D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11630
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:45 am

In light of the recent thread on long exposures of aircraft trails (see After All That Work And Advice... (by Flyfisher1976 Jan 25 2006 in Aviation Photography)), I would like to ask if we can get a defined standard for what would be accepted and not. A.net has a lot of shots now that have very little airplane, but very much aesthetic beauty. For instance, if you have a great, sharp shot of the moon, it will get accepted if there's a plane in the middle, even if the plane isn't all that sharp. You have to use your imagination to find the plane in the Tim Samples shot of the CRJ at National. Even still, I LOVE these shots, and if the rules are being bent to get these excellent shots in, I say keep on bending them.

However, these shots are very time intensive to create. Lots of trial and error, and lots of post-processing. (And in the winter, lots of sitting out in the cold.) A rejection results in a lot of frustration, and in my opinion, that frustration is because we see similar shots that aren't only accepted, but are generally beloved by the people that visit this site (and presumably click on its advertisements).

Would it be possible to get some standards that photogs could see before we put in the effort required to meet those standards?

Thanks!

Damon

(As a photog that does it for the art, one of these days, I'd like to have an arty shot accepted.)
 
INNflight
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:58 am

Hey Damon,

I second your opinion, that these photos are great, and well-planned.

I think there's no way to define rules of what kind a long exposure shot has to be, because it's a case to case decision, as it is with nearly all artistic photos.

All usual guidelines - like motive, quality... - still apply to these shots. It's all about the overall look, which is different for every single one of them. Very hard to make guidelines I guess.

cheers,
F.
Jet Visuals
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11630
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:27 am

Sorry, I was using a little legal jargon there. (The problem with law school - you forget how to speak English.)

I don't mean rules, as in if you do A, B, and C, you'll get X, Y, and Z.

I'm looking for standards, as in "we look for A B and C, and judge how much of it is there, and whether that's enough." That would be cool even if A B and C were all about aesthetic opinion. At least we would know. As it stands, (at least in my opinion), the Motive rejection is one of the most nebulous things I've seen, giving me little insight about whether the shot can be fixed, or if it's just a scene that A.net won't take. (But then, you go on a search and find plenty of recent uploads that have the same style as yours, and your frustration is renewed.)

I wouldn't think that would be so hard, simply for the fact that there are multiple screeners, that assume (perhaps wrongly) have been given some direction by the top management. I would hope that this isn't a case where your shot being accepted or not depends on which screener sees your shot first.

I guess I am really just saying that if A.net wants these arty shots, they should provide some sort of way of knowing their efforts are worthwhile. Otherwise, photogs are going to get frustrated and discouraged, and take their art somewhere else.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Statz
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brett B. Despain



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Morris
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Torin Wilson



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Morris
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Linze Folkeringa



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © MSTAerodrome
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier Guerrero



[Edited 2006-01-25 19:31:59]
 
waketurbulence
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:33 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:26 pm

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
However, these shots are very time intensive to create. Lots of trial and error, and lots of post-processing. (And in the winter, lots of sitting out in the cold.)

This can be said about all shots taken for Anet purposes. The only difference is the long exposure takes about 15-30 seconds to produce vs. 1/250th of a second. Before I go shooting I do research on weather, airport ops, locations, sun, aircraft movement, traffic, etc. On top of that people are looking for new spots and motives. Long exposure or not, spotting is time consuming.



Quoting D L X (Reply 2):
I guess I am really just saying that if A.net wants these arty shots, they should provide some sort of way of knowing their efforts are worthwhile. Otherwise, photogs are going to get frustrated and discouraged, and take their art somewhere else.

I disagree with this as well. Every day I am impressed with what I see on A.net. I can always find new and interesting shots, as well as very creative shots. One way of knowing your shots are worthwhile or not is if they are accepted. However that doesn't mean they aren't good, they might just be something that A.net doesn't accept.

