I realize I am relatively new to trying to get Anet photos accepted, but I am not new to photography. Here's one that was rejected a few minutes ago with the following comments.

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 8e1fa11fc0

- Blurry
- Dirty
- Halos
- Noise
- Personal Message
- Quality
- Soft

The Screener left a comment regarding this photo:
"Noisy sky."

This photo is none of these things. Are the screeners just bored, or overloaded with high quality photos? How can they possibly claim to assess the noise levels in a photo that is barely 2mp. Soft? Blurry? What kind of monitors are they using? These kinds of canned blanket rejection criteria are probably going to just drive me away from the site, and possibly aviation photography in general. This site was an inspiration for me starting in the 90s. It is sad to see high quality contributions rejected for no reason.

Hi there,

I screened this image.
At 1920px wide, there is clear blurriness visible, a smaller size may hide the blurriness. Regarding Dirty, in the hill below the main gear closest to the camera there is a dirt/dust spot in the hill, easily removable using the spot removal tool. Dark halos are visible around the wheels and fuselage. Noise refers to the noisy sky, at this size the sky is noisy, both some added noise reduction and a smaller size will fix this. Soft refers to some general softness around the whole image.

No, us screeners are many things, but we aren't bored. But we do get a lot of high quality photos. I can tell you that every member of the screening team has been taking photos for many years, we know what we're doing. As for your question about monitors; I use a 24" 1920x1080 full HD colour calibrated Samsung monitor, it does the job.

We hope not to drive you away from the site, we value every contributor. The rejection reasons are there to help you improve your photos, I started with rejections (and terrible photos) and I can tell you personally that the rejections helped me improve my photos.

Tim

Crosswindphoto wrote:

Hi there,

I screened this image.
At 1920px wide, there is clear blurriness visible, a smaller size may hide the blurriness. Regarding Dirty, in the hill below the main gear closest to the camera there is a dirt/dust spot in the hill, easily removable using the spot removal tool. Dark halos are visible around the wheels and fuselage. Noise refers to the noisy sky, at this size the sky is noisy, both some added noise reduction and a smaller size will fix this. Soft refers to some general softness around the whole image.

No, us screeners are many things, but we aren't bored. But we do get a lot of high quality photos. I can tell you that every member of the screening team has been taking photos for many years, we know what we're doing. As for your question about monitors; I use a 24" 1920x1080 full HD colour calibrated Samsung monitor, it does the job.

We hope not to drive you away from the site, we value every contributor. The rejection reasons are there to help you improve your photos, I started with rejections (and terrible photos) and I can tell you personally that the rejections helped me improve my photos.

Tim

Tim,

Thanks for the reply. I will concede the dust spot below the landing gear, that is fair. The rest of it is baffling to me. I wish there was a better way to discuss an image and convey feedback. I could go on about the things I disagree with you about, but I sense there isn't much to be gained there. Thanks for your time.

jhud922 wrote:

Crosswindphoto wrote:

Hi there,

I screened this image.
At 1920px wide, there is clear blurriness visible, a smaller size may hide the blurriness. Regarding Dirty, in the hill below the main gear closest to the camera there is a dirt/dust spot in the hill, easily removable using the spot removal tool. Dark halos are visible around the wheels and fuselage. Noise refers to the noisy sky, at this size the sky is noisy, both some added noise reduction and a smaller size will fix this. Soft refers to some general softness around the whole image.

No, us screeners are many things, but we aren't bored. But we do get a lot of high quality photos. I can tell you that every member of the screening team has been taking photos for many years, we know what we're doing. As for your question about monitors; I use a 24" 1920x1080 full HD colour calibrated Samsung monitor, it does the job.

We hope not to drive you away from the site, we value every contributor. The rejection reasons are there to help you improve your photos, I started with rejections (and terrible photos) and I can tell you personally that the rejections helped me improve my photos.

Tim

Tim,

Thanks for the reply. I will concede the dust spot below the landing gear, that is fair. The rest of it is baffling to me. I wish there was a better way to discuss an image and convey feedback. I could go on about the things I disagree with you about, but I sense there isn't much to be gained there. Thanks for your time.

