Page 1 of 1

"Low in frame" reject criteria?

Posted: Sun May 10, 2020 4:20 am
by nstampede002
A long time ago I had a screener reject a photo on the basis of centering, and they very kindly pointed out in the personal message that you should always include the landing gear and vertical stabilizer when centering the crop for a photo - don't center the tube or otherwise - an equal distance should be between the top of the frame to the top of the vertical stabilizer, and from the bottom of the fame to the bottom of the lowest landing gear (theoretically, for a landing side-shot).

Suddenly this week I had several rejections for low in frame - but both shots having more open space between the bottom of the landing gear and bottom frame then there was from the top of the frame to the top of the vertical stabilizer. So factually, the screeners (and headscreeners) were incorrect. I'd like to think I need to fix something, but using the info I've received above, I have held a pretty good acceptance ratio and felt I had a good rapport with the screeners. This week it seems like that has gone out the window and it's either the rules have changed, or there is some other underlying problem.

So if math isn't good enough, then what is "centered?"

Re: "Low in frame" reject criteria?

Posted: Sun May 10, 2020 7:11 am
by dutchspotter1
First of all centering is not an exact science. There is no ''golden rule" as it depends on the aircraft type and the angle of the photo.
Although I am unable to view the large version of above photos, they do tend to be slightly low in frame.
Regarding the Royal Air Maroc, the space above the aircraft is significantly larger than the space below the aircraft. While your measurements might have been correct, the results are biased due to the relatively tall tail of this particular a/c type.
Regarding the Delta, with photos like this I would roughly compare the grass area vs. the sky. Again, your measurements may be correct, but due to the large amount of sky it looks like the plane is slightly low in frame. Positioning the aircraft higher in frame might screw up your measurements but it will look (and "feel") more centered, which is what it is all about.

Re: "Low in frame" reject criteria?

Posted: Fri May 15, 2020 10:05 am
by jetcrazy
If you want to be sure and on the safe side, then put the aircraft very high in frame and place some bikini girls (or fat guys) below...

Re: "Low in frame" reject criteria?

Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 9:58 pm
by kann123air
I've gotten some questionable high in frame rejections recently. I never get LIF or HIF rejections so I have been wondering the same.

Re: "Low in frame" reject criteria?

Posted: Sun May 17, 2020 11:38 am
by jelpee
Hello Josh,

When screening, we look at a thumbnail version of the images as well as the full sized image. Centering issues are seen rather well on the thumbnails. Looking at the thumbnails in your thread, the RAM B737 appears to be low in frame. The DL 757 looks technically OK to me. But at first glance appears LIF. As Joost said, the appearance of centering gets more weight than the technically correct centering. A couple of guidelines I use when editing my images are:
1. Compensation for the tail in aircraft such as the B737 series and the A380. These have a relatively high profile tail compared to the fuselage. Therefore, I place them a little lower in the frame.
2. On a take-off or landing (flaring) shot, about equal distance from the top of the cockpit to the top edge of the frame and the lowest point of the bottom of the fuselage to the bottom edge of the frame.
3. For side on shots, setting the center of the at about the window line seems to work.
4. For shots that have the tail closer than the nose, consider the impact of the tail.
5. Overall, try to place the Center of Gravity of the aircraft at the center of the frame.

Please use the appeal option if you feel that the screening needs a second look.

Hope this helps!