Is It Anet Worthy 2016?

angad84 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:03 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 49):
Better, but not sure of the quality at this size.

Yep, still iffy.

YQZ380 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:25 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 48):

Still looks somewhat heat hazed to me; look at the number "31".

Cheers,
Yang

kulverstukas · Thu Mar 31, 2016 7:45 pm

Two more

[Edited 2016-03-31 13:21:54]

angad84 · Thu Mar 31, 2016 8:32 pm

Slight blue/red cast to my eye.

cheers
A

vikkyvik · Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:41 am

First one is quite flat, and I wouldn't be surprised if it got an overexposed rejection (though it's not).

Second is soft. Not sure the quality will allow the size.

angad84 · Fri Apr 01, 2016 7:48 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 54):
Second is soft. Not sure the quality will allow the size.

And dark/flat. Needs more contrast and slightly brighter whites.

Cheers
A

airkas1 · Fri Apr 01, 2016 1:58 pm

1: low contrast, technically not overexposed, but bright. Like Vik said, I also wouldn't be surprised if it got done for overexposed.
2: softish, flattish

kulverstukas · Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:46 am

Yes, unfortunate conditions with local overcast on the bright day

What if I try this one instead?

angad84 · Sat Apr 02, 2016 10:22 am

Much better

Cheers
Angad

YQZ380 · Sat Apr 02, 2016 1:22 pm

Still a little flat for me, but agree with Angad.

Cheers,
Yang

airkas1 · Sat Apr 02, 2016 8:19 pm

Much better! I agree that it needs more contrast, but other than that it looks OK.

kulverstukas · Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:13 am

airkas1 · Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:10 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 61):

Slightly blurry.

kulverstukas · Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:23 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 62):
Slightly blurry.

airkas1 · Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:08 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 63):

I hate to say this, but the T-50 is also a bit blurry/soft. Won't make it in this size.

kulverstukas · Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:54 pm

angad84 · Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:20 pm

Nah, too much heat haze for here.

Cheers
A

kulverstukas · Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:52 pm

Just of curiosity...

airkas1 · Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:40 pm

Flat, motive (the green thingy), softish/blurryish/OOFish (blurryish/OOFish mainly for the way the tires look).

[Edited 2016-04-12 12:40:32]

kulverstukas · Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:45 pm

Motive is enough

Any chances of recent shoots (terrible heat haze still here)

YQZ380 · Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:57 pm

Both look quite heat-hazed to me, but Il-96 should be salvageable at a smaller size. Both won't get through at this size I'm afraid...

Cheers,
Yang

airkas1 · Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:26 pm

The first one looks heathazed, but might work in a smaller size (

)
The IL96 looks passable.

kulverstukas · Tue May 10, 2016 9:34 pm

Just checking if my photos still of so terrible quality...

[Edited 2016-05-10 14:46:44]

airkas1 · Tue May 10, 2016 9:42 pm

1) slightly blurry nose, but passable for me.
2) looks alright. But why not go for a 16:9 crop

kulverstukas · Wed May 11, 2016 10:47 pm

OK. Thanks. Seems it's still to early to return.

airkas1 · Thu May 12, 2016 6:19 am

I see you added a third phot, (which is now the top one). That one looks ok.

kulverstukas · Mon May 16, 2016 6:36 pm

Blurry, grainy, soft, quality?

Same there?

Both also dark?

This one is grainy, OS, quality?

airkas1 · Mon May 16, 2016 7:10 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 76):
Blurry, grainy, soft, quality?

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 76):
Same there?

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 76):
Both also dark?

Unfortunately both are blurry, so it kinda stops right there already. The blurryness is quite obvious, you can see that yourself as well, right?

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 76):
This one is grainy, OS, quality?

Wing and hor.stab are a bit jagged (OS). I guess it's a little grainy, yes. So I agree with the reasons above. In addition, it could be brighter:

kulverstukas · Sun May 22, 2016 7:43 pm

I think this one don't worth trying even at 1024?

airkas1 · Sun May 22, 2016 8:29 pm

It's a bit softish/hazed wings, but the motive is great. I would definitely try it (although maybe a bit smaller indeed).

spompert · Sun May 22, 2016 9:18 pm

wow, stunning picture! I guess with such photos there will be some leniency with screening I hope.

kulverstukas · Mon May 23, 2016 6:18 am

Quoting spompert (Reply 80):
I guess with such photos there will be some leniency with screening I hope.

I don't think so...

How about this?

airkas1 · Mon May 23, 2016 9:30 am

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 81):
How about this?

The right side of the frame looks darkish (vignetting). I reckon motive is also on the cards (perhaps 'people' too).
That said, that guy seems to be in a good mood?

angad84 · Mon May 23, 2016 10:18 pm

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

kulverstukas · Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:16 pm

Are such photos (with ladders) motive relected?

angad84 · Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:51 am

I don't think so, because it's not a part of the scene - not being used while the a/c is being worked on, and it's not one of those little ladders like the ones that clip onto the Flankers when they're parked. It just looks like a piece of ramp equipment left there.

Sorry.

Cheers
A

kulverstukas · Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:38 am

Motivewize this kind is no go to?

kulverstukas · Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:58 pm

Is it passable as is?

angad84 · Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:41 am

Lovely shot, but a bit soft in parts and a slight magenta cast. But definitely workable for this site.