I started a thread like this on long exposures a while back and I finally realized publishing rules would do more harm than good. People would still complain or question rejections, and there would still be borderline cases. Plus photography isn't about rules, if it isn't for Anet who cares, shoot for yourself not for some rules of a website. Sometimes I play it safe with my photos, sometimes I really risk rejection. It has worked out both ways for me and I still like uploading and sharing my photos.
-Matt
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:29 pm

Appeal was rejected for "motive"....
Originally I said to myself "what a waste of time"...
Now I know better, this photo is much too spectacular for this internet "database"...Be sure to keep an eye out for it "elsewhere"  Wink
Thanks for all who t r i e d to help.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...25_2006-01-10_IMG_2511_BOS_UNK.jpg
 
sean377
Posts: 1128
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2001 1:18 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Jan 31, 2006 9:51 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 2):
I guess I am really just saying that if A.net wants these arty shots

At this point in time, I'm not sure they do want them, even though many do get accepted. All the more reason to have an artisic section, as it must be generally accepted that this site is much more than a mere database.
Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man... Landing is the first!
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:24 pm

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 4):
this photo is much too spectacular

LOL..... nice one.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 4):
Be sure to keep an eye out for it "elsewhere"

Brand X maybe?
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:44 pm

Quoting JeffM (Reply 6):
Brand X maybe?

Yes...or "Y" or "Z"...
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:16 am

Oh and one more thing...

Photo added: January 30, 2006


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Leighton Matthews



Great shot!

But...

I don't see an airplane...I don't see an airport....

And the motive of this shot differs form my shot how?!

I'll tell you what I do see however...2700+ hits in one day!


This is a joke!  Yeah sure

[Edited 2006-01-31 17:17:03]
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:38 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 8):
I don't see an airplane..

Passing right through the middle of the frame toward the top. Pretty tough to miss actually.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:45 am

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 9):
Pretty tough to miss actually.


You mean that light trail? Is that light trail an airframe? Pretty funny looking one to me!

Apparently you have missed the point...

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 8):
And the motive of this shot differs form my shot how?!


[Edited 2006-01-31 17:50:01]
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:56 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 10):
And the motive of this shot differs form my shot how?!

Your shot has a bright city in the immediate background, filling up a large portion of the photo and the skyline is very distracting. In fact, it's what my eyes focus on first, not the airplane. On top of that, the sky is too bright. To me, the aircraft in your photo is not the main subject of the photo, the Boston skyline is. In the photo you're questioning, the aircraft is pretty obvious and hard to miss.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:34 am

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 11):
the skyline is very distracting.

Ha! That's a funny one!

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 11):
In fact, it's what my eyes focus on first, not the airplane.

What airplane?! I refuse to believe that anyone can call a streak of lights an airplane! My motive was a clear airport overview with the city of Boston as a backdrop in the early morning light. The aircraft acitivity resulting in light trails exposed in the picture are really just an added bonus IMO.

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 11):
To me, the aircraft in your photo is not the main subject of the photo, the Boston skyline is. In the photo you're questioning, the aircraft is pretty obvious and hard to miss.

To me, the main subject of the photo is Boston Logan Airport...how anyone can miss this is beyond me. It is in the foreground, you can see the ILS and other airport lights and tails of other aircraft clearly.


The bottom line:
Johan personally commented on this photo. At no time did he suggest that the motive rejection for the photo was the result of the composition of this particular shot. He commented on how "The Head Screeners will surely have a hard time with this appeal as it is, as I mentioned, a border-case".

Furthermore, this argument is not about comparing my photo to others in the database because I think mine is "better" or "just as good" as those other photos. It was merely a comparison of motive, not of quality, composition or any other feature. Never was there any mention by anyone who has screened this photo of any quality or composition issues. It was suggested by ChrisH and Mick B. that i darken the photo a little, which I did.

In fact through all the discussion regarding this matter there has been no reasonable explanation why some photos of this particular type are accepted and some are not. If this were a quiality issue, I would accept the rejection and move on...
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:48 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):
Ha! That's a funny one!

Funny because it's true.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):
What airplane?! I refuse to believe that anyone can call a streak of lights an airplane! My motive was a clear airport overview with the city of Boston as a backdrop in the early morning light.

There's an airport in there?

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):
To me, the main subject of the photo is Boston Logan Airport...how anyone can miss this is beyond me.

You're looking at the airport flat-on, as if you'd be looking at the side of a pancake. The airport takes up very little actual space in the photo.

I'm not trying to argue with you that it's a poorly motivated photo. The motive is exceptional and it is a very nice shot, but to me the city is more the focus of the photo than the airport and activity. Nice photo, but not one for a.net.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
jay767
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:50 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:48 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):
In fact through all the discussion regarding this matter there has been no reasonable explanation why some photos of this particular type are accepted and some are not. If this were a quiality issue, I would accept the rejection and move on...

