Hello Chris. I would start by saying that there is an issue with the way you are choosing to crop your photos that is going to conflict with the 'house style' here. My experience has taught me that the site tends not to choose close crops without a clear 'motive', and also doesn't go for crops where...
Jump to postHello. I am a little confused here, as I note that both the images in your thread are roughly the same size, in terms of pixel dimensions. What have you done to reduce the size of the first, high quality, image to about 1300px x 1250px? Your second image looks like a smaller photo that has then been...
Jump to postHi Kris. I have replied to your PM - hope you find the method helpful. I have just also had a look at that Jetstar image you started the thread with - looks pretty decent to me. I thought soft and blurry were a bit harsh. It looks like a good image - if you want any help with an edit just let me kno...
Jump to postHello WithaK. I have had a close look at your photo and the only thing I can see is that in the shadow areas there is a slightly blue tone to those areas - I am looking under the wings themselves and closer to the fuselage. I reckon that has to be it. You can also see it somewhat in the red of the t...
Jump to postHi Josh.
I am pretty sure that a key issue in this photo is the aircraft in the background. If that wasn't there I am going to bet that the crop would be deemed acceptable. The cropping of that aircraft's horizontal stabiliser looks a little awkward on the far left.
Paul
Hello again. The links work fine now. For me, the first image works better as a photo (ending 919). Unfortunately I would predict that the significant heat haze you were experiencing is going to mean that the screeners will not accept the photo. It’s a shame, but there’s nothing you can do about it....
Jump to postHi.
Unfortunately those links you posted only take me to my own photos in the queue. I suggest you click on your photos and copy the image address, and then post that in the thread here so we can see.
Cheers.
Paul
For me that F-22 photo looks a lot better. Very best wishes for that one going through screening.
Paul
You're very welcome. Please do post the revised edit - I would love to see it. Do you use Photoshop? With your C-2 photo, I had a look at your image and, using Camera Raw, I lifted the shadows just for the aircraft. I thought this looked good and would reduce any likelihood of a rejection for it bei...
Jump to postHello. That is a lovely F-22 photo. My initial thought was that the crop is just too tight top and bottom - I think it needs to breathe a little more. That said, have you considered a 4:3 crop instead of your chosen 16:9 ratio? For me that takes away some of the 'dead' sky to the left and right. Goo...
Jump to postMany thanks for taking the time to look and offer your advice John.
Paul
Thanks for your input - that makes sense. It should be a 'ramp shot', but obviously no such category exists. I feel reluctant to upload using the serial of the aircraft in the line up closest to the camera, because it isn't a clear view of that plane, and it doesn't feel right to suggest it is a pic...
Jump to postIt has been a long time since I was uploading on a regular basis, plus the ageing process doesn't help when it comes to recalling details! I would be grateful for confirmation that it would be correct to upload this photo of aircraft on the ramp as 'Airport Overview' (i.e. not a photo of an aircraft...
Jump to postHello. I took your image into Photoshop and I think that either by lifting the midtones in 'Levels', or by making a similar adjustment using a Curves adjustment layer (where you have a little more control of subtleties), you can brighten the overall image, which does give it a somewhat less 'dark' f...
Jump to postHello Hadleigh. Sounds as though things have been getting you down of late - rejections have habit of doing that. Hope you are feeling a little better about it all now. To try to answer your question - in simple terms compression is the result of a digital image being reduced in size from its origin...
Jump to postI was reading a thread relating to screening in this forum at the weekend. Meeting the demanding standards of this site has been a topic of conversation here in the Forums since I joined the site 17 years ago. There was a brief conversation in the thread about whether photos taken by camera phones c...
Jump to postI read this thread and it got me thinking about photos taken on a phone. I have been a contributor here for about 17 years and have been involved In many discussions on the forum about quality issues. Maybe there are still some screeners here who will recall! I was interested to read the comments ab...
Jump to postHello. My view is that the first crop is definitely the better version. I don't see it as particularly unbalanced - I think there is an argument for allowing slightly more space above the tail if that is available to you in the original, otherwise it looks okay to me. It is a little unfortunate that...
Jump to postIn the first link, there is a photo that I uploaded to the site and was rejected. I have equalized the colors so that you can see the vignette in the photo in the 2nd link. Hello. I will stick my neck out and say that, if this is equalised in Photoshop, then any vignetting would show easily. I see ...
Jump to postHello from the UK. This photo looks alright to me, certainly in terms of levelling. Those background verticals throughout the photo look pretty good. I would be surprised if that caused a problem with the screeners. What does catch my eye though is the registration - have you done any specific editi...
Jump to postHello Royal. I now have an iMac, with the 5k screen. Lovely to look at and do general photography, but no chance at all to use it for photos here. Even at my new preferred size of 1600px for photos here they display so small on that monitor it is impossible to judge something like sharpening, and we...
Jump to postAnyways, with the help of a couple of people who contact me offline, I decided to poke around Reddit and see what was up. It was eye opening to see that some people post *every* shot they get accepted here. Blimey - I really am a dinosaur when it comes to social media! I like the insertion of a lit...
Jump to postIf hits are that important to you that you must resort to those methods (or in my view social media promotion) to get them, maybe it’s time to contemplate why you are still taking photos and what you are really getting out of it. And perhaps maybe it’s time to find something else to do. In the time...
Jump to postAll of the well known old photographers have vanished for one reason or another too. Maybe not so well known, but I remain after all these years :old: I always add a comment to my photos. I think I still operate on the potential delusion that people look at my photos and occasionally think - 'I'd l...
Jump to postWell, simply put, you need to hold the camera still enough and use a shutter speed fast enough that will freeze any movement. If you can do that you have a reasonable chance.