Cheers
A

airkas1 · Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:16 am

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 84):
Are such photos (with ladders) motive relected?

In this case, yes (ladder too obstructive).

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 86):
Motivewize this kind is no go to?

Correct, motive/people rejection.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 87):
Is it passable as is?

It could use a bit more sharpness at the front and tail, but otherwise passable.

kulverstukas · Sat Jun 11, 2016 3:44 pm

Thanks, Angad and Kas!

Just to clarify, such shoots are not for Anet too because of people?

airkas1 · Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:06 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 90):
Just to clarify, such shoots are not for Anet too because of people?

Well, in those 2 it's not so much the people. In the photo above (kid climbing ladder), both the kid and adult are clearly identifyable. That leads to a people rejection (+ probably motive).

In the 2 photos above, the faces are less apparent, so probably not a reason for a people rejection. Motive is a different story however.

Kaphias · Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:43 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 91):
Well, in those 2 it's not so much the people. In the photo above (kid climbing ladder), both the kid and adult are clearly identifyable. That leads to a people rejection (+ probably motive).

In the 2 photos above, the faces are less apparent, so probably not a reason for a people rejection. Motive is a different story however.

Perhaps a review of the rejection guide is in order... (emphasis mine)

Quoting Rejection Guide:
People
We allow people to be visible in photos and allow faces to be recognizable in photos.
People can not be the main subject of the photo or the sole motivation. The people in the image must contribute to the overall aviation theme of your image, and not themselves be the sole content/motivation for the composition.
We do not accept pictures where people pose in front of an aircraft, such as the example below.
The people have to be either accidental or motivational to the pictures. For the former this means we allow airshow public or pilots faces to be visible. For the latter it means that people need to have a function within the picture. As you can see in example 1a the person does not have a function within the photo. In example 1b however the person does have a function in the photo.
We allow flightcrew to be recognisable in the cockpit but we ask that you ask permission from the crew when you take the shot. This is very important! Respect the privacy of the people who generously let you photograph their working environment!

My interpretation would be to accept the first photo, people is not an issue, though motive could be with the people and ladder blocking the wing. Very minor though.

In the second, the people are blocking a main focal point of the aircraft, and don't seem to be actively involved in anything related to the plane. Would reject for motive.

The third has no people problem, but possibly motive due to the little bit of fence in the bottom right. Sometimes including more fence can help, witch should be done here anyways as it's low in frame.

But I'm not a screener... so what do I know!

kulverstukas · Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:43 pm

Quoting Kaphias (Reply 92):
don't seem to be actively involved in anything related to the plane.

Tug crew isn't actively involved with plane? o.O

Kaphias · Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:25 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 93):
Tug crew isn't actively involved with plane? o.O

The tug bar isn't attached to the plane, the guy in the middle is pointing at something off in the distance... so no, I'd say they're about as involved with the plane as I am with my homework right now... that is, on my computer with the right programs and projects open to get something done, but completely distracted...

I want to add... I really love the first photo. Something I wish there was more of here, the human side, images that show the "spirit" of aviation.

kulverstukas · Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:42 pm

Quoting Kaphias (Reply 94):
but completely distracted...

OK, I can exchange second photo with this one as an example...

Quoting Kaphias (Reply 94):
the human side, images that show the "spirit" of aviation.

What about photo from Reply#81?

airkas1 · Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:57 am

Quoting Kaphias (Reply 92):
Perhaps a review of the rejection guide is in order... (emphasis mine)

Ok, fair enough, I didn't explain myself too well I think.

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 95):
OK, I can exchange second photo with this one as an example...

But now the crew blocks the wing and the aircraft is centered way too far to the right (the towbar doesn't justfiy this centering in my opinion).

Kaphias · Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:04 pm

Quoting kulverstukas (Reply 95):
What about photo from Reply#81?

I could go either way. It'd be a beautiful photo without the gentleman too.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 96):
But now the crew blocks the wing and the aircraft is centered way too far to the right (the towbar doesn't justfiy this centering in my opinion).

Agree, but I think a closer crop might be worth trying. Worth noting that the wing is blocked in reply #86 also.

airkas1 · Sun Jun 12, 2016 6:43 pm

Quoting Kaphias (Reply 97):
I think a closer crop might be worth trying. Worth noting that the wing is blocked in reply #86 also.

No offense, but I think both would get motive.

Kaphias · Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:49 pm

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 98):
No offense, but I think both would get motive.

None taken, of course. It wouldn't surprise me for both to be rejected for motive, but I do wish that the rules would start to trend in the direction of accepting images with minor blockages due to equipment and/or people actively involved with the aircraft.

Perhaps this is pertinent, particularly #3:

Quoting Rejection Guide:

Motive
Photos with distracting or obstructing objects in the foreground (this is especially true for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common nature and the large amount of equipment which usually surrounds the aircraft). Ramp Vehicles (including tugs, loaders, baggage carts, etc...) are allowed to block part of the aircraft as long as they are: [1] not blocking engines or wheels (exception: tugs are allowed to block engines/wheels if towing aircraft, and ground crew are allowed to block any part if not too prominent, which is at our discretion) [2] below the window line [3] part of active operations (this amendment is meant to exclude any aircraft parked with equipment in front of it. 'Active operations' is meant to include those aircraft actively loading or unloading.).

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net