Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gorgeous Shots.. What's Wrong?  
User currently offlineDelta777-XXX From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1017 posts, RR: 8
Posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3184 times:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Img2339.jpg

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Img2352.jpg

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Img2174.jpg

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=Img2337.jpg



When I saw how these shots turned out... I just knew that they'd be a hit with airliners.net. I don't understand why they were rejected? Should I appeal any of them?

Hank

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMsh744 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 463 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3156 times:

Before you read this, I am no professional, but I will tell you what I think is wrong.

First Picture: tail cut off. that means automatic rejection...

Second Picture and Fourth Picture: I think you zoomed in a little too close, but as i said, I'm no professional.

Third Picture: a little soft.

All of the photos have a little bit of grain too.

Just my two cents.

Good Luck!

-Msh744


User currently offlineRsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3133 times:


Third Image.....

No Hooter Girls Visible.......LOL



Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
User currently offlineEricBelgium From Belgium, joined Mar 2003, 77 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3127 times:

The hooters one could do if you resize it to 850 pixels...making it look a little more sharp.

the rest is too dark anyway...

greetz, Eric


User currently offlineShawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2608 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3114 times:

I really enjoyed those DL pics, Hank. Unfortunately, airliners.net is not always the best place for artistic photos. The technical aspects must be in order for anything to be accepted. Oh well.

There's always "the other site"...  Big thumbs up

Shawn


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3113 times:

I dunno Hank, they are interesting, but the extreme close up ones are giving me the "bad motive" feeling. The Hooters shot looks a bit blurred to me. Most importantly, how do you really feel about them? Appeal if you feel really strongly about one, but not all four.

Jeff


User currently offlineSkyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

I like #1 & 2 most. The problem with #1 again is that the tip of the tail is cut off. It would have been okay to cut off either more of it or none at all; the same thing goes for the left wing. #3 is like every other shot on the site and #4 feels too heavy on the left side IMHO. Very nice shots; this is the kind of thing airliners.net needs (again IMHO!).

User currently offlineSkyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

Also, #1 is a bit too contrasty.

User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3046 times:

ok here is my .02c..

1. seems fine to me, the tail shouldn't matter too much but maybe the screener felt that the tail could have been included. A bit of a harsh rejection IMO because its a very atmospheric shot.

2.Badmotiv, the plane is virtually in the top corner, same with 4. If they were more centered I'd say they had a reasonable chance. They are also a bit dark for closeups.

3. Its a bit soft, and the colours are too dark. I'm pretty sure Hooters air is orange and not red so its probably something to do with exposure compensation or something...


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3030 times:

The main problem is the backlit shots are just too dark. Yes, the screeners know it's a dark shot, but in this sort of situation we look particularly at the shadows - we expect these areas to retain some detail. In your shots, we see masses of solid black.

Shots against the light are perhaps the most difficult to get right - getting the balance between providing sufficient detail to make the shot interesting while maintaining the high contrast which gives the shot impact is tricky.

The Hooters is just soft.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineCicadajet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

I have to go with the consensus here Hank.

I certainly liked #1. For me, the composition is fine... but Colin's response seems to the point of what the issue is for acceptance.

Tom


User currently offlineDragogoalie From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2961 times:

Not to say that a.net isn't a great site, but this is why I like planepictures.net. They focus more on the picture than the photograph if you know what I mean. Its less of the resolution, lighting, etc, and more if it looks good, they accept it. I feel there is more consistancy with what they accept and what they dont because there are less screeners.

--dragogoalie-#88--



Formerly known as Jap. Srsly. AUSTRALIA: 2 days!
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2955 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I don't know how this topic has spun into a "why I like planepictures.net" discussion.

These pictures are unmotivated, dark, grainy, and the subjects are common (read: boring).

Not trying to sound like a dick, but these shots are nothing special.

Hank, the 6 shots you have here are about 500% better than these, don't sacrifice quality trying to get some pictures online.

Royal


User currently offlineDripstick From Canada, joined Dec 2001, 2364 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2936 times:

I like them. Nice compositions, especially the first.

Dripstick <---NOT a dick




What's another word for thesaurus?
User currently offlineRsmith6621a From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 194 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

>>>>>I don't know how this topic has spun into a "why I like planepictures.net" discussion.

These pictures are unmotivated, dark, grainy, and the subjects are common (read: boring).

Not trying to sound like a dick, but these shots are nothing special.

Hank, the 6 shots you have here are about 500% better than these, don't sacrifice quality trying to get some pictures online.<<<<<<<

I guess this qualifiys Royal as this forums Bill O'Riely.....He says it just as it is...if you dont like the answer dont ask the question.



Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
User currently offlineKLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2804 times:

Royal=Bill O'Riely ROFL. Yeah, I gotta give him points for tellin' it like it is. I like the clouds and reflections on #1 but it would have been so much better if it was centered.

