PUnmuth@VIE
Topic Author
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 3:49 am

Hi all!
Before I upload them I would please like to hear some comments (Any screeners out there with some spare time Big grin ) If they would even have a chance to reach Johan or much better to be accepted. The files are between 400 and 800 kB and I have to admit they are very extreme because it was already dark when i tried those and the cam was set to ISO 400, 800 and 1600.
Number 1
Number 2
Number 3
Number 4
Number 5
Number 6

So come on let the comments come, so that I know which ones I should try to upload and which not. I already have a feeling about the number which I should may be try ...
Thanks in advance
Peter

-
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:01 am

Number 1 is only 512x768.
"The photos must be bigger than 800x600 pixels and of high quality."

The rest, especially # 4, are too grainy. I don't think there is much chance they will get past the screeners.

BTW, I love the title of this post.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
PUnmuth@VIE
Topic Author
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:07 am

About No. 1: In the last time i make all my portrait format pictures in this size becaues I had problemes with other sizes many times.
Peter
-
 
chris28_17
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2000 4:26 am

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:10 am

Number 1 is only 512x768.
"The photos must be bigger than 800x600 pixels and of high quality."




ahh but no larger than 1024x768...

#1 is fine, note the width (768)



just thought i'd mention that

CHRIS



 
KingWide
Posts: 698
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 7:30 am

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:19 am

Grain definitely an issue but then you expect that at 1600 ISO.

1: Interesting composition but I think you'll get binned for being too small. Maybe if the plane was at the top of the frame?

2: Neat idea but I think it falls in between, 'deliberate slow shutter to emphasise real speed' and 'sharp'. I suspect it'll get dumped.

3: OK, not really special enough to justify the high ISO and attendant grain and lack of sharpness.

4: Way too much grain and flare.

5: I like this. The grain's OK given the high ASA, the flare is nice and the tail is nicely lit up, it's pretty sharp too. [I might just have to go to LHR in the dark and have a go at this  Big grin]

6: Too much grain and flare.


I reckon 5 is by far your best bet here. I think they might have worked better if it had actually been darker so you're getting less of a cold blue sort of tone. Also, if you'd had something in the background you could have set some low shutter speeds, kept the ISO down for the grain and produced some really FAST  Wow! looking shots.


J
Jason Taperell - AirTeamImages
 
AviationIvi
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2001 2:49 am

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:43 am

Hi Peter,
I like this kind of photography but I guess they would be rejected due to too much grain.
But keep on trying!

Regards
Ivi
by the way: I would remove the 747 logo. It sucks!
 
Guest

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:19 am

Hi Peter,

Sorry, but the logo has to go. Please note the rejection reason Johan wrote for "Copyright". This is the text you would recieve if you send these in:

$badcopyright_text = "
Please do not add any text or graphics to your photos. A small copyright notice (your name & e-mail) in a corner is recommended but remove any other text or graphics from your photos (Including URLs). You will find
more info in the Upload-FAQ. When done, please re-upload them.";

About the pictures - nice tries, but pictures such as these will really have to be pin sharp before Johan would accept them.

S2
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:27 am

When I looked at the first photo I thought: "Hey nice composition with that 747 flying far away!"

but one second later I realized it was the logo. It kills the photos.

Luis
 
PUnmuth@VIE
Topic Author
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:44 am

As this seems to become a discussion about the logo I would like to point out that there are several photographers in here which have logos on their pics, and I think at least one of them is a screener too. So same rules for all or not??  Angry
This was not meant to be a how do you like my logo thread. I like it some like it not so thats different taste. ok. but no need to point it out in every discussion.  Sad On the other hand i wrote critisize me so thats ok.
So i learned my stuff and would like to thank for the few construvtice comments and wont save storage on the server and screeners time any more and just upload them in the future without asking for opinions before.

Peter
-
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 6:11 am

Since you ask so many times for comments on your photos, you should be prepared to receive sincere opinions.

Luis
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 6:27 am

A lot of the photos that have logos are older. @ one time, I don't think Johan had any rules again logos.
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
Dazed767
Posts: 4967
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:55 am

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 7:43 am

I think 3 had the best shot, if mr. grainy screens them, he'll probably reject them for grain.
 
