Brianhames From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 795 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2518 times:
I just got word today that some of my photos were rejected, but I was dissapointed with a couple of them because I really like the shots and I feel they're original, but here please take a look at them.
Vulindlela From Germany, joined Apr 2002, 469 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2479 times:
The second one is beautiful. I like how it shows such a huge part of the city. Why was that one rejected? The first one I didn't really see anything special about, but if the 3rd one was for a tilted horizon then you could try it again.
"If you take everything I've accomplished in my entire life and condense it down into 1 day, it looks decent!"
Shawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2590 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2458 times:
Looks like you were using a Sony digital cam. Just out of curiosity, which one?
BTW, the second one should definetly be uploaded. If you adjusted the contrast, try uploading again, but don't make the contrast so high. You lost just a little bit of detail in the darker areas. The third is a little dark, and yes quite a bit crooked. But... try to fix that and see what happens.
Shawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2590 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2400 times:
Yeah, I know what you guys are saying... I think it's becoming political, you know accept photos from the well established photographers and only accept from small-time dudes like me if the photo is REALLY REALLY good.
Yep, the filename confirmed it the Sony cam. I use the F707 as well. It's a beauty! Lots of people on here use it - it's great!
Well keep shooting and best of luck to you... you'll probably need it here!
5280AGL From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 414 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2393 times:
I don't think it has to do with politics, really. I just think the screening process is inconsistent from one screener to another. One screener might find a shot completely acceptable and another may feel the opposite way. But what can you do? The process is not perfect. But, it does still baffle me how high sun, rear quarter, common aircraft, approach shots still find their way past the screeners, in great numbers from some photographers.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
eeehm what about this rule: No criticizing of other users or posts!
If you have a problem with another user in the forum or if you dislike some of the posts, use the "Suggest Deletion" button! If you don't like that, you can e-mail your humble administrators on the issue. You do not and I repeat NOT post a message on how you find the topic or user irrelevant/boring/childish or whatever. Topics dealing with other topics or users (and that includes yourself) will be deleted and the poster will risk being banned. Remember that a topic that is replied to is automatically moved to the top, so don't reply unless it's a worthwhile thread. http://www.airliners.net/discussions/rules.main?confirm=no
EGFF From UK - Wales, joined Sep 2001, 2201 posts, RR: 13 Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2335 times:
Nice shot of the Alaska Airlines, i think you were abit unfortunate there...
5280AGL and Ghost77 .... those pics were taken by a friend of mine, ok maybe there not the best there is but less of the critisizm huh
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Can't really validate the reasons for your pic one and two at the moment as I'm staring at a small laptop screen. Photo three (AlaskaAir.com) needs a slight rotation counter clockwise, pretty much sorted in the second link you posted to it.
5280AGL said: What I don't understand is how photos like that one get rejected yet ones like these get accepted?
Ghost77 said:I´m with you 5280AGL, how come pictures like this get accepted... same aircraft, same REGO, and not showing anything spectacular....
Firstly to both of you, its very bad form to criticise other people's pictures on this forum, in fact its against the rules. I suggest that you are unlikely to get helpful responses if you attack other people's pictures.
Secondly, I can say that I was the third screener to HQ PolishAir42's pics that have been brought to attention in this forum. Bottom line is that they meet the quality criteria of the site, and two screeners before me had already judged them similarly so.
Shawn Patrick said: I think it's becoming political, you know accept photos from the well established photographers and only accept from small-time dudes like me if the photo is REALLY REALLY good
Shawn, PolishAir42 had his first pic accepted onto the site on 12th April this year (just over three months ago), so despite his pictures being commented on adversely here, how he could be regarded as "well established" is beyond me, other than the fact that he kept on trying and has achieved a result.
As for the process being political... Meet the criteria, you get in, don't meet it, you don't. Instead of criticising other folks pictures, we should all get out more and strive to get quality results that are accepted.
25 FUAirliner: Brian, your first photo is just boring with most parts of it filled with blue sky. The second one is really beautiful, but it has very little to do wi
26 Brianhames: Ok well, 37 images of one plane isn't a lot when you're talking about a quarter million photo database.
27 Wietse: Considering the huge amount of airplanes in the world and the relatively low number of 250000 photos, 37 is a huge number of photos
28 Skymonster: FUAirliner said: Conclusion: all three rejections were perfectly correct and show the consistency of the screener crew Frank... Irrespective of your c
29 LOT767-300ER: 5280 and Ghost. LOL stop whining. The photos may be boring but I think the quality is ok (I am a little biased since i shot them) I just take photos a
30 LOT767-300ER: Just wanted to add that I dont think 3 months makes me well established.. And I do use a Sony F707 too
31 Ghost77: LOT767-300ER, I´m not whining at all, my point is that you have better shots too show!! As an example: You got creativity, but I prefer and I like mo
32 LOT767-300ER: LOL you dont have to apologize mate. Those approach shots bore me also. But some of the common stuff like those AE ERJs and UAex CRJs, MD-80s, A320s a
33 5280AGL: LOT - I apologize if I offended you, I wasn't singling you out or anything, I was just using a couple of your photos as examples. The whole basis of m
34 Ghost77: I'll be waiting 4 ur pics from Alaska!!! ghost77
35 Wietse: See, that is the cool thing of this forum compared to Non av... People make up here!!! Wietse
36 EGFF: *EGFF walks upto Wietse and hugs him* Ghost77, by apologising you showed your a man, not a weasel ... thanks EGFF
37 LOT767-300ER: Those shots bore myself so your not offending anyone lol. I just stopped on the side of the road while I was coming home and snapped a few...... Regar
38 Copa737: Hey, I´m just going to say that, Before some of us start criticizing others you better look at you first and then If you have the authority, then cri
39 Copa737: Sorry, I said that this have nothing so see with you guys but I´m wrong. Ghost77, you are my friend and you know I respect your work, but I cant acce
40 LOT767-300ER: ""how come pictures like this get accepted... same aircraft, same REGO, and not showing anything spectacular.... " Diffrent view and OK quality?
41 Ghost77: Hello Felipe, You have told me that since we meet... to try new things, have different angles and upload more variety... also try to copy Rocafort´s