I want to hep you improve the image, its a nice shot.
Clone out the spot, for the halos, ensure that you have not added any clarity/dehaze and the highlights are not too turned down. If you're shooting on a Nikon body, theres a setting that has to be turned off, though I can't remember what its called (anyone reading this, if you remember what its called please chime in). If upping the highlights causes some over-exposure, compensate with some contrast and a slight exposure reduction. For the noise, add some noise reduction. Add a pinch of sharpness, then re-export at something like 1200px wide and put it here. I think it should be ok then. If you'd like, you can email me the RAW file at [email protected] and I will have a go at editing it to show you what an acceptable version with the fixed flaws would look like

Tim

Crosswindphoto wrote:

jhud922 wrote:

Crosswindphoto wrote:

Hi there,

I screened this image.
At 1920px wide, there is clear blurriness visible, a smaller size may hide the blurriness. Regarding Dirty, in the hill below the main gear closest to the camera there is a dirt/dust spot in the hill, easily removable using the spot removal tool. Dark halos are visible around the wheels and fuselage. Noise refers to the noisy sky, at this size the sky is noisy, both some added noise reduction and a smaller size will fix this. Soft refers to some general softness around the whole image.

No, us screeners are many things, but we aren't bored. But we do get a lot of high quality photos. I can tell you that every member of the screening team has been taking photos for many years, we know what we're doing. As for your question about monitors; I use a 24" 1920x1080 full HD colour calibrated Samsung monitor, it does the job.

We hope not to drive you away from the site, we value every contributor. The rejection reasons are there to help you improve your photos, I started with rejections (and terrible photos) and I can tell you personally that the rejections helped me improve my photos.

Tim

Tim,

Thanks for the reply. I will concede the dust spot below the landing gear, that is fair. The rest of it is baffling to me. I wish there was a better way to discuss an image and convey feedback. I could go on about the things I disagree with you about, but I sense there isn't much to be gained there. Thanks for your time.

I want to hep you improve the image, its a nice shot.
Clone out the spot, for the halos, ensure that you have not added any clarity/dehaze and the highlights are not too turned down. If you're shooting on a Nikon body, theres a setting that has to be turned off, though I can't remember what its called (anyone reading this, if you remember what its called please chime in). If upping the highlights causes some over-exposure, compensate with some contrast and a slight exposure reduction. For the noise, add some noise reduction. Add a pinch of sharpness, then re-export at something like 1200px wide and put it here. I think it should be ok then. If you'd like, you can email me the RAW file at [email protected] and I will have a go at editing it to show you what an acceptable version with the fixed flaws would look like

Tim

Tim, your reply is very generous, I appreciate your effort. I think I'll pass on this particular photo, but rest assured I have hundreds and hundreds of what I think are quality photos from a weekend in LA. I will be uploading more (probably) and I think I will take you up on your email just to speed up the normal rejection period by a few weeks.

For the record, adjustment of highlights and shadows, clarity, etc....are all 100% expected steps in the editing process. I'm not sure why they would invalidate a photo. Is the expectation that one shoot in JPG and upload that? Don't turn down the highlights? Why not? Highlights should always be reigned in...this is very standard accepted photo editing. We desire greater dynamic range.

I can assure you all my photos have been shot in RAW, lightly edited in Lightroom, and exported at the highest output settings. I think the suggestion of exporting at 1200px is a bit humbling honestly. If my photos aren't good enough to be viewed at almost 100%, then I am not sure there's much point in going back to the early 2000s at 1200px wide.

jhud922 wrote:

Crosswindphoto wrote:

jhud922 wrote:

Tim,

Thanks for the reply. I will concede the dust spot below the landing gear, that is fair. The rest of it is baffling to me. I wish there was a better way to discuss an image and convey feedback. I could go on about the things I disagree with you about, but I sense there isn't much to be gained there. Thanks for your time.

