Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Need Your Help With Rejected Pics  
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 30
Posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4841 times:

Hi all

I uploaded 11 pics and so far 10 have been rejected. Some of the rejections are a bit puzzling me, so I thought I ask for your judgment.

What's wrong with these (I let you guess the rejection reason Smile/happy/getting dizzy)?
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=a332_lx_hb-iqc_5-4-2003_2.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=a332_lx_hb-iqc_5-4-2003_4.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=a332_lx_hb-iqc_5-4-2003_8.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=a319_ba_g-eupv_5-4-2003.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=b763_dl_n193dn_5-4-2003_2.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=b763_bhp_hb-ise_5-4-2003_2.jpg

Thanks for any comments.

Kind regards
Gerardo


dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4818 times:

Hi,

1: Too dark, especially the underside of the aircraft (belly and wings)?
2: Too dark wings as well as too much contrast?
3: Maybe a bit too much contrast?
4: Too dark? The aircraft's belly almost seems as plain black. Same with the flaps.
5: Could use a bit extra brightness, + some jaggies at the outer trailing edge flaps. Also maybe a bit soft?
6: A bit soft + too dark areas?

Greetings,
Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4775 times:

Hi Gerardo, nice pictures!

1) I would say a bit too much shadow, and a bit overcontrasted?
2) overcontrasted + oversharpened
3) a bit hazy, especially in front. Not much can be done about it I'm afraid  Sad
4) don't know? Maybe too dark?
5) maybe not sharp enough? I would give it an additional kick of sharpness...
6) badlevel?

Very nice photography!! You've got talent  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Regards
Frederic


User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4748 times:

OK, after 2 posts (thanks for the flowers, Frederic Smile/happy/getting dizzy), I'll tell you the reason. They were all kicked out because of "badsoft". Now, if even go with a tiny little bit USM, I get jaggies. So, what to do?

I knew, some would say either the Belair or the Delta would be "not level". But the runway isn't level. On these pics, you can imagine, how it goes a bit downhill:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerardo Dominguez
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerardo Dominguez



Regards
Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineUnique From Switzerland, joined Mar 2003, 1703 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4718 times:

Gerardo, I've had so many rejections with really funny excuses, I can't bother anymore. If they don't want the pics, they don't get it!
Cheers


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4718 times:

Gerado,

You speak with forked tongue to an extent - the Belair (last one) at least was rejected for badcontrast as well as badsoft. I know, because I rejected that one - it had already been "questioned" by two screeners and I agreed with them. The Belair is too contrasty as well as soft - white whites but rather dark for the rest, so it needs some adjustment of the levels and curves.

The rest, I agree with whoever screened them - none of them are really pin-sharp.

They were all kicked out because of "badsoft". Now, if even go with a tiny little bit USM, I get jaggies. So, what to do?

If the original images were not sharp, no amount of USM is really going to fix them. One of the "problems" with digital photography is that photographers see most pics coming out of the camera slightly soft, and assume therefore that ALL pictures can be sharpened up. I'm not saying that the originals are not sharp, but they could be soft over and above normal digital camera output - no camera is perfect. With film, close scruitiny of the negative or slide will relveal an unsharp original and make the decision to give up relatively easy. But with digital, photographers sometimes tend to plow on and try to fix everything.

Finally, HB-IQC is extremely common in the database - new pictures of that one have to be something very different or close to perfect to make it now.

Andy


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4712 times:

All of them are overcontrasted, they need some adjustments on the mid tones wich is easy to do with the levels function, just increase to 1.10-1.12 to reveal some detail under the wings. Almost in every photo there are large sections of black on the shadow side and this must be worked on.

Uploading a sequence of 3 photos of the same plane as it departures is not a good choice, you should pick up only the best or maybe two of them.

Luis




User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4708 times:

Sorry, Andy, that I forgot the badcontrast. I hope I didn't put you down in any way....

I know, that IQC is extremely common. But only on one HB-IQC picture this was put as one of the rejection causes. The other two were simply badsoft.

Unique: "do hesch ou wieder Rächt"  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Regards
Gerardo



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineANA777master From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4354 times:

Some screeners seem to be taking themselves too seriously. How many r.e.m. sleep-inducing, generic side shots with perfect resolution do we have suffer through? What are you going to eventually do with a terabyte of generic perfection? I'd love to see more dynamic photos instead of this cookie-cutter phenomenon. Nothing personal of course--screeners shouldn't be free from scrutiny either

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9664 posts, RR: 68
Reply 9, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4328 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

How many r.e.m. sleep-inducing, generic side shots with perfect resolution do we have suffer through?

