Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Screeners - What Planet Are They On  
User currently offlineHeliOps From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4306 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

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5067 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4257 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
User currently offlineHeliOps From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4252 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.

Heli Ops


User currently offlineChrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2185 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4249 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?

Regards,

Chris


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5578 posts, RR: 63
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4243 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Neville

View the 'About Us' on the front page, find out who the screeners are and search the site for their images.

That will part answer your question.

You are not going to bother linking your rejected pic?.......Doing this will let other see what the screeners 'may' have done wrong.

Regards

Gary Watt
Airliners.net Screener and Photographer

[Edited 2003-06-12 09:39:49]

User currently offlineHeliOps From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4218 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.

Neville
Publisher - Heli Ops & Check Six


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5578 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4196 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Neville

Wishing you well too.

Regards

Gary Watt


User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

Neville,

I've had a look through the queue and I think these are the Hurrican shots you're referring to?


http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=hurri2.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=hurri1.jpg


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.

J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineHeliOps From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4166 times:

It was Hurri4 that was the one I took issue with. Have a look at it, its pin sharp.

Neville


User currently offlineVir380 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4161 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I really like both the images.... however ( with a rejection theres is always a however )  Sad , 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  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

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 .

regards Tony



User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4145 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.

Cool shot, otherwise.

Charles


User currently offlineKingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4126 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?




J



Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5578 posts, RR: 63
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

After looking at both images of Huri4, Jason's rendition has added some 'oomph' to the picture.

A slight tweak of sharpness is all that is required and we would be happy to have it on the DB.

Regards

Gary Watt


User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4114 times:

Neville,

First off, great shots mate! I wish I had your job!  Big thumbs up

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! Big grin

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!  Big thumbs up

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
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4105 times:

Jasons version looks much better now. Unfortunately i cant post the one i have done because of no FTP-access from work :-(
Peter



-
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4100 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  Smile

Cheers,

Colin

BTW - love the shot!





Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineScooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 856 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4097 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...


User currently offlineScooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 856 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4093 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!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4047 times:

Thanks to Jason for providing the webspace here is my version:

Peter



-
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4007 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.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5578 posts, RR: 63
Reply 20, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

Peters interpretation makes the picture look like a composite ....but let's not get into that stuff again  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Cheers

Gary


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 21, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3957 times:

Here's my go at it lol:



User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3947 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.

Joe A.T. TEAM


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 23, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3905 times:

I think its down to the film and the haze on the day, really...

User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 33
Reply 24, posted (11 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3898 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
 Big thumbs up



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 Post contains images Clickhappy : Screeners - What Planet Are They On Uranus
29 Wietse : hahaha royal... perfect! Wietse
30 HeliOps : Guys What size and dpi do you scan your images in at. I am using a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED. Neville
31 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
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...
What About Front Shots? Are They So Bad? posted Wed Feb 14 2001 15:39:56 by Lewis
What's The Shutter Life On EOS 350D? posted Tue Sep 26 2006 17:18:47 by JakTrax
Cabin Shots / Airport Overview, Are They Okay? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 18:34:16 by PipoA380
What Lenses Are Good For The Canon EOS 350D/Rebel posted Thu Feb 9 2006 20:00:06 by Jorge1812
What Airshows Are You Attending This Year? posted Wed Jan 18 2006 18:19:16 by Maiznblu_757
What Lens When Traveling On An Aircraft posted Tue Dec 6 2005 15:15:10 by Columbia107
What Is The Latest On The FRA Observation Deck? posted Sun Oct 2 2005 13:41:25 by F4wso
New Rejection Reasons-where Are They Detailed? posted Wed Aug 17 2005 09:59:48 by UA935
What Gear Are We Using? posted Thu Aug 4 2005 09:05:29 by Eadster
What Exactly Are These? (Photo) posted Thu Jun 16 2005 23:17:52 by Thom@s