HeliOps From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4547 times:
I just had some of my photos looked at by whatever screener was looking at them, and for the life of me, I am dumbfounded. A couple of them I agreed with that were a little soft. But one of the images, an air to air shot of a Hawker Hurricane here in Kiwiland, was pin sharp and even sharper than the one that they already accepted??
Now I want to know what the qualifications are for the screeners as some of the ones they have rejected have been pin sharp and yet they send their Dear John letters.
I have been shooting air to air for ten years now and that includes helicopters, warbirds and military fast jets. I also do a lot of scanning of the images for both of my aviation magazines, so I think I have a fair idea of what is a good quality scan or not. Some of their decisions I have agreed with when looking at the images but a lot of them I have to take issue with.
Now just because a screener likes airliners, does that mean he is going to bin any warbird or helicopter image because he doesnt like the subjects??
I am happy to email the Hurricane image in question to anyone that wants to make up their own mind.
Publisher & Chief Photographer
Heli Ops Int & Check Six Magazines
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2275 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4490 times:
Well Neville, I can assure you that all the screeners are photogs. Myself, I have been shooting aviation for 10 years so I do have experience in the aviation photography field, not to mention news and sports photography experience.
Out of curiosity, did you shoot the Hurricane image with a Hasselblad or other MF camera, or did you shoot it with a large format camera?
HeliOps From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4459 times:
I shoot all my images with a Canon EOS1V and on Velvia or Provia. I also use a Ken Lab Gyro Stab on all helicopter air to air shoots and all others up to a 150 lens otherwise it focuses on the canopy and not the other aircraft.
I dont have a website to upload the images to in order to link them, so am unable to link to them. I am happy to email you the image for you to link to or look at. I also just got a whole bunch bounded back since my last message of ag aircraft working in outback Australia, saying they were low quality and yet they were just as sharp at the Hurricane ones. I give up. There is no point in wasting my time uploading these images when they dump them for no legitimate reason. Heck maybe they dont like ag planes??
Anyway these will be my last uploads as its not worth the efforts to be honest. Wish you guys well.
I'm sure the guys on the forum will be able to provide advice about how to get them up to a.net standards and, from what I have seen of the other rejected shots of yours, they would be nice additions to the site.
Vir380 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4402 times:
I really like both the images.... however ( with a rejection theres is always a however ) , the first pic is cropped incorrectly in my opinion , i would have centralized the image more perhaps and less space around it .. also could do with a touch more sharpening .... Sharper image smaller crop ... id accept it
The second pic... I just love this shot , although like the first image it could do with some sharpening ... i would accept it also with the adjustments.
Maybe resize them to say 1400 rather than the 1530 you have them at now youd be surprised at the difference in viewing
I would advise you not to give up ... please re-upload them , i for for one would love to see these and more of your work on here .
Manzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4355 times:
First off, great shots mate! I wish I had your job!
Whilst I can totally sympathise with your dismay at seeing your shots rejected, don't you think you're over-reacting just a tad?
To be honest I'm astonished at the politeness and the reserve displayed in the responses so far... most people would have had a half dozen angry responses by now!
Might I respectfully suggest an alternative approach from someone of your experience might be more appropriate, namely to post a link to the rejected photo and ask for advice what it would take to get the image to the standards required at this site. They're high, but not impossible! Hell, even I've managed to get 53 images on here!
All the best mate and I hope you don't decide to abandon A.Net after the first knockback.
PS. Great job Jason! I think that's really brought out the picture!
Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 808 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4341 times:
As I've often remarked in the past, rejections here are often not a reflection of photographic skills, but simply an insufficient awareness of the post-processing requirements needed to make A.net.
Neville claims Hurri4 to be "pin sharp" - I have no reason to doubt this is the case with the original, but what we can see on the screen is clearly otherwise.
What I would query is whether this image was prepared specifically for A.net, or is it simply a resize of an image which had been prepared, perhaps, for print? This just won't cut it - a different sharpening model is required. Alternatively, it is possible Neville is using a flat screen - many of these introduce "artificial sharpening", brilliant for text, useless for serious photo work.
Many, many experienced/pro photographers have fallen foul of the fact that preparing material for the web is different. It requires specific knowledge and a certain level of skill with graphics packages. It isn't rocket science by any means, but anyone uploading here will have to accept it as part and parcel of the process, just as more traditional photographers might need to learn darkroom skills. Having had experinece of both chemical and digital processing I would suggest they require similar levels of effort and learning to get quality results - the digital route is just a little less messy, and you get to work with the lights on
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 808 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4248 times:
Sorry Peter, I think Jason's is better - I think you've gone a bit too far ... I can see jaggies on the leading edge. But of course both these were produced from jpgs - quality should be much higher if the same technique were applied to the original file - and they do show how much scope there is for improvement.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4188 times:
is the fact that the ground and the airplane having two different looks the product of post processing you guys are doing? it looks as if the airplane is a real shot and the ground is a painting. interesting.