User avatar
Fiveholer
Topic Author
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 6:27 am

Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:08 am

Bring back Bethune!
 
9VSPO
Posts: 4187
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 9:03 pm

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:10 am

It does look a bit flat (and soft at the top of the cockpit).
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:27 am

Fire the B*stard that rejected that! (j/k....i'm partial to Phantoms....)

Nice image, excellent subject.
 
fl350
Posts: 501
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 5:05 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:33 am

There are some guys in training I heard....

Maybe an appeal

Fabrice
Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:43 am

Hi Danny,

I like that shot of the Phantom too. If I really do my best for finding any flaws, it would be around the numbering on the nose-gear part (right side), but - for me - it does not distract from the shiny nose! I hope that the screener who rejected this shot can give you some advise on what the real quality issue is and I do hope that you can get it in with a minor adaptation!

PS: The last time I saw this version - if I am correct, it's the one with "TISEO" integrated in the left wing - was in the seventies when similar aircraft were operating from Soesterberg AFB in The Netherlands. I still must have some slides "somewhere" from that period, but these certainly would not be in such a shiny condition (I had the Canon A1, but with FD-lenses, so without autofocus...  Sad ).

Best regards,

Walter
Canon 347d mkII ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l IS USM - ...
 
linco22
Posts: 1278
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:16 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 1:51 am

Cracking shot Danny, really nice motive and that nose is really shiny and smooth. I'd appeal it

Regards
Colin  Smile
 
diezel
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 6:50 pm

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:03 am

Great image Danny!

I know the F4 is quite a big plane but if you look at it from this side, it looks very elegant and slim. I think I would hit that appeal button as well.

Roel.
Never be afraid of what you like. (Miles Davis)
 
User avatar
Fiveholer
Topic Author
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:10 am

Guys, I was thinking the same, appeal. I wanted to gather some thoughts first. I personally don't see anything wrong with is as is the general consensus here. I'll wait for an offical reply maybe before doing anything. As my acceptance rate has gone from 86% down to 66% in a week's time!  Confused

Thanks,
Danny
Bring back Bethune!
 
beechcraft
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:10 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:19 am

Danny,
you can always use the appeal function, when in doubt.
Photos looks good to me. But whats up with that thin line at the right bottom?
Looks a bit weird...

regards,

Denis
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1379
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:29 am

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 8):
But whats up with that thin line at the right bottom?

Looks like a shadow of some equipment to me... If, hypothetically, Danny was to clone that out for the sake of getting it uploaded, would there be a problem in this case as it's so small?
 
User avatar
Fiveholer
Topic Author
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:37 am

I will appeal it I guess. As for that line, ZSOFN is correct. It is the shadow of a ladder. They were all over the place. Thanks everyone.

Danny
Bring back Bethune!
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:52 am

Quoting Fiveholer (Thread starter):
I just don't see it.

Me neither, Danny - literally. Unfortunately the link is gone, which is very frustrating.

Given the debate above - and particularly Jeff's comment  wink  - I would have liked to see the subject of the conversation.

Let us know the outcome.

Cheers.

Paul
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:25 am

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
Given the debate above - and particularly Jeff's comment - I would have liked to see the subject of the conversation.

LOL Paul, mine was strictly in jest, I think the screeners do an admirable job, thankless as it may be. I would hope it was an error on that photo, but as I mentioned, I'm very phond of phantoms...
 
User avatar
Fiveholer
Topic Author
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:58 am

Wow....well....rejected on the appeal with no reason rather than quality. Shame really...some kind of explanation from higher ups would be nice. Here it is hosted externally so those who tried the broken link can see.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=124953354&size=o

Danny  Sad
Bring back Bethune!
 
Fly747
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:03 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:03 pm

Wow, unbelievable clarity. What a beaut. I don't see the NOA_quality either. Thanks for providing another link because I didn't get to see it first time around. You know whose loss it is that it didn't get accepted...

Ivan

[Edited 2006-04-08 05:04:17]
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Quality...really?

Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:20 pm

Great shot Danny. I love the refection on the nose...
I should add that Im a Phantom Phan as well. Not quite a seasoned as Jeff though..  Wink
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sun Apr 09, 2006 10:09 am

Quoting Fiveholer (Reply 13):
Wow....well....rejected on the appeal with no reason rather than quality.

Hi Danny,

Sorry to see that the appeal was rejected  Sad Did you change something to your original image before the appeal?


Best regards,

Walter
Canon 347d mkII ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l IS USM - ...
 
User avatar
Fiveholer
Topic Author
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Quality...really?

Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:11 am

Nope, left it as it was. A personal message on the appeal would have been nice. So it was known exactly what was "bad" about it.

Danny
Bring back Bethune!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: firefly_cyhz and 7 guests