I want to hep you improve the image, its a nice shot.
Clone out the spot, for the halos, ensure that you have not added any clarity/dehaze and the highlights are not too turned down. If you're shooting on a Nikon body, theres a setting that has to be turned off, though I can't remember what its called (anyone reading this, if you remember what its called please chime in). If upping the highlights causes some over-exposure, compensate with some contrast and a slight exposure reduction. For the noise, add some noise reduction. Add a pinch of sharpness, then re-export at something like 1200px wide and put it here. I think it should be ok then. If you'd like, you can email me the RAW file at [email protected] and I will have a go at editing it to show you what an acceptable version with the fixed flaws would look like

Tim

Tim, your reply is very generous, I appreciate your effort. I think I'll pass on this particular photo, but rest assured I have hundreds and hundreds of what I think are quality photos from a weekend in LA. I will be uploading more (probably) and I think I will take you up on your email just to speed up the normal rejection period by a few weeks.

For the record, adjustment of highlights and shadows, clarity, etc....are all 100% expected steps in the editing process. I'm not sure why they would invalidate a photo. Is the expectation that one shoot in JPG and upload that? Don't turn down the highlights? Why not? Highlights should always be reigned in...this is very standard accepted photo editing. We desire greater dynamic range.

I can assure you all my photos have been shot in RAW, lightly edited in Lightroom, and exported at the highest output settings. I think the suggestion of exporting at 1200px is a bit humbling honestly. If my photos aren't good enough to be viewed at almost 100%, then I am not sure there's much point in going back to the early 2000s at 1200px wide.

Personally I don't touch clarity when editing my photos. You can edit the highlights and all that, but it can't be too much. Having low highlights and raised shadows will cause the halos. Don't shoot JPG. Exporting your photos at a smaller size (1200, 1400, 1600) will help mask any imperfections in the photo and increase its chance of being accepted.

Crosswindphoto wrote:

jhud922 wrote:

Crosswindphoto wrote:

I want to hep you improve the image, its a nice shot.
Clone out the spot, for the halos, ensure that you have not added any clarity/dehaze and the highlights are not too turned down. If you're shooting on a Nikon body, theres a setting that has to be turned off, though I can't remember what its called (anyone reading this, if you remember what its called please chime in). If upping the highlights causes some over-exposure, compensate with some contrast and a slight exposure reduction. For the noise, add some noise reduction. Add a pinch of sharpness, then re-export at something like 1200px wide and put it here. I think it should be ok then. If you'd like, you can email me the RAW file at [email protected] and I will have a go at editing it to show you what an acceptable version with the fixed flaws would look like

Tim

Tim, your reply is very generous, I appreciate your effort. I think I'll pass on this particular photo, but rest assured I have hundreds and hundreds of what I think are quality photos from a weekend in LA. I will be uploading more (probably) and I think I will take you up on your email just to speed up the normal rejection period by a few weeks.

For the record, adjustment of highlights and shadows, clarity, etc....are all 100% expected steps in the editing process. I'm not sure why they would invalidate a photo. Is the expectation that one shoot in JPG and upload that? Don't turn down the highlights? Why not? Highlights should always be reigned in...this is very standard accepted photo editing. We desire greater dynamic range.

I can assure you all my photos have been shot in RAW, lightly edited in Lightroom, and exported at the highest output settings. I think the suggestion of exporting at 1200px is a bit humbling honestly. If my photos aren't good enough to be viewed at almost 100%, then I am not sure there's much point in going back to the early 2000s at 1200px wide.

Personally I don't touch clarity when editing my photos. You can edit the highlights and all that, but it can't be too much. Having low highlights and raised shadows will cause the halos. Don't shoot JPG. Exporting your photos at a smaller size (1200, 1400, 1600) will help mask any imperfections in the photo and increase its chance of being accepted.

I think its the discussion of "Halos" that I mostly don't understand. In a faux "HDR" image, sure. But by simply dragging down the highlights and bumping up the shadows, I really don't see it. There must be some kind of test the screeners do like drastically increasing the contrast or something. Otherwise it feels extremely subjective and arbitrary.

If you apply the Equalize filter, the halos around the gear and fuselage are displayed in an enhanced manner. Overuse of the shadow/highlight tool typically causes halos. Equalizing an image is a good way to check.


Jehan

jhud922 wrote:

This photo is none of these things. Are the screeners just bored, or overloaded with high quality photos? How can they possibly claim to assess the noise levels in a photo that is barely 2mp. Soft? Blurry? What kind of monitors are they using? These kinds of canned blanket rejection criteria are probably going to just drive me away from the site, and possibly aviation photography in general. This site was an inspiration for me starting in the 90s. It is sad to see high quality contributions rejected for no reason.