There is a fine line for these light trail shots,such as showing identifiable parts of the airport,runway lights ect.,your shot while its a nice shot is just too dominated by the skyline for a.net standards,but it's a shot worthy of keeping in your collection.
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:26 am

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 14):
There is a fine line for these light trail shots,such as showing identifiable parts of the airport,runway lights ect.,

And recently accepted shots show identifiable parts of the airport?
Maybe someone can show me where...

My shots clearly pictures an airport with actual aircraft visible...The ILS approach lights and various runway and taxi lights.

Does this shot have any of the afformentioned? No, just a light streaks across the sky...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Leighton Matthews


Again, beutiful shot...but how this was recently accepted and mine rejected for motive is still unexplained.
 
jay767
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:50 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:05 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 15):
Does this shot have any of the afformentioned? No, just a light streaks across the sky...

But the light streak which is an aircraft clearly dominates the scene,notice the bridge and lights below don't dominate the picture,the aircraft(light streak) does,as said your shot is beautiful but dominated by the skyline,also keep in mind different screeners view things differently(interpretation).But it really is not the end of the world,I have many night shots that were either rejected or didn't bother to upload,I have these two below that made it and both were borderline,I would have just went on if they did not get accepted.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Bisson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Bisson


To me this is a hobby,hobby to me means something to pass time and enjoy yourself doing it,when it becomes frustrating it doesn't feel like a hobby anymore,then it nots worth it anymore.Hit seeking motivated photos can be frustrating and a killer as far as being enthused anymore,my advice just be glad you get what you get accepted and enjoy yourself,thats what I do,I no longer get mad or frustrated because of rejections,but rejections have made me better over time due to correcting how I shoot,and to be honest bigtime hits on my photos won't pay my bills,make my back pain go away,or sleep better at night,just enjoy your hobby.
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:21 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 15):

Man if it's beyond you now then you'll never get it.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:28 am

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 16):
To me this is a hobby,hobby to me means something to pass time and enjoy yourself doing it,when it becomes frustrating it doesn't feel like a hobby anymore,then it nots worth it anymore.Hit seeking motivated photos can be frustrating and a killer as far as being enthused anymore,my advice just be glad you get what you get accepted and enjoy yourself,thats what I do,I no longer get mad or frustrated because of rejections,but rejections have made me better over time due to correcting how I shoot,and to be honest bigtime hits on my photos won't pay my bills,make my back pain go away,or sleep better at night,just enjoy your hobby.

I totaly agree, except that I hardly lose sleep over any of this. What kind of bothers me is the terrible inconsistency with which the "motive" rejection is generally applied. I have always had issues with this. Does it really make me "a better photographer" to have a shot rejected for such a subjective reason...no, not really. There is nothing about this shot that needs to be "fixed" or done better IMO. And using shots like this one as an example to prove your point only furthers mine:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Bisson



A beutiful shot, but the lower 50% of the frame is almost completely black. So if my "badmotive" rejection was really due to some composure issues, then this shot should have been rejected too. Obviously, all screeners are going to have different opinions, but some technical standards should also apply.

Getting back to the original thread starting question...

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
I would like to ask if we can get a defined standard for what would be accepted and not. A.net has a lot of shots now that have very little airplane, but very much aesthetic beauty.
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:03 am

Hey all,

This question has been asked many times and to this day there has been no proper answer from any of the crew so I doubt that we'll get one now.

But my take on this subject is as follows:

The pic must have an airport visible. There must be an aircraft in it (whether it be light streaks or not). From what I can find, the photos that usually get accepted are never totally black ie the sky is lighter than usual like taken with a full moon or on dusk.

Its basically a lottery. If you get your night shot accepted, then you're lucky. Airliners.Net don't care at all if you have to stand out in the cold for hours waiting for the right shot. As said its a hobby and we choose to stand out and take the pics. We all realise the time and effort it takes to get a brilliant night shot.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 4):
Now I know better, this photo is much too spectacular for this internet "database"...Be sure to keep an eye out for it "elsewhere" Wink
Thanks for all who t r i e d to help.