This is my nomination for the idiotic statement of the month.


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4280 times:

ANA777master said: Some screeners seem to be taking themselves too seriously. How many r.e.m. sleep-inducing, generic side shots with perfect resolution do we have suffer through? What are you going to eventually do with a terabyte of generic perfection? I'd love to see more dynamic photos instead of this cookie-cutter phenomenon

ANA777master - I think we had an e-mail from you a while ago, didn't we???

Anyway, contrary to your statement, the screeners are operating to the policy of this site. Some uploaders seem to expect that just because a picture is a bit different, the site should abandon all its standards and fall back and paying hommage to a photographer who actually tried something different but didn't quite pull it off.

Yes, airlines.net has high standards. And having been around this site for two years now whether or not I was a screener I wouldn't want it any other way. Airliners.net gets visits from serious people in this industry, and if it lowered its standards and allowed all-so-ran stuff in (not that Gerardo's pictures fall into that category) then the number of serious visitors would soon start to drop away. Take a look at how many visitors airliners.net gets in comparison to the other sites.

I want my photographs to be looked at by the right sort of visitors, and I want to be associated with the best. Those who are happy to be associated with second best know where the other sites are.

Andy


User currently offlineTsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4275 times:

I agree with what Andy has said.. A.net is renowned for its vast database of shots and its quality. Deviation from the norm is sometimes accepted here as long as the standards are there and you just have to try Big grin

Of cos there are other sites out there that might be more forgiving.




NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5578 posts, RR: 63
Reply 12, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4269 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

ANA777master.......I take myself seriously and the Screeners are not free from scrutiny. Just ask Jason Taperell about one of his pics I rejected a few weeks ago. We exchanged some mails between us and if he was close enough for him to punch me in the face.....he would  Smile

Cheers

Gary Watt


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 769 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4267 times:

I'd love to see more dynamic photos instead of this cookie-cutter phenomenon.

Well then it is up to the photographers to provide the material. If there is a disproportionate amount of one type of shot over another, this is simply a reflection of the type and quality of material submitted. There is ample evidence in the database of creative shooters having their work accepted, but these represent a minority of submitted images. The vast bulk of material coming into A.net consists of ramp shots of one kind or another and standard approach shots.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4246 times:

Colin is very right - 95% or more of the photos submitted to the site are ramp / taxi in or out / final approach.

What should we do - reject these "common" views, even if they are technically very well done, so as to make the slightly different shots more noticable? Yeah, and I bet that would start a few debates.

By their nature, the slightly different shots are sometimes more challenging. This can make them a bit more difficult to get right. None the less, again, what should we do - drop the standards just because a photo is different, only to have the same effect submitted next week but this time well executed.

There's plenty of room for creative stuff here, the only issue being that the creative stuff needs to be technically well done too.

Andy


User currently offlineANA777master From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4211 times:

Andy, Gary and Colin- I too agree (of course) that there has to be definite criteria for photos, but they should be semi-rigid rather than rigid. Perhaps a shot might be comprising 85% of the criteria, but perhaps there is something that makes it unique or dramatic-looking enough to save from being tossed. I in no way would like to see photos looking as if they came from a '70's periodical!! Sorry if any of you took my post to heart. Its good to keep things dynamic rather than being staunchly fixed on one philosophy. This is a main premise of marketing (Not that you're selling anything). By the way, thanks for keeping A.net from looking like a geocities webpage.

Kurt


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...
Need Your Help With A Photo Sale-urgent! posted Tue Nov 29 2005 18:35:39 by Paulianer
I Need Your Help With This Picture! posted Fri Jun 25 2004 14:07:11 by WILCO737
Need Your Help With Strange Badsize Rejection posted Wed Mar 24 2004 21:33:59 by TS
I Need Your Help With This. posted Mon Mar 17 2003 20:32:54 by JFKTOWERFAN
I Need Some Help Here - Rejected Pics posted Fri Jul 12 2002 17:25:13 by Jderden777
Need Help With Rejected Shot. posted Mon Nov 15 2004 10:58:13 by Crank
Need Help With Rejected Photo (badsize) posted Mon Nov 8 2004 23:26:31 by Gust
Need Help With A Couple Pics posted Wed Oct 29 2003 19:19:13 by KC7MMI
Need Help With Camera/Pics... posted Wed Oct 22 2003 01:05:10 by Leezyjet
Help With Rejected Photo, Your Opinion Please posted Sat Jan 18 2003 19:33:10 by Alphazulu