Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1232 times:
Jeremy, im not a screener but whoever rejected this shot did the right thing, it should not be added- if you had some nice scenery with the 72 on finals, yeah but a tiny airplane with blue sky is unappealing. if you crop the heck out of it and it stays sharp itll get accpeted for sure (otherwise im missing something)
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3267 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 2 days ago) and read 1185 times:
I know what you mean Jeremy, I like the shot, but it just lacks something. I have had a few rejected for "badcenter" that I liked. http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=AF1a1024jpg.jpg
While I agree it is not centered as some would like it, and a small piece of the tail is missing, it does not bother me. I have seen countless others in the database with the same shortcomings.
I am not one for appealing a photo. I will take the screener's advice and see if I can make some improvements. If not, then they are just for me to enjoy.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 807 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1132 times:
Nothing wrong with trailing smoke - I like it BUT there is also a lot of plain empty all around the subject, which is just not contributing to the picture.
Yes, I'm sure you can find similar or worse example already in the database - but many factors can mitigate would would normally be grounds for rejection ... rarity of the shot, location, date etc. and of course, standards have risen over time. I'd bet very few pictures submitted prior to 2001 would get accepted today.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1119 times:
Hope you don't mind me doing this but as everyone said just a bit of cropping and I think the photo would have been accepted. Take a look. I feel the AFTER is much better and the quality of the original image should allow the cropped image to still be high quality.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1085 times:
Well yes, if the full size image maintains or ideally increases the quality of the rejected photo, it may get in. However, the rejected photograph already has quite a bit of noise in the sky, and it also has some jaggies on the cheat especially in the fairly obvious nose area. If its from a print/neg/slide a higher res rescan and then a closer crop may solve that problem, but to be honest if just a recrop of the pic already shown was done, I'd be quite surprised if the original scan / digital image could be cropped as closely as you suggest and still retain the quality this site looks for.
J.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1050 times:
Thanks. That looks good. I was going for the look of "solitude" I saw in this image. The mountains around here may have helped.
I had two others rejected for "baddistance." Both of those the tail number can be read. One is in the appeals process, and the other I would link to but the file name was the same as a rejection back in March and the wrong picture shows up.
Maybe I will stick to uploading the unimaginative side shots. Thanks for your inputs.
What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
I'm going to go crazy soon..... bahahahhahhaahah. Out of one of my latest batch I only got one in the d/b, it just makes you wonder if its worth all the effort. But don't worry, I'm a sucker so I will be here for many moons to come.
grrrrr.... once I get enough money for a minolta dual scan, that will be the day ...