Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Richard Silagi's Photos Removed From Airliners Db  
User currently offlineLindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3120 posts, RR: 13
Posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5039 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I noticed this morning that all of Richard Silagi's photos have been removed from the database. I assume he asked to have them removed since he has been a critic of the screening process for some time. Maybe he caused offense in some respect and the decision to remove his photos was made by the administrator. How it happened doesn't really concern me. It's just a shame that hundreds of great airliner photos from California in the late 1970s & 1980s are now gone from the database.

Maybe some of you photographers reading this post could make an effort in the next few weeks to dig through your collections and upload photos from SFO, SJC, LAX, etc. from the 1970s through 1990s to fill the void that's been created. Richard's photos included quite a few of PSA, Hughes Airwest, Western Airlines, etc. It would be great if they could be "replaced," so to speak.

The last time I was so disappointed was when Scott Leazenby's photos disappeared. What a drag!

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAn-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 40
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4876 times:

I think it's a shame that that had to happen...  Sad

Alex.



Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
User currently offlineLGB Photos From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4832 times:

Richard is fed up with this site and asked Johan to remove them. If you want to see his old stuff from SFO and the Bay Area, come over to http://www.jetphotos.net

Stephen


User currently offlineLindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3120 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4810 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, he must have been pretty fed up to dash away the hours of his life he spent scanning and uploading those photos. I wonder if he really feels better now... Seems like a rather pointless gesture to me.

User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4799 times:

Well, you don't lose the time you spend scanning unless you have deleted the files. Reuploading takes time, but I have uploaded a number of shots to the Railroad section of that other site with much quicker uploads than here. I suspect my distance from A.net and its popularity are the reason it can seem to be pretty slow at my end, even though now I have DSL line.

I have never talked to Richard about this situation, but it may not be a pointless gesture and it may have nothing to do with feeling better in the short term. Perhaps he decided to realign his efforts to a site or sites that he feels will be of greater benefit to him in the long run.

Whatever is behind it, I understand your feeling of loss.

tomh


User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

We have had this discussion a number of times on this forum.

Many people, not just Richard, are moving away to other sites because of the non-standard rejections on this site. Unfortunately, there is no way that I know of to bring true objectivity to the screening standards.

Many think that if you shoot digital you get accepted more, many think that if you are European you get accepted more, I don't know what it is, but my rejection level certainly has gone so high that I don't upload here anymore either.

I shoot professional Canon equipment, with the L lenses, yet get rejected for a bad scan and I use an HP Slide Scanner with Adobe Photoshop 7.0 software. I would think that if I have problems making a good scan, I don't know how the others even get accepted...............

My personal opinion is that either Johan and his merry band of screeners are going to have to loosen up the screening levels or many others will take their photos elsewhere also.............and I hate to see Richard's collection go away.

Jay


User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4598 times:

I wish more consideration was given to the concerns of the users.





ADG


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5057 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4571 times:

I think a lot has to do with digital versus film. From my own experience, I could not get a single photo uploaded when scanning from prints back about one year ago using a current model consumer print scanner. Not one. But I'm approaching the 1 yr anniversary of my D30 and it has gotten much easier. Even comparing the past 12 months, I had more rejects in the beginning than now. My last shoot from the South Parking Deck at ATL was last June, and my shots from last week are better overall than those from last June. I managed to even amaze myself with a shot of a Turboprop that I did at 1/60 handheld and it is sharp as a tack (except for the spinning blades, the whole point of the shot!) and I know that'll be a first-try add when I get to sending it.

Point is, digital makes a huge difference in photos viewed on a hi-res computer monitor versus film. (a computer monitor is higher res than a good tv set even) Jay, you've got some great gear but: a computer is a digital device. When you take something (image, video, audio, whatever) in the digital realm straight from the original source to the output source its always going to be better in some way and/or more forgiving to manipulate. And technique adds to that. Things like color, sharpening, etc. It maybe possible for some to succeed especially if the motiv of the shot outweighs the scan however I'm not telling anyone shooting film to just give up - it's not you. Its the nature of the scan process.

