Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3118 posts, RR: 14 Posted (11 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5032 times:
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!
Lindy field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3118 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4803 times:
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.
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4792 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.
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4646 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.
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4564 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.
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4543 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 ) was taken with my 2.1MP super-compact digital Minolta which ran about $300 when I got it.
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
I shoot with an entry level digital camera and I get rejections alot of the time, probably a 30-50% rate.
Ljungdahl From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 907 posts, RR: 36
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4507 times:
Thank's for the plugs, and you're totally correct mentioning that it's fully possible to get loads of shots accepted shooting slides...
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...
KLAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4497 times:
Welcome Johan, but I'm sure you get enough hits on your own...
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!"
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4458 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 $4000 worth of camera gear. Or.... Does he want this site to be a forum where just about everybody, at various skill levels can post his/her work and be proud of it.
No, Johan wants the site to be a home for QUALITY photography, not just any old stuff justified on the basis of not having access to kit, whatever that kit may be. Mike (above) and Sam Chui in this topic
prove that digital isn't the be all and end all of this site and that with the right approach and a preparedness to get things right film produces at least as good a result, if not better.
In the past, we had a number of photographers who could not or would not move on - they weren't prepared or couldn't evolve and improve their technique along with the majority. Whatever else happens, some people are getting better at this game all the time, and it is they who as a side effect raise the bar. However, it isn't the kit that matters, its how you use it and whether you are prepared to go out there and try to improve what you do.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4422 times:
Having a 2000$ 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.
MDL_777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 267 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4377 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.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4344 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.
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 16
Reply 23, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4261 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..............
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 732 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (11 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4230 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.
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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.
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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