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
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.
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!
Sabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1870 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.
Dee-see-eit From Spain, joined Jan 2000, 435 posts, RR: 27 Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1854 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.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1829 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
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1802 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?
Fly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3120 posts, RR: 53 Reply 15, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1773 times:
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...
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 16, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1770 times:
thanks all i ask for...
====================
I think we can find an acceptable level between perfectionism and a realistic treatment of this issue.
Da fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 9 Reply 17, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1730 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 ]
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, RR: 17 Reply 18, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1719 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
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 19, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1714 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.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1680 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
ExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1673 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.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 24, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1660 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 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
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Apr 2002, 11 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, 
From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3482 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Spain, joined Jan 2000, 435 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2000, 3120 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