Sorry, I'm biased - totally sold on digital quality.

b



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4560 times:

If it ain't K64 it isn't a photo.



IMHO

The question is for Johan, and it has been asked in the past, Does he want this to be a site that is home for a few that brag about their $4000 worth of camera gear.

Or....

Does he want this site to be a forum where just about everybody, at various skill levels can post his/her work and be proud of it.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5057 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4553 times:

Sorry, one does not need $4000 worth of gear.

go here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2927060281&category=30020


b



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

One doesn't even need a DSLR, my Song 757 shot (FQ, from slightly above taken at the gate..not going to post it here so people don't think I'm trying to get cheap hits  Smile) was taken with my 2.1MP super-compact digital Minolta which ran about $300 when I got it.

Mike


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4545 times:

Mike wrote in
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/88373/
Mike
Still sticking to strictly slides....

So your Minolta 2.1 MP does produce slides also and this for around 300 USD
 Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Forget Nikon, Canon and whatever else and go for Minolta  Big thumbs up

Peter



-
User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

Mike

You hit the nail on the head!! One does not need a DSLR. There are other cameras out there that will come close to these DSLR's. And remember its who is behind the camera that count's.

Dont worry about cheap hits... This is not GAME. Its a photographic forum where we share help, comment and review. So i posted the shot for you.

Look Everyone!!!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael F. McLaughlin


This is Mike's photo and it shows you don't need a DSLR!!

Colin


User currently offlineKLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4533 times:

Many think that if you shoot digital you get accepted more,

Canon AE-1...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johan Ljungdahl
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Johan Ljungdahl



Fujichrome Velvia Slides...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



Fuji Reala print film...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jorgos Tsambikakis



Kodachrome 64/25...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Kudryn
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rob Rindt - SPOT THIS!



Of course, digital (D60/D100) will make it alot easier quality wise when looking on the screen, but if you have a good scanner and take the right processing steps, you can get loads of shots accepted shooting slides...Johan L. has taught us all that  Big grin

I shoot with an entry level digital camera and I get rejections alot of the time, probably a 30-50% rate.

-CLovis






User currently offlineLjungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 907 posts, RR: 36
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4514 times:

Clovis,

Thank's for the plugs, and you're totally correct mentioning that it's fully possible to get loads of shots accepted shooting slides... Big grin

Using the (very) old Canon AE-1, and a slide scanner, my average A.net acceptance rate exceeds 95%, so everybody mentioning that's all is 'bout the equipment, hasn't realized that part of the real world.

I've said it before, now I'm saying it again, what counts in the end is your skill, and practice, practice, practice and maybe a little bit more of...

...practice...  Big grin

Johan (Ljungdahl)



User currently offlineKLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4504 times:

Welcome Johan, but I'm sure you get enough hits on your own...  Big grin
I've seen my rejection rate go down since I've started. I'm just getting the hang of things, being able to spot something wrong with a photo quicker, knowing what is and what is not A.net material...etc... It takes time, but it is very rewarding when you take a look at some of your own stuff from awhile back and compare it with what you upload today and go "Wow, my stuff looks alot better now!"

-Clovis


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4497 times:

Getting stuff accepted depends on a number of things, good equipiment increases the odds. But not always.

Nikon EM 75-150E (Total cost $200)
Fuji Provia or Velvia (not sure which)
Scanned with Nikon LS-2000


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Shawn Clark



Nikon E775 ($400 digital)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Shawn Clark




At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4465 times:

L-188 said: The question is for Johan, and it has been asked in the past, Does he want this to be a site that is home for a few that brag about their $4000 worth of camera gear. Or.... Does he want this site to be a forum where just about everybody, at various skill levels can post his/her work and be proud of it.

No, Johan wants the site to be a home for QUALITY photography, not just any old stuff justified on the basis of not having access to kit, whatever that kit may be. Mike (above) and Sam Chui in this topic

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/88576/

prove that digital isn't the be all and end all of this site and that with the right approach and a preparedness to get things right film produces at least as good a result, if not better.

