Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bad Quality?  
User currently offlineSonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2182 times:

I'm not a new photographer to A.net as I have been contributing photos to the database for over 2 years - having 225 photos here at A.net. Although I haven't contributed any new material for some time, a recent trip has spurred renewed interest in airline photography. My photography and scanning techniques have not changed as I've been photographing other subjects and submitting these to photo banks (used in reviews, magazines, newspapers worldwide).

In submitting these photos I did so with a certainty these would be accepted. Quite surprisingly, not one made it! These photos show different examples of aircraft (quite similar to those I have submitted in the past). The reason for rejection was either "badmotiv" or "low quality". Noticing similar "quality" photos in the database made by digital cameras leads me to believe that regular SLR + slide shots just won't cut it here anymore - which is frustrating and leaves me quite disappointed with the screening process and decision making.

Regardless, I would like your opinion on these photos:

Photos taken at dusk (lighting is quite tricky)
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=ur-vvf-2_180603.jpg
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=f-gnii-2_180603.jpg

Different angle shot (appealed and rejected again):
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=APPEAL_c-gtsz_140603.jpg

Regards,
Stephan

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePRM From Burkina Faso, joined Apr 2002, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

I think you may have more success if you resize them down to 1024x pixels and work from there.

Paul


User currently offlineSonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2093 times:


I usually do submit 1024x??? size photos, except for these three examples - seems doubtful that would influence the reasoning for rejection however.


User currently offlineSonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2009 times:


Can anyone offer suggestions for the rejections? Are those really bad photos?  Sad


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

The first 2 are just bad asthetics anyway, I think you can forget them as far as A.net is concerned, the angles just don't work.

The third, its still not a great angle, i'd say its borderline. I think the problem is you haven't corrected the colours either, there's a really bad red tint and they aren't contrasty enough. Correct that in photoshop and you may have a chance, it is sharp enough.



User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2005 times:

OK, well, first PRM gave you some advice... I think you may have more success if you resize them down to 1024x pixels and work from there

Which you then immediately discounted without debate with... I usually do submit 1024x??? size photos, except for these three examples - seems doubtful that would influence the reasoning for rejection however.

Strange that you got rejections having, by your own admission, just upsized from 1024... You asked for advice, so listen to what PRM said as he may not be too far wide of the mark in some respects - smaller sizes generally make things easier.

That having been said, the first picture of the tails is soft... For rows of tails like that, the whole picture needs to be sharp (not just the nearest tail) and it isn't. Maybe more careful unsharp will sort it, maybe it won't...

The Air France has a dodgy tail... With ass-end-on shot, the ass-end has to be just so, and it isn't. Probably no salvation there.

And the Air Transat isn't all that bad, but that fence is soooo intrusive so maybe not recoverable. The whole picture is slightly off-angle too - a bit of rotation may help but the fence probably still precludes it.

Andy


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2007 times:

I remember you for all those awesome Air Canada Takeoff Shots at YUL.
The bad thing about giving yourself a break for a long period of time is that your post processing skills begin to fall apart and it is evident from your examples.

There seems to be a bit of hazy sort of coating over the three photos you have posted. That backs up what Daniel had said about the red tint.
The first and second one aren't the best for general appeal.
The third one is okay, but I think the fence may knock off some points.

I would suggest that for a short period of time, upload some regular side on shots or 3/4 front shots as those type of shots are easier to wring out the quality and public appeal thus making your acceptance chances rise. I'm sure you got some of those kinds of shots while you were at YYZ.

Good Luck



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

With ass-end-on shot, the ass-end has to be just so, and it isn't. Probably no salvation there.

Haha! I couldn't agree more. Well Said Andy!  Big thumbs up



Chance favors the prepared mind.
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1983 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I would also add that C-GTSZ is a pretty common subject, might take a real looker to get in the db these days.

