It's a NWA A319. I don't see many shots of closeups with A319s of NWA here. It received a rejection due to the aircraft not being fully visable. When you zoom in for a closeup, parts of the aircraft will no longer be visible! I thought this shot was pretty good for a 2 mp camera!!!! I also thought that the cool reflections would add. Any suggestions on what to do, or shall I let this one go as well!? I came here because I am puzzled! Thanks for all help that I receive!
LN-ATC From Norway, joined Jul 2001, 62 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3024 times:
To me this photo seems a bit "half close up/half regular". If your intention was to shoot a close up, you should have zoomed even more. You would've get rid of the empty space in front of the plane as well.
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2955 times:
I'm never going to appeal. Johan always rejects them. Plus I don't think Johan is accredited to tell me if my pic is of good quality or not, he's not like Joe who has been taking photos for decades.
Sorry there John- but it still is a private website, owned by Johan like it or not. The appeal function was created as a last resort- its the end of the line of an image unless later on you are somehow able to improve it severely- its the standard itself you are submitting it to- if you follow.
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2951 times:
As for your photo- great idea but it would most likely be accepted a lot easier if you zoomed out to include the tail- or zoomed in to half the engines.. I can show you what I mean by manipulating it in PS if you want.
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5476 posts, RR: 21 Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2947 times:
That's how it showed straight from the camera. I zoomed in to show upclose of the fuselage. I know, I'll continue to not appeal, I don't care if Johan doesn't like my pics, I still don't think he's accredited to, if he took photos for decades then I could see. I've had pics rejected, I bothered not to appeal but to simply put them back in the queue, and they were accepted! Thanks for the help Serge!
Fallingeese From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2097 posts, RR: 20 Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2935 times:
I have to agree with Serge here.
In my personal preference, I wouldn't accept it. It just doesn't seem right without the tail section. If it was cropped closer to just include the engines, it would be fine, but it seems just to be confused between the both ideas.
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 18, posted (9 years 11 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2875 times:
Strictly speaking you shouldn't re-upload unchanged photographs at all. One uploader in the past has been temporarily banned from uploading to the site because of consistent re-uploads of unimproved images.
Whilst I understand that you are simply trying to exploit some of the consistency problems inherent in the screening process, be advised that we have introduced new mechanisms into the process specifically aimed at catching this kind of re-upload approach.
If you don't like the decision, appeal. If you don't think Johan will let the shot in on appeal then, with respect, you probably shouldn't be uploading it in the first place.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (9 years 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2767 times:
Now Johan rejected the appeal as low quality. These people on this site are nutcases.....
No they're not. Leaving aside the cropping issue which I will admit can be immotive, Johan's assessment is fair in my opinion... It falls into the "badscan" category - OK, so it may be digital, but non the less there's too much noise in the solid color areas, especially the grey. Without seeing the original, I have no idea whether the problem can be solved.
Timdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 67 Reply 24, posted (9 years 11 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2761 times:
While I think the photo is quite nice, I think you should give it a rest.
There's no need to go crazy and call people names just to get a picture on here........
You like the picture, that is all that matters! Upload to another site if you desperately want other people to see it.
25 EGFF: "Ok, whatever. I'm going to keep uploading it until it gets in. It's better than some of the crap I see here." "Now Johan rejected the appeal as low q
26 Captainmatt: MY opinion probably isn't worth much to any of you... However, John I like your photos. And this photo to me is sweet. As a regular Joe, that apprecia
27 Continental: Thank you very much Matt! That was kind! I just really wish my pic was in this database for everyone to see! co
28 Sonic99: If the quality of the photo is bad (with parts of the aircraft missing) although it's a perfectly great photo then what is the REAL reason behind the
29 Cicadajet: Joe's shots are entirely different. There's a better balance to the subject, while still providing dynamic visual tension that conveys size and power.
30 Ckw: I think what's being forgotten is that Co's shot also has significant colour noise. Cheers, Colin
31 Continental: Keep in mind Colin, I don't have $8000 like you do to spend on a camera. It seems that only people with nice cameras get photos on here. co
32 Ckw: The reason I've got money to spend on new equipment is from money earned shooting on camera equipment, which, looking at your profile, is older than y
33 Craigy: I like your shot a lot, and the reflections really make it good. The only thing I can see against it is the digital noise, especially on the grey part
34 Continental: I always shoot with ISO 100. Colin, I just got a little pissed because I thought that was my best shot ever with my 2 mp camera. co
35 Ckw: Yeah, I understand that feeling - I've had favorite shots dumped as well. But A.net is not the be all and end all ... like any publication, it has par
36 C-GRYK: Grow up Continental! Your attitude disgusts me... you seem to think it's a right of yours to have your photos added to the database. You seem to be th
37 Continental: First off, calm down buddy. I discarded this photo like last week. I have every right to say what I want, so I am, and I did, and I do NOT regret it o
38 Glennstewart: Hi Continental, I've just seen this post, and have only recently started to post anyway. I'm a new screener and finding it harder than I thought I wou
39 Continental: Thank you Glenn, that cleared everything! That's basically what I wanted to hear. Now I know to include the entire fuselage in the future. Damn, that
40 Glennstewart: Continental, You're right. Fantastic shot of the Airbus with reflections, but nipping that tail end nipped your chances of uploading it in the butt. I
41 Continental: Ok cool! But you have to admit, it was a pretty good shot for a new photographer shooting with a C700 2mp camera! co