In the past, we had a number of photographers who could not or would not move on - they weren't prepared or couldn't evolve and improve their technique along with the majority. Whatever else happens, some people are getting better at this game all the time, and it is they who as a side effect raise the bar. However, it isn't the kit that matters, its how you use it and whether you are prepared to go out there and try to improve what you do.

Andy


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4429 times:

Having a 2000$ scanner isn't going to help you much if you don't know how to use it properly. Same with an expensive camera, the slide might look great, but if you suck at scanning, the end result will suck too.

Staffan


User currently offlineMDL_777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 267 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4384 times:

"It maybe possible for some to succeed especially if the motiv of the shot outweighs the scan however I'm not telling anyone shooting film to just give up - it's not you. Its the nature of the scan process.

Sorry, I'm biased - totally sold on digital quality."


Sorry, Bruce, with all due respect, I don't buy it. The reason I don't is that my acceptance rate has increased after I purchased my new film camera. Digital quality is good, but you can still get excellent results with scanned slides, as others have already noted.

Michael Licko



User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4357 times:

Having a 2000$ scanner isn't going to help you much if you don't know how to use it properly

Seen plenty of evidence to suggest this equally applies to DSLRs!

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4351 times:

Yep, same with DSLR's. What I had in mind were experienced photographers with high-end equipment, who take great photos, but obviously don't know how to scan them properly. Then they whine about the high standards here, sure the photos are nice, too bad they don't know how to scan them with their expensive scanners.

Staffan



User currently offlineEricBelgium From Belgium, joined Mar 2003, 77 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4317 times:

Hellow,

May I kindly plug some pictures from my collection, ALL taken with a $100 old manual Praktica camera.... Innocent
And, as I stated somewhere before, my lenses were in the range of $40 to $150....

For a scanner I use the Minolta dual III, $200.

Strangely enough my newer slides get easier rejected ( kodak ectachrome 100 ). Old fuji and kodakslides does look indeed better when scanned with the same principals.

greetz, Eric


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Coeckelberghs




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Coeckelberghs




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Coeckelberghs



User currently offlineJayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4268 times:

Okay, so here is a question.

If it isn't a question of film versus digital and many people say it is a question of the process of scanning, lets get some scanning tips.

I have an HP PhotoSmart Slide Scanner and I've been getting PLENTY of rejection notices from this site. So many in fact, that I've quit uploading to this site. I basically said to myself, "To hell with A.net, I'll upload my slides somewhere else" !!

I also want to emphasize what I am NOT saying. I am not saying that I am a great photographer, never have, never will. Yet I think I am good enough to upload shots on this site and get them accepted, but all of a sudden I just started getting tons and tons of rejections. Yes, in the past, I also received rejections, but I also had shots accepted too; which is why I kept uploading. Yes, I'd like "all my shots" accepted, but I know that isn't going to happen, especially since Joe Pries even gets rejected at times. Which makes me believe, "There is a God" !! ha ha, just a joke and slight jab at my good friend Joe!

But I would really appreciate any tips and/or hints to making my scanning process a higher quality. I shoot only slide film and use professional Canon equipment, so I must be doing something wrong in the scanning process. Heck, I even e-mailed Richard Silagi about a year ago and asked him for scanning tips. I had been following his instructions more or less to a "T", yet I started to get rejections after the "digital" flood-gates opened.

I am NOT going to buy a $300 to $700 digital camera just to shoot digital. I've got my eye on the digital camera I want. I'm only about $7000.00 short of cash to purchase it. Hopefully, it will come down in price in a year or two, when Canon then announces the newest, "latest and greatest".

So in the spirit of helpfulness on this forum, lets here some scanning tips for making my slides "worthy" of acceptance to this site.

As I said, I have an HP PhotoSmart Slide Scanner..............

Send me your tips..............


Jay








User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4237 times:

OK Jay, I used to have a Photosmart, and have shots here scanned using it.