User currently offlineSonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

That having been said, the first picture of the tails is soft... For rows of tails like that, the whole picture needs to be sharp (not just the nearest tail) and it isn't. Maybe more careful unsharp will sort it, maybe it won't...

hmmm, rather difficult to do at dusk - not much light on those aircraft, especially when all others but the first two were in the shade with quite low light (I took the photo around 8:00pm) - sun sets around 8:15 this part of the world...

 
 
The Air France has a dodgy tail... With ass-end-on shot, the ass-end has to be just so, and it isn't. Probably no salvation there.

Hmm... but my intention was to show the length of the aircraft and still give a back angled view.. Want an ass shot? I got one all right - dead on (well rear) of the same aircraft. Also for those saying it's pink or reddish is because it's dusk ... sunset (btw, I refuse and won't make the plane all white in Photoshop when it's orangy/pink on the original slide).

Thanks for the comments though, much appreciated. Not to worry Boeing, I'll get my sharpening skills back up to A.net par. It's kind of weird though as I've been photographing other subjects for mags and stuff during my "sabbatical" from A.net and never had anyone say peep about soft photos.

cheers!


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1970 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I've been photographing other subjects for mags and stuff

But, you send those places either a raw scan or a slide, correct? All the photos I have sold to publications have been with little or no post-processing, so it is really up to them to decide how much to sharpen, color correct, and clean up an image.

I also have to comment on your attitude! You come in here spouting credentials, but all I see are three unmotivated shots. So what if they were taken at dusk? While you may have achieved a (somewhat) sharp photo under tricky light conditions, your shots lack imagination.

Most people are willing to overlook small flaws on an interesting subject, but they won't enjoy a boring subject just because the lighting was tricky.


User currently offlineSonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1876 times:


Hey Click ...

Spouting my credentials was not my intention there. Very simply I wished to state right off the bat that I'm no newbie to airline photography and that was neither meant as an excuse to get my photos fast-tracked nor a reason that anything I submit in the future must be accepted without pouting. As for motivation, I'd kindly state that you shouldn't lecture anyone here on motivation. Any person who attempts airline photography, among other subjects, has the motivation to achieve good quality photography of subjects they deem interesting/important. So please, tone down the harsh words. Regardless, "interesting" and "motivated" are quite subjective to the person photographing and person viewing, wouldn't you say?

Thanks for the comments though.

Stephan


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1877 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Regardless, "interesting" and "motivated" are quite subjective

apparently so!


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Stephan,

I agree with Royal, those shots just don't have any "zip" to make them special. That is from my subjective point of view. I would give up on them and move on...

v/r
Jeff


User currently offlineBO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

Keep trying and eventually your efforts to improvements will pay off for 2003 standards.
Although its possible to have such shots like the 3 examples added, it is at most times difficult unless for special reasons or other significant factor about the aircraft.

Jeff, you said "zip" in your last post. What do you mean by zip? You mean this Zip?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bo Kim


or this Zip? Big grin

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark McWhirter



Both of these Zip's are special. Because at the end of the year chances are this airline will probably cease to exist.  Laugh out loud



Chance favors the prepared mind.
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...
Bad Quality? posted Tue Mar 27 2007 16:05:37 by Nbseer
Are This Pictures Really Bad Quality? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 04:27:29 by XAAPB
Bad Quality Or Not .......? posted Thu Aug 17 2006 18:41:06 by Avro85
Bad Quality/common Rejection, Need Help posted Fri May 12 2006 00:23:05 by A388
Rejection - Bad Quality, Can It Be Saved posted Wed May 10 2006 02:34:17 by Aviamil
Will You Accept If This Is Bad Quality And Color? posted Fri Apr 28 2006 14:43:41 by VasanthD
Can Someone Tell Me Why This Is Bad Quality? posted Mon Apr 24 2006 21:59:34 by AIRBUSRIDER
Rejection For Bad Quality posted Sun Apr 23 2006 12:48:02 by A388
Screeners Help On Bad Quality posted Fri Apr 14 2006 14:06:57 by NIKV69
Bad Quality As Usual posted Sat Feb 11 2006 00:52:24 by ANITIX87