Jump to postHello Wiggy. I know how tempting it can be to want to get your photos accepted here right away. But for this to happen you need to have some confidence about how you are taking your photos generally - which is all about getting familiarity with your camera and the basics of photography and then, the...
Jump to postReally sorry, Wiggy, but once again it’s really difficult to understand what you are saying in your last couple of posts.
Jump to postHi Wiggy. I find that it is sometimes difficult to know exactly what you are referring to in your thread, because of the one line posts - so, in this last post, I don't know which photo you are referring to when you talk about the 'curvy lines'. So if you can be more specific that would really help....
Jump to postHello Arnold. I definitely don't agree with Runway23L about the crop - to me that looks good as it is. Any further cropping to the left will cut into the wing flap and also the airline lettering. Looks level to me too. But I do agree with Kas that it doesn't look sharp as it currently is. I think yo...
Jump to postCan I say - what a joy to open my tablet on a Friday evening and see some additions to this very interesting thread (it is still in the wrong forum, surely - could that make a difference to contributors?). Thoughtful and informative discussion points made, and respectful, well written responses. Gre...
Jump to postThanks to you both, Jehan and Kas, for your expert input to this discussion. The numbers make for interesting viewing. I still think this thread is in the wrong forum :old: . Also, apologies if I have broken a rule in my previous post, but I thought the days when we weren’t allowed to say the name o...
Jump to postI find it very refreshing to read a thread such as this - though I don't understand why it is placed here, as opposed to the Aviation Photography Forum itself. This issue of screening consistency has been talked about as long as I have been a member here - and my professional background can vouch fo...
Jump to postKarl - you write very well. I’ve always noted this, whatever the topic area. Obvious evidence of a good old fashioned education.
Paul
Hello Arnold. I agree with Kas that the crop is unlikely to make it here because of the fact that the horizontal stabiliser is cropped - it does look awkward. I know how frustrating this is, when you cannot salvage the photo because the original is like this. But definitely something to bear in mind...
Jump to postWithout doubt, in my view, the reason is social media. It provides an immediacy with which a site such as this that uses screening cannot compete. Unfortunately it appears to me that many photographers, as well as photographs, are no longer here. As a long time member and contributor to the conversa...
Jump to postIf you take a look at the photos on the site you will see the 'house style' for things like cropping. So make sure you get your subject centred and crop so that there isn't too much space on the left and right from the edges of that subject. If you are familiar with Photoshop you will find methods t...
Jump to postI’m with you Royal - I think you have to work rather hard to find any flaw with this image, and what we’re talking about here appears to me to be minor in the extreme. It really leaves me unsure about whether what I am looking it is exactly the same as that which the screener is seeing, and harks ba...
Jump to postHello Royal - a very long time, no speak! I hope all is good with you. I am really struggling to see an issue here worthy of a rejection. If I look extra close, with the express purpose of finding some minor flaw, I can see very slight 'mottling' at top left of the sky, by the frame's border, which ...
Jump to postHello Karl. You may have put your finger on an important issue - old sharpening technique for higher quality originals. One of the the key things I have noticed since I transitioned to a full frame camera is that (with a high quality lens) the original images are sharper straight out of the camera -...
Jump to postHello Karl. Both shots look pretty good to my eye. I see very small areas where some might say there is oversharpening (around the flap/end of wing area in the Condor, and under the flap fairing/tail logo of the Jet), but that is being super picky. I simply do not think it is possible to reduce a la...
Jump to postHello Arnold. That BA 777 does look blurry and soft I am afraid. I will happily look at the original again, just to check how that looks. Out of interest, do you see the blurriness to which we are referring? For example, the flightdeck windows and the nosegear are clearly not right. I am keen to kno...
Jump to postHello Karl.
How’s it going? Do you need any help with the edit?
Paul
Hi Arnold. I have been in touch via PM. Looking forward to hearing from you about the photos. I’m sorry you had to experience more 'normal' Manchester weather on your trip - unfortunately that is much more normal than the sunny weather my photos suggest. I just pick my times to go! I'm lucky to be l...
Jump to postHello ajaaron (sorry, is it Arnold or Aaron?). I have been interested to follow your photos on this thread. It looks to me as though you have some editing issues going on. I am not familliar enough with your camera body and lens combination to know how significant a part they may be playing in the i...
Jump to postHello Dara. I find myself broadly agreeing with Kas's comments - when I opened your photos I thought the lighting/editing might be a factor. I have taken the liberty of adding a couple of editing changes to a few of your images, and that does make a difference. I am ashamed to say it has been so lon...
Jump to postThanks Dan for that very detailed explanation for what is going on. Now I have the Mac I am using Safari, which obviously supports HiDPI. On my previous PC I was using Windows 7, and Firefox, which explains why a 1600px image nicely fills the 1920px screen that I had there. I am presuming from this ...
Jump to postThanks for the comments. Something else I have now noted, having had a few 1600px photos just accepted: when I open up such images on the Mac, the large versions of the images are displayed relatively large on the computer screen - i.e. they have been significantly upscaled. The actual 1600px image ...
Jump to postHello Colleagues. It feels like a very long time since I have posted a thread here in this Forum. I would be very interested to hear others’ thoughts about an issue that has been presenting me with difficulties recently - editing photos for the site using an iMac with high resolution screen. Over th...
Jump to postHello Steve. Re the Qantas Airbus: Looks fine to me - the bright nose retains detail so there is no way that is either under- or overexposed to my eye. I am interested how you can have both under- and overexposed reasons for the same image - the shaded area to the left looks fine given the lighting....
Jump to post