This is the best statement out of all. It's A.nets loss, not ours. It was a super shot and "elsewhere" deserve it more.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 18):
Does it really make me "a better photographer" to have a shot rejected for such a subjective reason...no, not really

No not at all, just says that we have not stuck to the "rules". Photography basically has no rules and its all up to YOU, not rules to abide by.
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:17 am

Quoting Eadster (Reply 19):
Its basically a lottery. If you get your night shot accepted, then you're lucky.

 checkmark 

Thank you!

Quoting Eadster (Reply 19):
Airliners.Net don't care at all if you have to stand out in the cold for hours waiting for the right shot.

 checkmark 

Effort gets you no points here  Wink

Quoting Eadster (Reply 19):
It's A.nets loss, not ours. It was a super shot and "elsewhere" deserve it more.

 checkmark 
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:41 pm

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 20):
Effort gets you no points here

Effort means nothing if you can't put it out when it counts.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:41 pm

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 21):
Effort means nothing if you can't put it out when it counts.

Whatever that means...
 Yeah sure
 
INNflight
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:03 pm

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 18):
There is nothing about this shot that needs to be "fixed" or done better IMO.

Nobody tells you to fix anything. It's not for A.net, now move on.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 20):
Effort gets you no points here

Yes, because nobody cares if it took you 10 secs or 10 hours to take a shot if it doesn't suit the site's guidelines. That hard to understand?
Jet Visuals
 
ChrisH
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:25 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:05 pm

LOL a weak attempt at being the new JeffM, ignore the troll flyfisher, its a beauty of a shot. Like stated above, a.nets loss.
what seems to be the officer, problem?
 
INNflight
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:08 pm

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 24):
LOL a weak attempt at being the new JeffM

Oh yes.... at least you got my point Chris.

He already told us in reply 4 he'll upload elsewhere if not accepted here, but yet it takes 20 more replies just for getting where? Nowhere.

'FloM'
Jet Visuals
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:46 pm

Quoting INNflight (Reply 23):
Nobody tells you to fix anything. It's not for A.net, now move on.

Already did awhile ago...just trying to see how we can fix this irregularity to hinder future waste of time and effort

Quoting INNflight (Reply 23):
Yes, because nobody cares if it took you 10 secs or 10 hours to take a shot if it doesn't suit the site's guidelines. That hard to understand?

...and by the way notice the  Wink after "effort"! Yes, it's very apparent that you don't care, and the screeners don't care.

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 24):
LOL a weak attempt at being the new JeffM

LOL, my thoughts exactly...

Quoting INNflight (Reply 25):
it takes 20 more replies just for getting where? Nowhere.

Exactly...Notice the screeners mysteriously absent from this discussion. I was hoping that by furthering this conversation that at some point we would get some "professional" opinions on this matter...fat chance!
 
martin21
Posts: 335
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 7:52 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:34 pm

got this one rejected for bad motive.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~mhamelnk/temp/nachtfoto.jpg

too bad  weeping 

martin21
At 30.000 feet, the sun always shines !
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:50 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 22):
Whatever that means...

I figured it'd go over you.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 26):

Already did awhile ago...just trying to see how we can fix this irregularity to hinder future waste of time and effort

If you've already gotten over it, why has this thread run the way it has. No, I don't believe for a second you're "Just trying to waste future time."

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 26):

...and by the way notice the Wink after "effort"! Yes, it's very apparent that you don't care, and the screeners don't care.

And neither should they. I'd rather see a 1/20th shot from inside a terminal than a 10min night exposure if the night exposure isn't up to this sites muster. Longer shutter time does not equal better chance at acceptance.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11630
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:03 am

Quoting INNflight (Reply 23):
Yes, because nobody cares if it took you 10 secs or 10 hours to take a shot if it doesn't suit the site's guidelines. That hard to understand?

Florian, your point is well taken, but it does lead back to the original question, which put more simply is: why are some images accepted and others not? I for one, would love to have my photos uploaded into this collection, and I'm perfectly willing to work to be withinh the guidelines. However, the guidelines sent to us in the rejection emails are exceedingly vague, and seem to allow for much screener discretion. I'm simply asking the screeners to tell us in general terms why photo A gets accepted while photo B does not. Unfortunately, "read the guidelines" is not instructive when it comes to long exposure shots.
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:25 am

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 21):
Effort means nothing if you can't put it out when it counts.



Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 28):
I figured it'd go over you.

Not really...it's just that it's pretentious comments like this that are often the source of very little useful information. You & JeffM are notorious for making them. It is obvious to myself and others that you are headed down the same path of photographic snobbery.

Quoting D L X (Reply 29):
the rejection emails are exceedingly vague

Amen! If even one word of advice could have been included from the screener for rejection specifics, this whole issue could have been avoided. This would be especially appreciated when applied to such "border cases". I mean, come on people, we're not talking about a fence post in the middle of the frame, or something fairly obvious to trigger these motive rejections. It would be helpful to the photographer to have SOME clarification as to why his shot was rejected (from the screener). ESPECIALLY when strikingly similar shots of equal quality and composition were accepted in such recent history.

99% of the time that i recieve a rejection I am like "Oh, Duh!". Usually it is something obvious that I missed and i use it as a learning eperience for next time. What is really frustrating is when I walk away from a rejection like  Confused having learned nothing and gotten nowhere.

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 28):
No, I don't believe for a second you're "Just trying to waste future time."

Well, believe what you want...The fact of the matter is that I spent many hours cleaning up this photo to ANET standards including but not limited to removing many dustspots visible because of the small apeture setting and working with Mick to get the levels and brightness just right (FOR ANET). Then after the photo was rejected, waiting another weeks to have it rejected again in appeal with ABSOLUTELY NO CLARIFICATION AS TO WHY.

Oh, and please spare me your comments about how I should "shoot as if photoshop didn't exist" or "the motive should be determined before the shutter is released" or the like.
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:37 am

Oh, and one more thing...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth-VAP



And this motive is acceptable?
 Yeah sure
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:37 pm

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 30):
It is obvious to myself and others that you are headed down the same path of photographic snobbery.

Sorry if it comes off that way but think about it. The entire thread has been your nagging about a shot that has been rejected. You've been told several reasons as to why it could have been rejected, so why keep asking?

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 30):
It would be helpful to the photographer to have SOME clarification as to why his shot was rejected (from the screener). ESPECIALLY when strikingly similar shots of equal quality and composition were accepted in such recent history.

You've asked for clarification and gotten it from several different people. Perhaps we were thinking the same thing as the screeners and thus they did not feel the need to respond?

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 30):
Oh, and please spare me your comments about how I should "shoot as if photoshop didn't exist" or "the motive should be determined before the shutter is released" or the like.

You did determine the motive and personally I like it very much. A.net doesn't. You'll live.

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 31):

And this motive is acceptable?

Now that really burns my steak, and I like my steak cooked medium. Seriously I'm gonna have to agree with you here, at least your shot had an airplane as a point of focus, the only plane in this photo is the one parked way in the background and it adds no detail to the photo.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11630
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:19 pm

At this point, a comment from a screener would be extremely helpful.

Would any screeners like to comment? Perhaps in light of reply 31?
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:15 pm

And, yet again, we see the pervading double standard that seems to exist on A.net. There's no excuse for the photo in reply 31. No, not even the usual "it must have been a mistake, the photo will be removed" call. Everyone knows that Mr. Unmuth is a screener - a headscreener, in fact - and seeing photos like this (and quite a few others, which aren't worth listing here) being accepted makes many scratch their heads in confusion. How did that get on here? For many people, including those that frequent the "alternate site," it is this underlying double standard that triggers their dislike of this website. It undermines the professional, high-quality, and fair nature of A.net.

Please, clean this stuff up.

Respectfully,
G.
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:35 pm

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 32):
've been told several reasons as to why it could have been rejected

There has not been one reasonable argument as to why my shot was badmotive and photos like the examples posted above are not.

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 32):
You've asked for clarification and gotten it from several different people.

There has not been one reasonable argument as to why my shot was badmotive and photos like the examples posted above are not.

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 32):
You'll live.

Probably...  Wink

Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
Would any screeners like to comment? Perhaps in light of reply 31?

Please do...

Quoting QantasA332 (Reply 34):
And, yet again, we see the pervading double standard that seems to exist on A.net. There's no excuse for the photo in reply 31. No, not even the usual "it must have been a mistake, the photo will be removed" call. Everyone knows that Mr. Unmuth is a screener - a headscreener, in fact - and seeing photos like this (and quite a few others, which aren't worth listing here) being accepted makes many scratch their heads in confusion. How did that get on here? For many people, including those that frequent the "alternate site," it is this underlying double standard that triggers their dislike of this website. It undermines the professional, high-quality, and fair nature of A.net.

