Out of 50+ shots of the "water-spray phenomenon", only this one was (in my mind) up to spec, and I really felt confident when I clicked the upload button. However after around 2 weeks in the HQ que, it got the kick for everyone's favorite "BadScan".
Seeing as that the rain has passed this area for another year or so, and how I loved drying my camera (and self!), I don't think I can go re-take this shot very easily, so I'd like to ask for some advice on how this photo can be salvaged to ALN standards.
I look foreward to any and all assistance and comments!
The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5485 posts, RR: 20 Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3314 times:
Holy CRAP! That got rejected??? I think it's wonderful! I don't care what the screeners think, that should have been accepted HANDS DOWN! Ok, I have no idea on how to fix it, maybe a LITTLE less noise on the fuselage near the titles maybe??
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 3288 times:
Cool shot.. I think it was probably rejected for the digital effects like purple fringing and jaggies in some areas- It probably isn't "rare" enough for the screeners to allow it to pass.
If I would you I would definately try to improve the shot or appeal it to Johan though.
Keep up the good work! I really enjoyed these Brasilia photos. How did you talk the owners of the taller parking garage into letting you up? I see your latest SW light trail shot was taken from the shorter garage...
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 37 Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 3277 times:
I don't understand,
The top of the aircraft IS a little soft, there is very little if any chromatic abberations, the only thing I could see it being rejected for is the fact its not 100% level (check the fence posts), or the angle of the shot.
I can't believe its badscan, I've seen about 50% of the shots that got in the d/b in the past 2 days have been worse quality..
Rotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days ago) and read 3278 times:
Whoops, forgot the brackets, thanks Andrew!
CO, you flatter me! Honestly, I don't think the quality of my shot is anywhere NEAR most of the shots uploaded these days. But sometimes I wonder what exactly is going on in the screening process, such as this photo that got rejected a few weeks ago:
Seeing as that is not only the only photo (save another one of mine) of that aircraft in operation with the Raiders logo on it, but also the last picture of that aircraft in operation, I thought it would get accepted on the rarity basis despite the fact that my camera was malfunctioning and producing poor shots (since fixed by Olympus). After a rejection and unsuccessful appeal, I gave up. What does it take to have a shot accepted based on how rare it is? While the A320 shot definately isn't all *that* rare, I think it's at least a bit better in quality then the above HAL shot, and many of the other pics on the database based on rarity.
Serge, believe it or not, both of my night shots were from the shorter garage. I just zoomed in a bit more for the Embraer shot. I've found there are two ways to get on the taller parking garage -- pay for a day's parking and don't take the shuttle, or maybe renting a Corvette from RentAVette (below the parking garage) and asking for a trip up top after cutting the check... I'll be waiting until I know I can grab some good shots before dumping $16 for the parking or several hundred for the vette rental
As for the fringing, I can see some faint fringing in the backround (on some of the trees), but honestly don't think it's bad enough to spend the time and risk of correcting it. Care to point out some more obvious spots that I'm missing, or do you think the backround stuff is important enough to correct, or more importantly, significant enough to have caused the rejection?
The jaggies, oh yes the jaggies. Other than in-camera sharpening set to normal (which does a good job of sharpening the image w/o sharpening then oise) and a single 500%/0.2rad/0.0thresh USM pass in Photoshop, I didn't do anything more... could jaggies be brought out with such easy sharpening? Should I start from scratch and forget the USM, or maybe swap in a High-Pass instead? I remember when I was working on this photo, I was trying to find the line between too soft and too many jaggies, and this one (in my mind) hit a good middle ground, showing good sharpness with no terribly obvious jaggies. In fact, I have to zoom in to 200% on the computer for my young eyes to see the "stairways to rejection". Do I have to settle for soft to keep smooth, until I can afford L glass for a DSLR?
Keep it coming, guys/gals! Thanks already!
The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3091 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3177 times:
The shot looks good to me--there aren't all that many photos in the database that show the effects of rapidly travelling aircraft on a wet runway surface at such close range. I suspect the problem is with the houses and trees in the background.
Mike, spend a little time playing with the image, experiment with photoshop, and then appeal the sucker. It's too good to let go without giving it another chance.
I can understand why the Hawaiian shot didn't go through--the only thing rare about it is the sticker--and I suspect that some of the European screeners might not appreciate the Raiders... Maybe it was just punishment for the Raiders' sad performance in the Superbowl.
United_Fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7290 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2883 times:
I liked that HA DC10 pic,you can still see where it said 'American Airlines Luxury Liner' (replacing DC10 Luxury Liner after the ORD crash in '79). It's too bad we don't get to see more 'off beat' pictures in here because of the stuck-up screeners.......
'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
Ah414211 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 210 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2761 times:
Amazing shots! I can't believe that they were rejected! Both the UA and HA shots look great!! Your quality ranks right up there with the tops on this site! I'd appeal--that shot should definitely be in the database!!!
An-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 43 Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2705 times:
This could also be screeners' mistake. Either appeal/resubmit, and I am sure it will grace the database in the near future. And to those who are bashing screeners cough *Continental* cough - you should try being one before you bash them. I haven't seen a single photo of yours in the database, maybe there's a good reason for it?
Grow up, for crying out loud!
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
Rotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2690 times:
Wow, thanks for all the comments guys! I'm still only getting started in this whole photography thing, so while I do get lucky, it's just because I take a LOT of pictures (I'm averaging about a Gigabyte a month, at around 1mb per pic raw!). I'm glad that you all like the photos none the less.
I just appealed the UA shot, and am going to spend some more time on the HA shot before giving it another go. I think I see some green fringing around the Alaskin 737 in the backround -- something I didn't know how to fix when I first tried it
Thanks everyone for all the advice, and I'll let you all know if the photo gets accepted. It's a shame I didn't get more like it, but most of them turned out like this one: