HeliOps From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2963 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.
Neville Dawson
Publisher & Chief Photographer
Heli Ops Int & Check Six Magazines
Bruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2914 times:
You could post the link here but I'd suggest to Appeal it to Johan. some rejections are easy to fix up and re submit while others might need Johan to look at it.
bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
HeliOps From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2909 times:
Bruce
Not going to bother. I just want to know what quals the screeners have to have. Are they photographers, editors, what??
I just find it amazing that they reject an image that is 100% pin sharp and well composed and yet they let in some images that there is no way I would even think about approving.
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1770 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2906 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 (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2875 times:
Chris,
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, 616 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2818 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 .
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2802 times:
Neville,
We have all paid our dues, and have had more than a few rejections ourselves to qualify for screeners - occasionally, our own shots still get rejected - it keeps us on our toes.
I took a look at your http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=hurri4.jpg shot. It's really just on the borderline, IMHO. It just needs a little more sharpness. The other two that were posted are a little bit worse, but if you shot on Provia or Velvia, and have a decent scanner, they should be fixable, no problem.
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2783 times:
I've taken the liberty of altering your hurri4 shot to show the sharpness that I think is expected from an a.net shot. Perhaps the screeners can comment?
Manzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 37 Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2771 times:
Neville,
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.
Cheers!
Rez
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, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2757 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
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 837 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2754 times:
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.
That's part of your problem. Scanning for digital viewing is a completely different ballgame.
As Charles wrote above, we've all paid our dues. Take the time to learn the standards of this site - don't give up yet! You've got some nice shots there...
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 837 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2750 times:
er...looks like Colin and I posted at about the same time. Only he said much better what I was trying to get at!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 19, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2664 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: 55 Reply 22, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2604 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.
Manzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 37 Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2555 times:
No offence to Peter and Dan but I prefer the colours in Jason's image myself.
Just my £0.03 worth (adjusted for inflation)
Rez
Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
25 HeliOps: Kingwide - Could you please advise what you did to make this much sharper. Your advice would be appreciated. Neville
26 Jwenting: I must say I prefer Dan's, it's more lifelike. Jason and Peter made it oversaturated, causing the aircraft to look like plastic (and this ain't no Air
27 Kingwide: interesting - all I did was resize and add USM. No colour modifications at all. J
28 Clickhappy: Screeners - What Planet Are They On Uranus
30 HeliOps: Guys What size and dpi do you scan your images in at. I am using a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED. Neville
31 Ckw: Basic steps I use with the same scanner - (I use Vuescan in preference to Nikonscan, but there's not much in it) 1 - Scan at max resolution, 16 bit co
32 Kingwide: Neville, Colin has described pretty much what I'm doing. For your image I used USM with radius 0.3 threshold 1 and amount was about 150% but you shoul
33 EGGD: With that image I found that jaggies started appearing around 90% USM so I left it at 85%. I also fiddled with the colours a bit because there was a l
34 HeliOps: To the Screeners I tried the suggestions from above. Could you have a look at an upload I just did called Spitform and see if it has made any differen
35 Jon01: Colin, Is 'ckwsharpen' compatible with Photoshop 8? I can't get it to work on the latest version. Thanks, Jon
36 HeliOps: I am still at a loss as the image I submitted recently was again rejected saying it wasnt sharp and yet it is just as sharp as the ones above??? The i
37 Kingwide: See what you've done now Colin? You're going to have to support it on every version of Photoshop! Has anybody tried the Macintosh version with Colin's
38 Cfalk: Neville, I checked out Spitform.jpg, and I had to reject it for softness. I'm just curious what screen you are using, because that is a frequent cause
39 Ckw: Sigh That action was written for PS6 on PC ... I've not tried it on anything else, nor do I intend to until I feel a compelling need to upgrade. Anywa
40 EGGD: Colin - I'm pretty sure it works on PS7, but don't quote me on that
41 HeliOps: Charles, That images is miles sharper than a lot of others on this database and yet it gets rejected. I my opinion whoever is setting these standards
42 Cicadajet: Charles wrote: Also, you listed the airline as Jeff Greenwood. I suppose he's the owner, but his name in this case should appear in the remarks. The A
43 An-225: Neville - You do have fantastic images. They will be accepted on here after some minor post-processing. It's your decision not to upload, but I person
44 Lennymuir: Alex: take a look at your own pictures, make necessary changes, and come out a better photographer because of it. Better photographer? Gerry
45 Cfalk: Neville, My basic rule for such borderline situations is "Can I easily improve the image within less than 5 seconds?" I will frequently test this by c
46 An-225: Lennymuir - yes, I meant better photographer. The more you know, the better you are, right? Alex.
47 Kereru: Plese Neville persevere we all go through this stage. From what I've seen so far they are excellent subjects and I'd love to see them on A.net. I was
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 14 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5025 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, 
, 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 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