I couldn't have said it better....

badmotive...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...25_2006-01-10_IMG_2511_BOS_UNK.jpg

acceptable motive?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0998952/M/

What gives?
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:08 pm

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 35):
There has not been one reasonable argument as to why my shot was badmotive and photos like the examples posted above are not.

Yes, there have been. If you can't see that then I'm amazed that you can look through a viewfinder.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:33 pm

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 36):
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 35):
There has not been one reasonable argument as to why my shot was badmotive and photos like the examples posted above are not.

Yes, there have been. quote]

Maybe you can show me...I would be happy to counter any points made above that are clear and valid explantions for the terrible inconsistency that exists here.



[quote=DLKAPA,reply=36]If you can't see that then I'm amazed that you can look through a viewfinder.

 Yeah sure

Here we go again...

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 30):
it's pretentious comments like this that are often the source of very little useful information.

DLKAPA, I'm not the only person who feels this question has not been sufficiently answered:

Quoting Eadster (Reply 19):
This question has been asked many times and to this day there has been no proper answer from any of the crew so I doubt that we'll get one now.



Quoting D L X (Reply 33):
At this point, a comment from a screener would be extremely helpful.

Would any screeners like to comment? Perhaps in light of reply 31?



Quoting QantasA332 (Reply 34):
How did that get on here? For many people, including those that frequent the "alternate site," it is this underlying double standard that triggers their dislike of this website.

even you seem confused DLKAPA:

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 32):
Now that really burns my steak, and I like my steak cooked medium. Seriously I'm gonna have to agree with you here, at least your shot had an airplane as a point of focus, the only plane in this photo is the one parked way in the background and it adds no detail to the photo.

And please stop trying to tell me that my shot is so much different (in terms of motive) than any of the other shots that it was compared to in this thread.

The first line in the badmotive rejection is:

"These photo(s) show a motive that is not accepted by Airliners.net".

Someone please clarify.
 
jay767
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:50 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:04 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 37):
Someone please clarify.

Why keep beating this dead horse,not to mention after looking at your rejected photo it is a bit out of focus and is also bad level,everything is leaning to the right,scrap it and move on,go out to the same spot and try it again and try to learn from your mistakes because that rejection could have been rejected for a number of things,level,blurry,bad distance of the light streaks.If you have a lens with IS on it remeber to turn it off for tripod shots,this could be a reason the photo seems a bit blurry or out focus.
 
D L X
Topic Author
Posts: 11630
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:44 am

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 38):
Why keep beating this dead horse

Hi Jay,

I started this thread not to discuss Flyfisher's pic in particular (there was another thread for that), but rather to find out what the screeners are looking for in long exposure (and artsy) shots.

Thanks,

Damon
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:51 am

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 38):
try to learn from your mistakes

Try to learn from what mistakes? I'm not saying that I don't make any...The shot was rejected for "motive" not quality, or blurry.

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 38):
that rejection could have been rejected for a number of things,level,blurry,bad distance

But it wasn't...so what's your point?

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 38):
If you have a lens with IS on it remeber to turn it off for tripod shots,this could be a reason the photo seems a bit blurry or out focus.

Thanks for the tip!  Yeah sure

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 38):
Why keep beating this dead horse

Because the horse isn't dead! And the question still hasn't been answered:

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 37):
The first line in the badmotive rejection is:

"These photo(s) show a motive that is not accepted by Airliners.net".

It doesn't?
 
jay767
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:50 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:07 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 40):
But it wasn't...so what's your point?

My point is that its in fact all those things,bad level,, out of focus,and bad distance and I'm not trying to upset you by saying it,but its the truth about the photo,why not just try it again from the same spot instead of trying to get people to agree with you that it should have been added,because nobody agree's it should have,it got the kiss of death on the appeal what more can you get out analysing it anymore,as far as the thread starter,I can't help you because I am not the crew and until one answers(which by now doesn't seem likely) this thread has nothing left in it's tank,I know the responses seem critical,but the truth is often just that,sorry and I did not try to offend either of you.
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:23 am

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 41):
but its the truth about the photo,

Your opinion..but hardly the truth. Keep your unsolicited photo critiques to yourself.

