And thumbs up for best ever developers team in the world which fix login issue in scarce three full month of hard work!Jump to post
and if I remember correctly you were one of those who complained a lot about the old site. I never complained about old site. I complained about biased and random screening. And about quality degradation of uploaded photos. Both problems was taken to the new site as well. John, please answer me dir...Jump to post
The site IS getting better every week. Compare to the white site and tell me I am wrong... Oh my God! It reminds me of times when Communist Party propaganda compares quantity of computers and TV production in USSR in 1985 with pre-revolution Russian Empire production figures in 1913 :D Compare with...Jump to post
Besides, Airliners.net will never please everyone to 100%, never have. About us Airliners.net is the leading community for discovering and sharing high-quality aviation photography. We thank you for your support and hope you'll join the largest aviation community on the web. Ok, if you don't want t...Jump to post
I don't want to sound harsh, but you've got to face facts. It's useless. From huge crew (which now have even page dedicated for them at the site) and "powerful team of developers working 24/7" only two volunteers has enough courage to communicate with community. Even at photography feedba...Jump to post
Sorry, Kas. With all my respect it seems useless, at least for me. Photos are rejected for random reasons and appellations usually get rejection reason removed but multiple other random reasons added (like blurry or quality). Reducing size doesn't helps. Since end of the last year my acceptance rati...Jump to post
aviat wrote:OMG, new Homepage. Respectively old Homepage, almost. I'm so happy!
Just bear in mind that Tamoron's claim of 600mm is likely going to be closer to around 500mm. Why is that? If I make the dangerous (but likely at least close to correct) assumption that the Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II USM Lens is a true 600mm lens, I can use its angle of view to compare it to the 15...Jump to post
I'm not on my screening computer at the moment, so I'll check back later this week to offer an opinion. Thanks. BTW, what is your screening installation? I changed my old TN set of notebook + monitor (Samsung X360 13"TN 1280x800 + Samsung SyncMaster 2443NW 24"TN 1920x1200) for new IPS one...Jump to post
spompert wrote:...100-400II at 400 and cropped to equivalent of 600 has the same quality as the Sigma 150-600 at 600. If that is really true I would go for the Canon...
airkas1 wrote:Usually blurryness can't be fixed. But sometimes going to a smaller size will help 'hide' blurryness (as in it being less apparent).
BTW can't miss another chance to point on quality degradation of photo after download: there clearly visible that reg. on nose gear hatch became unreadable:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/6/3/3960365.jpg?v=v40dbc1c4fb0 Rejected for OS, appealed and get down with "dark" without OS ... I'm speechless. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/1/3/3960311.jpg?v=v4a7b5f4ae18 Rejected for OS, appealed with a bit salty commen...Jump to post
That's quite an angle of attack. Looks passable to me. Heh, rejected for OS and empowered with blurry after appeal. And as HS see blurriness in it it's for trash can then because blurriness in contrary to softness can't be cured, right? The An-2 is a bit backlit, but the cool factor might make up f...Jump to post
As said, it depends on what you shoot. Also you can wait a bit for new tamron V2.0 glass has some feedback, because V1.0 have a shitty stab (works for static shoots only). Well, a lot of this you must answer yourself..... I've no experience with either the Tamron or the version II 100-400, but I'd b...Jump to post
That doesn't sound difficult - just take the existing images and do something like paste an exclamation mark over the corner of all of them. Voila! No way. Based on what we see since site relaunch it must take couple month and hard work of huge developers team to implement. They also must break mai...Jump to post
I fully understand Steve. I agree the home page/mobile switch has been broken for too long now. It should be a simple fix as I understand. We've mentioned this loads of times already and it's quite annoying that it's not solved yet. Which brings out two possibilities: either developers are not suit...Jump to post
John you forget pinned topicsJump to post
Ok, let's look into another cockpit: http://russianplanes.net/images/to197000/196239.jpg or http://russianplanes.net/images/to197000/196236.jpg still part of picture will be OOF because of DOF and here we go with 12mm - still... http://russianplanes.net/images/to190000/189132.jpgJump to post
Any chances of sign that I have a post in this thread like it was at the old A.net?Jump to post
I won't discuss soft as I seems not in sync with A.net screeners here, but I don't see any banding and I do see quite prominent vignetting (top right and left side). Generally, I suggest that you must try to use some lens corrections settings in your editing software.Jump to post
With upload queue full, one can't edit any photo, throws out red stripe with "upload limit reached" and sent back to main page.Jump to post
I have tried to avoid the temptation to dump on the site developers as being a bunch of clueless morons, but it's hard and not getting any easier...
Perhaps you could provide a pic of original large resolution for me to test. It works for me at Chrome: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-A ... /2765559/L Not really large though is it. Where is the original size? That's only barely larger than the /M. How do you get the original size? It's ope...Jump to post
RobK wrote:Perhaps you could provide a pic of original large resolution for me to test.
Nope. Now that the 5D4 is coming out, I am starting to crave a 5D3 to replace my 5D2.
We're now 5 days on since the site broke for some size screens, and it's still an issue. Any chance we can get a hard time line, other than "soon"? If this had been going on for this long where I worked, folks would be getting pink slips by now. It's ridiculous that we keep asking simple ...Jump to post
Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 78): I think this one don't worth trying even at 1024? If you don't try to get this up - at ANY size - I will be very sad. Cheers A Managed to get it through a couple of rejections and to PC after a bit hot worded appeal ;) I saw that -- good man! Cheers A So hope you wi...Jump to post
angad84 wrote:Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 78): I think this one don't worth trying even at 1024?
If you don't try to get this up - at ANY size - I will be very sad.
Soft? I just exchanged all my editing gears and has three different screens attached - 17" 1920x1080, 24' 2560x1440 and old one 20" 1600x900 (which I put instead of sole 24" 1920x1200 I used to check how it looks like on non-retinas). All three makes me impression that its closer to OS.Jump to post
Ok, the I reword it - you don't need to be a government hired sanitary inspector to count cockroaches I your dishes ;) Yes, ovens in the kitchen was possible outdated and potatoes was not "properly" washed before preparation, may be freezer hiccups sometimes but if food is OK and nobody di...Jump to post
Any update on two major issues? 1) Dead links in old format - both to photos and to photo pages? T 1: Haven't we been over this a million times now already? I don't know what else to tell you, other than the info I've relayed from the developers. Three or four will describe it better. But can you j...Jump to post
LatAmFlyer wrote:dutchspotter1 wrote:Good morning,
The last few days I noticed some very annoying ads from Justpremium.
Download Adblocker and you'll never see those damn ads again forever.
Any update on two major issues? 1) Dead links in old format - both to photos and to photo pages? They are still dead (links to photo pages just sends you to main Anet page and jpg links are 404). Can we have a definite answer if this will be addressed or that it's of no interest for DM so we must no...Jump to post
Regarding JP, they made a huge leap that almost seem erroneous last autumn where they gained 25K in the ranks, and this year they have fallen 6000. They was bought by FR24 and became a sole supplier of it's thumbnails, that's why. They take Planespotters place at FR24 and latter lost views dramatic...Jump to post
Plainplane wrote:I noticed today that the old formatted URLs to pictures are redirecting to the Airliners.net homepage instead of going to the actual images however.