Lesson number one is that the HP software is, frankly, rubbish - ok, it can capture a scan but that's about it. HP designed this scanner to include in their PCs so people could email snapshots to each other - the software was designed for ease of use, not scanning accuracy. HP created a very good bit of hardware, then crippled it with crap software. That's the bad news. The good news is that the "hidden" strengths of the HP can be accessed with 3rd party software - this is why the famous Vuescan software was created.

I haven't checked the site recently (www.hammrick.com) but I believe this will cost you $40 - also make sure the Photosmart is still being supported.

Lesson 2. The object of a scan is not to produce a finished image, but to extract as much data (as wide a dynamic range and colour data) as possible from the source. It doesn't matter if the colour is not exactly right at this stage, or if it looks a bit dark - all that matters is that you have got the true black and white points captured.

Making the image look right is lesson 3, and for this you need Photoshop, Photoelements, GIMP (free) or similar. No scanning software in the world (including the hideously expensive SilverFast) can match Photoshop for adjusting images provided you give it good source data to start with (see Lesson 2).

To use Photoshop well you need to learn and understand only 3 controls. Levels, curves and USM sharpening.

If this is all familiar stuff to you, I apologise - I'm just not sure what you're doing now. If some of this is new to you, be prepared to spend a bit of time learning how to process images - the HP software does not let you do this - its a toy which prevents you make a complete hash of the scan, but also stops you from realising the scanners full potential. There are no short cuts to quality, you will have to learn the proper tools.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
25 Staffan : Ok, I use a Minolta Scan Dual II with VueScan and here's what I do! First of all, the slide has to be top notch, or I don't bother scanning it. In Vue
26 JayDavis : Okay, I've got lots of questions for you both. I have Photoshop 7.0, so I guess I don't have to worry about the HP crap software that came with it. Wh
27 Post contains links Staffan : I don't use XP or the Photosmart so I can't help you there, anyway, here are a few links that might help: Curves - http://www.scantips.com/curve.html
28 Sdjminton : Jay, Check the HP website for updated drivers. It may be a zip file that you have to extract. If so, extract this to a folder on your desktop. Then go
29 Post contains links JayDavis : Thanks for the tips Staffan. Here is the link to that software I was mentioning earlier. http://www.mecc.co.jp/lenik/psmart.htm Pretty good program, i
30 Sdjminton : Ahhh, its a SCSI interface scanner. If you can shoot me the model number then I may be able to dig a driver up for ya. Steve.
31 Ckw : OK, AFAIK there are no XP drivers for the Photosmart, but Windows NT drivers should work fine (though you'll probably get the "unauthenticated softwar
32 JayDavis : Colin, I already have the license for VuePrint, so that will be good. You are exactly right. Ed is extremely helpful! I might give him a shout. I have
33 Tomh : Jay, I'm not sure how this thread went from you claiming bias on A.net and that it was going all digital to finally admitting that your scanner wasn't
34 Post contains images Mikephotos : Peter wrote: So your Minolta 2.1 MP does produce slides also and this for around 300 USD. Forget Nikon, Canon and whatever else and go for Minolta Don
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...
Photos Dissapeared From Que. posted Sun Oct 8 2006 23:22:47 by Pauara
Pictures From Airliners.net At This Site. posted Wed Aug 17 2005 23:12:08 by Nlspot2004
How To Link Photos Hosted At Airliners.net posted Thu Jul 21 2005 08:11:32 by Mfz
Photos Scanned From Negatives? posted Fri Mar 7 2003 13:46:02 by Pe@rson
Scanning Photos Straight From The Negatives posted Mon Sep 10 2001 15:58:28 by Airbus380
Why No Photos From Johan Lundgren? posted Wed Oct 4 2006 06:38:06 by AndrewUber
1,000 Photos From Melbourne's Best! posted Tue Sep 5 2006 02:53:13 by Sydneybuses
Why Not More Air-to-Air Photos From ZRH? posted Mon Jun 26 2006 21:27:09 by TS
Airliners.net Photos On Wikipedia posted Mon Mar 13 2006 05:36:21 by Hawaiian717
Photos Opinion Pls From Screeners/photographers posted Sun Mar 12 2006 16:57:06 by AirMalta