Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3006 times:
I recently just uploaded a group of photos with qualities such as the one below (this was one of the ones I uploaded). All were rejected, what can I do to make these photos fit the almost irrational demands of the administrators?
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2751 times:
Nice shot...a good NW/KLM alliance image. The only thing I could see (and I'm pulling words out of my a** here): it's a little dark. Take a look at the clear part of the sky...see how brown it is? Man, this'd be a great shot if you got a better exposure. A dramatic sky can make for a killer image.
Also, maybe you could have got a better angle (more perspective). I'd really like to see more of the NW tail. I know, I know, I know...as a photographer myself, sometimes it's just not possible to get the optimum angle!!
Other than that, nice pic. Forget about the rejection and move on...I've found that Johan is more picky on some days rather than others. Frustrating, yeah...but hey - you should be shooting for yourself, not someone else!!
Danny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2710 times:
Just like Scooter said - great pic! If you don't mind, I've been fixing the colors a bit (made the sky and the KLM blue a little more blue), to the point where it may be accepted...if you want it, mail me at email@example.com
TriStar From Belgium, joined Oct 1999, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2701 times:
I think it's a great shot. I like to browse through the database in search of good aviation photos. I couldn't care much less about what the sky looks like. After all, most of us are amateurs who simply think it's nice to be able to share their work with one another.
If the photo looks good otherwise, or it has more of an arty quality to it (and some do), then I see that as a nice bonus. But a bonus, nonetheless.
I've been puzzled, myself, with how the standards for getting one's photos accepted to the database have been raised so significantly. I'm sure there's a good reason...
It's probably the law of supply and demand at work. With the way A.N has grown, I'm not really surprised (anymore) at getting photos rejected all the time. Nevertheless, too bad it's at the cost of being able to share nice shots with other enthusiasts.
Ah... such is life.
MD11Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (14 years 5 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2688 times:
I think Johan the Administrator looks at the graininess of the sky as a quick determination in whether a pic is good is enough...at least from what I can tell from the ones I submitted that were rejected.
While the airplanes look sharp and clear, the sky in your picture is a little bit grainy...perhaps a little too much sharpening ? I would back off the sharpening and resubmit. It is a very nice pic, imho.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (14 years 5 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2670 times:
I offer these comments in response to your request for advice on uploading photos. Johan has given you a long and thoughtful response to your criticisms of how the website is being run, in particular how the photos are selected these days. There is little in what he says that I can fault. Constant improvement is what we all should be after-anything else leads to mediocrity. Future site visitors will quickly go elsewhere.
After I looked at a sample of your photos, I must tell you that you offer a wonderful variety of colorful subjects. Most seem to have been taken on sunny days which make me envious. This makes me wonder why you use such grainy film. You apparently have ample light available, so try slower, fine grain film.
You have chosen a rather public venue to ask for critiques of your photos.
1. Your personal rejection example of a United Boeing 747 is a great action shot, but it is too light and not sharp. The Reg # cannot be discerned well at all.
2. Your uploaded example of a KLM Boeing 747 tail is dark, grainy, and is populated by small white spots the presence of which you seem to be unaware. Also, the 747s rudder is dirty-a clean one would have been better. Others who also responded share some of these observations.
3. Photo 76583-This photo is not sharp-look at the reg #.
4. Photo 76372-This could have been a nice night shot but there are white spots (dare I say a fingerprint) all over the sky. Is this due to inexpensive processing of color negative film? If so, I can tell you that you will not experience this with transparency film.
5. 71975 and 72433-The aircraft in both photos inexplicably have had their wingtips outside the margins of the scene. Learn to frame the subject more carefully and include the ENTIRE AIRCRAFT more often.
6. 71728-Obvious dust fibers can be seen in the sky.
7. 70710-jaggies are obvious on the vertical stabilizer’s eagle logo.
Work on these problems, Flyf15, and your rejection rate problem will probably go away. Accept that getting better is what the webmaster, as well as other photographers such as myself, want. It was unwise to use the images of others as part of your argument. I doubt that you won any support that way.
What you are doing now isn’t bringing you satisfactory results, so consider a different technique. Put a roll of ISO 50 or ISO 64 transparency film in your camera, and position yourself off to the side of the touchdown point of your favorite airport. Set your telephoto aperture no wider than f8. Try most at f11. Your resulting exposures will be between 1/60 and 1/125, perhaps a little faster with all the light you have out there. Tell me if you don’t like the results. I think the webmaster will.