Guest

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 9:38 am

Playing with ISO settings on dig cams can really get you into trouble. I do understand though that sometimes it's required, if you don't trust the Auto-ISO setting.

#1 Just a so-so shot. Why did you shoot it vertically?

#2 I like this shot, with landing lights ablaze and cabin lighting visible through the windows.

#3 Now we are starting to see some digital noise, especially on the lower fuselage.

#4 No Way Jose! The noise in sky is simply unacceptable.

#5 See #2.

#6 Very 'noisy'!

Peter, try to find a place that isn't foggy most of the time!  Big grin

...just some comments from a battered Screener.
 
Guest

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 11:00 pm

Hi Peter,

As you see, a bunch of your pics have been uploaded in spite of the logo. This was done by the screeners, and basically means that although the logo really shouldn't be there, the pics were otherwise excellent, and considering that you uploaded a very large amount of pics, it was OK to let them through this time, but ask that you go back to your old copyright message you used to use, or something similar.

Please note that it is possible (I hope not) that Johan may fell that we screeners overstepped our bounds on this, and may do some "corrective action".

Regards,

S2
 
Granite
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 11:52 pm

Hi Peter

I take it you mean my logo?

To be honest, your plane logo sticks out like a sore thumb.

Why not just have the wording and do away with the airplane??

Sorry to say this but it distracts me from your photo work.

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland
Screener with logo Big grin
 
Granite
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Sun Nov 25, 2001 11:58 pm

Hi all

I disagree with Charles. The photograher has the right to add a logo if he/she wants.

In a way it helps (only a little) from people using the image when they are not supposed to.

I started adding a logo after seeing Pixair's pictures. The logo adds a bit of professionalism to the picture. i think so anyway.

Johan told me once before, it is OK to add a logo if:

1. It does not show a URL
2. The logo is not clearly shown on the thumbnail.

OK....apart from the logo, Peter, your pictures are a little grainy.

Constructive criticism is the name of the game. Carry on with your pictures as you do take good shots.

Regards

Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland
 
da Fwog
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 1999 5:25 am

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Mon Nov 26, 2001 1:13 am

I think there are logos and logos. The ones that work are the semi-transparent type, not too large, that don't distract. The particular problem with Peter's logo is that it is airplane-shaped - and there's nothing MORE likely to distract (unless you maybe have a naked-woman shaped logo!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy)

I think Gary's logo looks professional, but it's a little too large for my liking - I prefer to see something rather more understated. The same logo, maybe just 75% of the size would work for me. (Good God - have we really descended into a discussion on the aesthetics of logos?)

I've thought of designing something small and professional looking for a while - but in the end, I never got around to it. And I don't really need it to be honest. Maybe it would make my photos look more professional.... but I'd rather my photos spoke for themselves at the end of the day.
 
PUnmuth@VIE
Topic Author
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Mon Nov 26, 2001 1:28 am

Hi!
THX for the comments. But i didnt call anybodys name did I? Big grin (No offenese intended)
I appreciate the construvtice criticism (very well said Gary THX very much) very much but i am glad that i didnt respond yesterday to some of the comments (it sucks is not very constructive). Lets say tastes are (thankfully) different and thats it. Variety is the spice of life isnt it??
So lets close the logo chapter.
And for posting pictures and asking comments isnt this what this forum is meant for? IMHO its better to post them first and ask then to upload them anyway and waste server storage space and screeners time and waiting time for all the others who want their pictures added.
Thanks very much again.
Peter

-
 
Guest

RE: Critisize Me Please...

Mon Nov 26, 2001 1:38 am

Hi Peter,

If anyone thought that it was a waste of time, they would not be posting. Gary is right - I forgot that Johan modified his rule a little bit to include logos which are not visible on the thumbnail.

(Aarg! I revived the topic! Sorry!)

Anyway, I think the possibility of asking people's opinions on this forum has been a tremendous help to a lot of photogs (myself not the least). Pls continue.

S2.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests