JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2884 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.
Skyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2844 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!).
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2801 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.
Dragogoalie From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2732 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 From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 1220 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2326 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.
ANA777master From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 126 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2316 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.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9549 posts, RR: 70 Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2300 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.
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!
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2288 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
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2263 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)
KLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2224 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!
Anyway, if they don't get on here there is are "other" sites
Skyguy11 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2179 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.