There is what I would call a "Prime Directive" that everyone should be aware of when they start uploading to A.net:

This site does not judge you as an aviation photographer. This site judges the quality of your uploads against a set of stringent criteria that applies specifically to this site.

Keep that in the forefront of your mind, and it enables you to take rejections much less personally.

jhud922 wrote:

I could go on about the things I disagree with you about, but I sense there isn't much to be gained there.

There is always knowledge to be gained. In this case however, it's probably more on your end. Through receiving rejections (and also gaining acceptances), you will learn more about the site's criteria for photos, and you can adjust your editing process to match those criteria (should you wish to do so).

jhud922 wrote:

For the record, adjustment of highlights and shadows, clarity, etc....are all 100% expected steps in the editing process. I'm not sure why they would invalidate a photo. Is the expectation that one shoot in JPG and upload that? Don't turn down the highlights? Why not? Highlights should always be reigned in...this is very standard accepted photo editing. We desire greater dynamic range.

There is nothing wrong with editing shadows and highlights as desired. But if you do so, your photos may not meet the site's criteria. The site has historically not accepted HDR photos, and has frowned on editing practices that make photos look like HDR photos (which overuse of shadow/highlight can do).

As for "highlights should always be reigned in", that is personal preference. You're not increasing the dynamic range in your image by reducing highlights. The dynamic range is fixed once the photo is taken.

jhud922 wrote:

I think the suggestion of exporting at 1200px is a bit humbling honestly.

Now we're getting somewhere! Starting to upload to A.net can be a very humbling experience. Don't think you're the first to have this reaction upon receiving rejections when first uploading to the site. Remember the Prime Directive I stated above.

jhud922 wrote:

I think its the discussion of "Halos" that I mostly don't understand. In a faux "HDR" image, sure. But by simply dragging down the highlights and bumping up the shadows, I really don't see it. There must be some kind of test the screeners do like drastically increasing the contrast or something. Otherwise it feels extremely subjective and arbitrary.

In Photoshop at least, there is a "radius" option when using shadow/highlight (if I remember correctly). If that radius is set at some non-zero value, then you can get halos.

As previously noted, there are options on both Canon and Nikon cameras that can introduce halos (Active D-Lighting on Nikon, not sure what it's called on Canon). But if you're shooting RAW, that shouldn't be an issue.

In your photo, I was able to see the halos around the landing gear quite easily, without any sort of manipulation of the image. I was also able to see the circular banding in the sky toward the corners of the photo. Looking at and editing thousands of photos for A.net really gives you an eye for particular defects that you may otherwise ignore.

In general, if a flaw isn't visible in the final image without any manipulation, then it shouldn't be rejected.

How come when i posted an pic i took Of a high flying passenger jet it get's refused .. there was a similar image that made this website pretty famous , did the rounds on many a forum many years ago

Which was off 2 Passenger .Jet's heading the same route .. one was flying beneath .. the other ..

Many of us suffered for this situation at the beginning. As someone said before, "its not the way the picture was taken, its the way its editted".

Considering you are taking aviation pictures before uploading them to the site, youve got the right technique. Now its time to improve your skills at editing and youll get success very soon. I recommend you to try uploading pictures of statics airplanes before trying with aerial pictures. It easier and it doesnt demand very hard editting.

vikkyvik wrote:

jhud922 wrote:

This photo is none of these things. Are the screeners just bored, or overloaded with high quality photos? How can they possibly claim to assess the noise levels in a photo that is barely 2mp. Soft? Blurry? What kind of monitors are they using? These kinds of canned blanket rejection criteria are probably going to just drive me away from the site, and possibly aviation photography in general. This site was an inspiration for me starting in the 90s. It is sad to see high quality contributions rejected for no reason.

There is what I would call a "Prime Directive" that everyone should be aware of when they start uploading to A.net:

This site does not judge you as an aviation photographer. This site judges the quality of your uploads against a set of stringent criteria that applies specifically to this site.

Keep that in the forefront of your mind, and it enables you to take rejections much less personally.

jhud922 wrote:

I could go on about the things I disagree with you about, but I sense there isn't much to be gained there.