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 41):
because nobody agree's it should have

How about you read the entire thread before posting, because once again, you're wrong:

Quoting ChrisH (Reply 24):
its a beauty of a shot. Like stated above, a.nets loss.



Quoting Eadster (Reply 19):
This is the best statement out of all. It's A.nets loss, not ours. It was a super shot and "elsewhere" deserve it more.



Quoting Jay767 (Reply 41):
what more can you get out analysing it anymore

I am not trying to analyze the photo, but understand the situation regarding this type of motive.
 
jay767
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:50 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:21 am

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 42):
Your opinion..but hardly the truth. Keep your unsolicited photo critiques to yourself.

You mean just like you do,posting thumbs of photos of others and saying why you think they should not have been accepted,not to mention starting another thread about someone elses photo with a green dot,why criticize others who are much,much more successful than you,I think we may have a hypocrite here,good luck with your crusade against this site.

maybe you should just stick to worrying about your own photos,instead of posting thumbnails of photos ALREADY ACCEPTED that you don't think that should of passed,don't let your jealousy of others consume you  

[Edited 2006-02-07 01:25:01]

[Edited 2006-02-07 01:45:56]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13245
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:21 pm

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 31):
And this motive is acceptable?

Unless I'm mistaken, Peter's shot is an airport view, which is acceptable motive on a.net. It just happens to be taken at night.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:26 pm

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 42):

Give it up dude, just give it up.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
fuairliner
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:23 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:20 pm

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 35):
badmotive...
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...25_2006-01-10_IMG_2511_BOS_UNK.jpg

acceptable motive?
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0...52/M/

Why should Peter's shot be an inacceptable motive? It's an airport overview during the night, just as many other pictures in the database. As far as I know, airport overviews are clearly wanted on airliners.net

The composition of your shot immediately draws the attention to the skyline - it is far more striking than the the aircraft trails or even the airport. I guess that's why it was rejected for motive.

I can't really see how you can compare these two photos - the motive is totally different. If you want to compare your shot to others in the database which have been accepted, take long-exposure night shots with aircraft trails. Every single shot of this kind in the database I can think of has one main difference to your shot - the aircraft trail is always striking at the first glance because the contrast to the background is higher. That's why your shot was rejected.


Frank
Frank Unterspann - Hamburg, Germany
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:51 pm

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 43):
not to mention starting another thread about someone elses photo with a green dot,why criticize others

I started the thread to ask if anyone knew what the green dot was, not to criticize the photo...nice try though.

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 43):
much more successful than you

At what? Getting photos accepted here?


 Yeah sure

Quoting Jay767 (Reply 43):
instead of posting thumbnails of photos ALREADY ACCEPTED that you don't think that should of passed

You are either just blatently ignorant, or just not reading this thread carefully. I only posted these photos to prove the terrible screening inconsistencies that exist.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 44):
Unless I'm mistaken, Peter's shot is an airport view

Unless I'm mistaken, so is mine...

Quoting FUAirliner (Reply 46):
the motive is totally different.

Ha-Ha, good one!
 
fuairliner
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2001 7:23 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:02 pm

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 47):
Unless I'm mistaken, so is mine...

Not really, you have photographed the airport from the side and not from an angle above, so it's not really an overview, but more a side-on view. And the fact that the skyline draws the attention away from the airport doesn't really help to classify this shot as an airport overview. I'm pretty sure that all airport overviews in the database (including Peter's) have the airport as their main subject of the picture.

That's one of the reasons why the motive of these two pictures are not comparable. Another one are the missing aircraft trails. I wonder why you don't try compare your shot to the kind of shots I suggested above? Perhaps because it would become pretty clear why your picture was rejected ...  cheeky 
Frank Unterspann - Hamburg, Germany
 
flyfisher1976
Posts: 777
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:08 pm

RE: Standards For Long Exposure Shots

Tue Feb 07, 2006 10:49 pm

 white 

Yeah, okay...I give up trying to prove my point to any of you who are incapable of understanding. I'm sure we'll see one or all of you in this forum at some point with a rejection for which there is no r e a s o n a b l e explanation. With "standards" of photo acceptance constantly "increasing" it's only a matter of time before we all experience a similar situation.



Have fun!

JD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests