Apuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3030 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4053 times:
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?
Sabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4010 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
4) don't know? Maybe too dark?
5) maybe not sharp enough? I would give it an additional kick of sharpness...
Gerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 33 Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3983 times:
OK, after 2 posts (thanks for the flowers, Frederic ), 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:
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3953 times:
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.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 15 Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3947 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.
ANA777master From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 126 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3589 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
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3515 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.
Tsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 16 Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3510 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
Of cos there are other sites out there that might be more forgiving.
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5557 posts, RR: 65 Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3504 times:
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
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3502 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.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3481 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.
ANA777master From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 126 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3446 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.