There is always knowledge to be gained. In this case however, it's probably more on your end. Through receiving rejections (and also gaining acceptances), you will learn more about the site's criteria for photos, and you can adjust your editing process to match those criteria (should you wish to do so).

jhud922 wrote:

For the record, adjustment of highlights and shadows, clarity, etc....are all 100% expected steps in the editing process. I'm not sure why they would invalidate a photo. Is the expectation that one shoot in JPG and upload that? Don't turn down the highlights? Why not? Highlights should always be reigned in...this is very standard accepted photo editing. We desire greater dynamic range.

There is nothing wrong with editing shadows and highlights as desired. But if you do so, your photos may not meet the site's criteria. The site has historically not accepted HDR photos, and has frowned on editing practices that make photos look like HDR photos (which overuse of shadow/highlight can do).

As for "highlights should always be reigned in", that is personal preference. You're not increasing the dynamic range in your image by reducing highlights. The dynamic range is fixed once the photo is taken.

jhud922 wrote:

I think the suggestion of exporting at 1200px is a bit humbling honestly.

Now we're getting somewhere! Starting to upload to A.net can be a very humbling experience. Don't think you're the first to have this reaction upon receiving rejections when first uploading to the site. Remember the Prime Directive I stated above.

jhud922 wrote:

I think its the discussion of "Halos" that I mostly don't understand. In a faux "HDR" image, sure. But by simply dragging down the highlights and bumping up the shadows, I really don't see it. There must be some kind of test the screeners do like drastically increasing the contrast or something. Otherwise it feels extremely subjective and arbitrary.

In Photoshop at least, there is a "radius" option when using shadow/highlight (if I remember correctly). If that radius is set at some non-zero value, then you can get halos.

As previously noted, there are options on both Canon and Nikon cameras that can introduce halos (Active D-Lighting on Nikon, not sure what it's called on Canon). But if you're shooting RAW, that shouldn't be an issue.

In your photo, I was able to see the halos around the landing gear quite easily, without any sort of manipulation of the image. I was also able to see the circular banding in the sky toward the corners of the photo. Looking at and editing thousands of photos for A.net really gives you an eye for particular defects that you may otherwise ignore.

In general, if a flaw isn't visible in the final image without any manipulation, then it shouldn't be rejected.

I appreciate your lengthy reply, however everything I said I still maintain. I think if i were to sum up the position of A.net and its screeners, its something like "many decades ago when technology was based on film photography and zero editing, we established arbitrary image standards based not around standard photography editing techniques, but rather snap judgements based on tiny compressed JPGs. as time has gone on, and millions of images have made their way to the site, we have been forced to apply more and more arbitrary and random assessments and critiques to the photos uploaded in order to maintain control over both the quality and quantity of photos submitted. "

Look, at the end of the day, the rules are the rules, I get it. If I were to establish my own Aviation photography website, i could dictate the standards as I wanted to as well.

All that being said, I was able to get some targeted feedback from a screener, Tim, which I appreciate. After essentially starting with an unedited RAW photo, and applying what I consider the bare, bare minimum of edits to get it looking presentable, I was able to get it accepted.

Going forward, I think the advice I would give to myself, and indeed all other aspirational photographers, is "edit your photos as minimally as possible, even if you think it looks bland and boring and flat, thats what they want." I will have to maintain separate edits for my personal use and website.

jelpee wrote:

If you apply the Equalize filter, the halos around the gear and fuselage are displayed in an enhanced manner. Overuse of the shadow/highlight tool typically causes halos. Equalizing an image is a good way to check.


Jehan

This is a ridiculous way of evaluating any image. Of course if you push various elements to the extreme it will expose all kinds of flaws. But that isn't the way the final product will look, so how is this helpful?

In the interest of trying to arrive at a consensus, what do the screeners or others in this thread feel about this re-edit?

United 767 LAX takeoff re-edit John Hudson by John Hudson, on Flickr

jhud922 wrote:

Going forward, I think the advice I would give to myself, and indeed all other aspirational photographers, is "edit your photos as minimally as possible, even if you think it looks bland and boring and flat, thats what they want."

