Chris28_17 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1439 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2228 times:
hey man i like the idea, not bad. Not to say it should have been accepted, but hey, credit where it's due.
by the way, if you want to take a picture of the full moon, you dont need to time expose it, it has enough light even though your camera doesnt think so. Zoom in, set the shutter at like 1/90 or so and fire away... otherwise you'll just get a big white light. Likewise, if you want pictures of the stars as well, double expose first the moon, then shoot a starry scene without the moon in it....
if you try it let me know, i'd love to see how you do..
Photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2538 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2081 times:
Can I respectfully suggest that you send your photos to Astronomy.Net and stop wasting the screeners time here on Airliners.Net.
As to saying in the Remarks "Full moon, milkyway and aircraft" well sorry, but I only see a streetlight, lensflare and dust on the scan, or perhaps moths circling the streetlight. And if you say there is an aircraft visible in the photo, well it must be a Stealth Fighter..... totally invisible.
Photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2538 posts, RR: 19 Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2002 times:
Sorry Boeingholiday but I stand by my original post.
This is Airliners.net and it is a site for people who love aircraft and aircraft photography.
I judge all photos (including my own) by the simple but logical method of simply looking at it. If I have to read the information to see or understand what is going on, then the photo did not achieve any objective.
The cutline or caption may explain the "HOW" of how a photo was taken, the "When" it was taken, the "Why" it was taken. But if the viewer cannot visually determine the "What" then the photo is a failure. Some photos require more than a cursory examination to determine the what, but even a close examination of your photo yields no further enlightenment. If you want to capture the moon and aircraft in a compelling composition, then I might suggest you examine some of the supurb images by Mark Garfinkle on this site. He has truly captures images of the moon and aircraft that stagger the imagination and without having to read a single word of explanation.
The plain and simple truth is that no aircraft is visible. No readily identifiable object is visible. I could show this photo to 100 people on the street and probably get 100 guesses as to what it is. It doesn't visually tell a story of any type. Where is the point of interest? Please point out to me and other A.net viewers one single redeeming feature of this image.
You can call me harsh, but I judge no differently for my own work. I call it as I see it..... and frankly I just don't see it in this image.
Boeingholiday From Austria, joined Apr 2002, 456 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1995 times:
First, this is the second part of another topic (long-time shutter). Therefore I asked how to make night photos, and how to capture airplanes, by the way, on it too.
This is a "learning process" - not only for me, of course also for others how are interested in nightphotos.
That this pic isn't that good - hey, I now know that by myself. So no reason to make it down here.
In condition, only with help (which you get) you can improve the pics, apart from that, you're afterwards able to get the them on a high stage of quality, and apart from anything, it makes me weird to see that there are black sheeps under us which, single-minded, follow the way of criticise pictures for the worst, only to be sure that no good thing will be there. This isn't the way it should be.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1964 times:
Cfalk - .
thats brilliant. The only other that rival that are the ones taken from the 'Envisat' satellite that I get through my Dad, I also have nice airport overviews, some pictures of the mount etna eruption and some other nice stuff from it.
Photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2538 posts, RR: 19 Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1957 times:
Maybe I can clarify simply.
I think A.net has some great photographers. And there are lots more who are trying very hard to improve.
But if I see one common attribute that seems to surface regularly, it is that many submitters are not harsh enough critics of their own efforts. When I see posts that say "Will this make it?" That very question means that the photographer has not taken a hard enough look at his own work. Or really understood the quality standards that A.net is trying to uphold. How many uploads are sent to the screeners when deep down in the photographers heart he/she knows that the photo is not good enough? Sent in hope, instead of reality.
It is a very hard thing to learn. To be a strong critic of your own images. We as photographers are emotionally attached to our images. Each image is a little part of ourselves. Our creative efforts for all to see. So it is hard to both give and accept negative comments about our work. It is similar to telling a mother that her baby is ugly. Not easy to do. By the way, I was a beautiful baby...... LOL
If all I can accomplish on this forum is to get each person to stand back for a second and take a more critical look at their work before they submit it, then I feel that I have accomplished something. I'm asking each one of us (INCLUDING MYSELF) to set the bar just a little bit higher. Put the bar higher than you think you can comfortably reach. Then strive to reach it.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1953 times:
Steve some of us do that,
Myself I go though 7 or so rolls of film and choose about 2 dozen to scan in. From that I maybe choose 7 that I like, and maybe three of the very best to send to a.net, sometimes you still have to ask will it make it. I know some of my pictures I compared and were up to a.net standards for aircraft sharpness, but it still got rejected.
Steve, were not all perfect we can't tell instantly if the picture will print, I don't send a single picture to my editors, I send up to a half dozen. It's the same with a.net.