-Clovis


User currently offlineRoastedNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

I didn't know PolishAir42 moved to ATL.....



User currently offlineDragogoalie From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2555 times:

I dissagree with you royal, I think these pictures are great because they're different from the thousands of side shot photos on this webpage. I can see why they were rejected from a.net because they can be a little grainy, but they're still good photos.

--dragogoalie-#88--



Formerly known as Jap. Srsly. AUSTRALIA: 2 days!
User currently offlineANA777master From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2545 times:

Hank- The problem is that you have a few unidimensional reviewers who prefer static-looking/uninspiring shots. There are certainly some breathtaking photos on A.net, but aren't there enough generic shots already?!
I think your #1 and #3 shots are dynamic and beautiful. The other two are a bit dark. Don't feel slighted--I love your style....Hopefully A.net will change their photo guidelines or even create a special category for dynamic/artistic shots.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2529 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

It is nice that we can all share are opinions and not get our feelings hurt.

Those "uninspired side shots" are the hardest to come by. The purest and most valuable airplane shot is a 50mm perfect side-profile shot. Next time you go out to your local airport try to get some of those. Report back to this forum and let us know how it goes.

A 3/4 shot of a landing plane moving away from you can be taken at any airport in the world.

And another thought/statement. Why is it that any shot where the whole plane wasn't in the image is considered an "artistic" shot? A colorful tail or winglet, sure, but half a plane? Not in most cases.



User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2528 times:

I didn't know PolishAir42 moved to ATL.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PolishAir42 - Chicago Aviation Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PolishAir42 - Chicago Aviation Photography




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PolishAir42 - Chicago Aviation Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PolishAir42 - Chicago Aviation Photography




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PolishAir42 - Chicago Aviation Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PolishAir42 - Chicago Aviation Photography




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PolishAir42 - Chicago Aviation Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © PolishAir42 - Chicago Aviation Photography



Peter has always had some great photos. But in the past some of them looked weird from that dark left-side problem (no offense Peter Big grin). Also the angle wasn't the MOST appealing in some of them- but just look at his current photos!  Wow!


User currently offlineLOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

"Peter has always had some great photos. But in the past some of them looked weird from that dark left-side problem (no offense Peter ). Also the angle wasn't the MOST appealing in some of them- but just look at his current photos! "

Aye, that damned Dark Left Side syndrome, oh well I was learning. However I think I am improving bit by bit.

ATL bah, I never shot those kinds of shots that he did...at least not yet  Yeah sure


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 731 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

The problem is that you have a few unidimensional reviewers who prefer static-looking/uninspiring shots

This is not about aesthetics - side on shots with similar technical flaws would be rejected as well. If the flaws pointed out by myself and others were corrected, the pics would probably be accepted.

There seems to be a feeling amongst some that because a shot is "creative" it ought to be given some special dispensation for technical quality. Can't see how that's fair or sensible. In general terms, the same techncial standard should apply to all shots (with the usual caveat of exceptions being made for rare/old subject matter)

Cheers,

Colin




Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineKLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2453 times:

I think Colin is right, in all those shots, just some slight corrections, (not cutting off part of the plane, centering them etc...) would have turned them into outstanding shots! Big grin
Anyway, if they don't get on here there is are "other" sites  Smile

-Clovis


User currently offlineSkyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

"These pictures are unmotivated, dark, grainy, and the subjects are common (read: boring)."

Well considering the subject of almost every photo on this site is the same I really don't understand how you can say that.

As for the motivation, I think these pictures have more, much more, than the standard 'hey look at this plane in my viewfinder with nothing but blue sky behind it!' shots. Yeah they are dark but they are artistic and add variety to this site. The problem is the basic compositional errors that are in a few of the shots.

Anyways, just a friendly opinion!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What's Wrong? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 19:02:33 by ThierryD
What's Wrong With This Shot? posted Sat Apr 15 2006 17:24:25 by D L X
What's Wrong With These? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 16:26:17 by Nbseer
Please Tell Me What's Wrong Here posted Mon May 30 2005 22:24:34 by DC10Tim
What's Wrong With This Pic? posted Tue May 10 2005 06:42:50 by TACAA320
Bad Info- What's Wrong? posted Tue Feb 8 2005 05:42:38 by PDXtriple7
What's Wrong With These Pics? posted Sun Jan 16 2005 01:03:21 by N506CR
Uploading Farnborough Shots - What Are The Rules? posted Thu Jul 22 2004 20:54:19 by LGW
What's Wrong With This Picture? posted Sun Jul 11 2004 12:32:28 by Volare
Concorde Cabin Shots - What Settings? posted Wed Jun 30 2004 20:53:47 by Mikedlayer