Yes, as a general rule, less editing is preferred. I would hold to that for my non-A.net photography as well. The less editing you have to do, the better. I would much rather "take a photo" than "create an image".

jhud922 wrote:

This is a ridiculous way of evaluating any image. Of course if you push various elements to the extreme it will expose all kinds of flaws. But that isn't the way the final product will look, so how is this helpful?

Why ask for help if you ridicule attempts to help you?

I already told you I could see the halos without manipulating the image at all. Jehan just told you how you can make the halos more visible - it's a great way to check an image before submitting (also good for finding dust spots).

Screeners shouldn't be evaluating images using Equalize, but it's useful for photographers submitting to the site.

vikkyvik wrote:

jhud922 wrote:

Going forward, I think the advice I would give to myself, and indeed all other aspirational photographers, is "edit your photos as minimally as possible, even if you think it looks bland and boring and flat, thats what they want."

Yes, as a general rule, less editing is preferred. I would hold to that for my non-A.net photography as well. The less editing you have to do, the better. I would much rather "take a photo" than "create an image".

jhud922 wrote:

This is a ridiculous way of evaluating any image. Of course if you push various elements to the extreme it will expose all kinds of flaws. But that isn't the way the final product will look, so how is this helpful?

Why ask for help if you ridicule attempts to help you?

I already told you I could see the halos without manipulating the image at all. Jehan just told you how you can make the halos more visible - it's a great way to check an image before submitting (also good for finding dust spots).

Screeners shouldn't be evaluating images using Equalize, but it's useful for photographers submitting to the site.

Yes, as a general rule, less editing is preferred. I would hold to that for my non-A.net photography as well. The less editing you have to do, the better. I would much rather "take a photo" than "create an image".

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure this opinion is necessarily in the majority. When shooting RAW, as I'm sure you understand, a considerable amount of work is often required to get the image back to how it looked to the naked eye in fact. I would argue that the minimalistic editing preferences that this site seems to favor leaves images looking flat and uninteresting, relatively speaking.

I already told you I could see the halos without manipulating the image at all. Jehan just told you how you can make the halos more visible - it's a great way to check an image before submitting (also good for finding dust spots).

Certainly it seems to be your preferred method for some kind of extreme stress test. If you'd like to provide some sample images that you've taken, I'm pretty sure there are some odd filters in Photoshop that I can apply that will expose "flaws" as well.

jhud922 wrote:

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure this opinion is necessarily in the majority.

That's fine. I'm not sitting here claiming to speak for the majority of photographers.

jhud922 wrote:

When shooting RAW, as I'm sure you understand, a considerable amount of work is often required to get the image back to how it looked to the naked eye in fact.

Certainly. And different people will have different preferences for how close to "naked-eye view" they want to get.

jhud922 wrote:

If you'd like to provide some sample images that you've taken, I'm pretty sure there are some odd filters in Photoshop that I can apply that will expose "flaws" as well.

You are welcome to download any of my 900+ images on this site and go searching for flaws. I have no doubt you'll find some. And if you do find flaws that are actually visible in the final, non-manipulated image, and that violate the site's criteria, please, feel free to post them in the forum and ask that they be taken down. I will not be offended in the slightest.

I think you're missing the point though. You seemed to indicate that you couldn't see the halos that I, and others, could see, in your photo. So a screener suggested using the "equalize" function in Photoshop to enable you to see them. You don't seem to want to do that either.

Hey, we can only try and help.

vikkyvik wrote:

jhud922 wrote:

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure this opinion is necessarily in the majority.

You seemed to indicate that you couldn't see the halos that I, and others, could see, in your photo. So a screener suggested using the "equalize" function in Photoshop to enable you to see them. You don't seem to want to do that either.

Hey, we can only try and help.

I disagree that they were obvious enough visually to disqualify a photo that is 1800 pixels wide. If they were so obvious, why would the equalize filter be required at all? Regardless, I posted a re-edit above - did you miss that? If that doesn't indicate my willingness to work with the feedback provided, I don't know what does. As I've said, the rules are the rules - just because I think they are based on someone's odd opinions, that doesn't mean I am unwilling to try to find some kind of compromise even if its only for this site. That was literally the entire point of me proposing the question in this thread.

vikkyvik wrote:

jhud922 wrote:

You are welcome to download any of my 900+ images on this site and go searching for flaws.

Vik, you have a lot of great images on the site. I'm jealous of your apparent proximity to LAX. I have no desire for any of these to be taken down, but since you did make the suggestion, a few of these below are in my humble non-screener opinion, maybe not up the quality requirements implied by the site's standards, or the quality standards that seem to be imposed of others.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthan ... 42/2401643
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... 24/4931285
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-A ... 23/2225755
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin- ... 14/2119922
https://www.airliners.net/photo/America ... ER/2015781
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Kalitta ... CF/2541726
https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... 36/2237938
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirate ... 61/2785813
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... 10/2307657
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirate ... 61/2785814

Again, not bad photos per se, but they seem to me to be in opposition to the standards implied by the site and i have zero doubt in my mind if I upload similar photos they'd get rejected. Now should they? That's not up to me, but most of my critiques are based on framing/composition solely. I didn't break out Photoshop at this point, although if you want me to I can fire it up and get super nitpicky.

Again, I enjoy most of your photos, lots of great ones over the years.

jhud922 wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthan ... 42/2401643
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... 24/4931285
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-A ... 23/2225755
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin- ... 14/2119922
https://www.airliners.net/photo/America ... ER/2015781
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Kalitta ... CF/2541726
https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... 36/2237938
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirate ... 61/2785813
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... 10/2307657
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirate ... 61/2785814

Most of these were uploaded 7-10 years ago, when acceptance standards were significantly different than today.

jhud922 wrote:

If they were so obvious, why would the equalize filter be required at all?

To repeat a third time, the equalize filter WASN'T required. I could see them, quite easily, without said filter....and to be perfectly honest, I'm not all that good at seeing halos. So they were pretty obvious.

jhud922 wrote:

Vik, you have a lot of great images on the site.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

jhud922 wrote:

but most of my critiques are based on framing/composition solely.

You picked an interesting batch of photos. If I went through all my photos and found ones that I thought would be rejected today, those are probably not ones I'd pick. I think for most of those, the framing would still be accepted now. But hey, maybe I'm wrong - I haven't uploaded in a few years now.

With that said, you were specifically talking about exposing flaws through use of Photoshop filters. Which, I will note, is not what you are critiquing in those photos.

jhud922 wrote:

I didn't break out Photoshop at this point, although if you want me to I can fire it up and get super nitpicky.

That's up to you. I'm not asking you to do any of this, just saying you are welcome to if you want.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

jhud922 wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthan ... 42/2401643
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... 24/4931285
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Delta-A ... 23/2225755
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Virgin- ... 14/2119922
https://www.airliners.net/photo/America ... ER/2015781
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Kalitta ... CF/2541726
https://www.airliners.net/photo/British ... 36/2237938
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirate ... 61/2785813
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... 10/2307657
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Emirate ... 61/2785814

Most of these were uploaded 7-10 years ago, when acceptance standards were significantly different than today.

I'm not sure how to respond to that...I think it sort of agrees with my case, but either way it says something.

Thank you to those who responded with a reasoned argument based off the policies of the site. I think I have learned a few things, and ultimately since I was able to get at least one image accepted, I think I've answered my own question. It is yes, as long as it is possible to tailor images specifically to be accepted by screeners.

The photo that I used of the United 767 to drive the discussion was ultimately not a great one, and I think I agree with most of the feedback now, even if it is pretty minor and subjective - it does line up with the stated standards of the site.

This is the reason why I do not upload photos to airliners.net. This is not meant as a criticism of the site, or its standards. I just accept airliners.net for what it is. It is more of a cataloguing platform with a stronger emphasis on technicality over artistic expression. Once the photo reaches the screener, technical flaws and imperfections will overshadow any styles or effects that the photographer hopes to express through post-processing. Trying to squeeze out as much detail as you can from the sensor data by lifting the shadows and lowering the highlights will often accentuate other imperfections and flaws present in the photo, and it will likely detract from the likelihood of your photo getting accepted even if that kind of editing produces a more creative/artistic look. I myself like to take advantage of the artistic and creative leeway that my full-frame sensor camera allows, including lifting up the shadows and lowering the highlights, so I use different platforms such as Instagram or Flickr to upload that kind of work.