If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Jeff, if this site also gets stricter standards, then beginners will not be able to begin. It is natural that a beginner will have a lower quality photo than a professional photographer.
So i feel that standards should be a bit more lenient for people who are just beginning airplane photography.
"The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."
If JetPhotos.net keeps the current (low) standards, this site will run into the same problems airliners.net once had. The traffic volume and hard drive space requirements will become bigger and bigger and some day Chris has to look for ways to finance this site. At the moment JetPhotos.net is growing faster than airliners.net and with the current quality standards the number of pictures will reach the figures of airliners.net.
Chris_SE wrote: "This vas shot on provia, it is pinsharp and scanned in 1600 px... you can even read the reg on the sabena. Its supposed to have a blue cast since it was shot in the blue light of sunset"
In my opinion the blue cast is a bit too much. I doubt that the scenery was that blue in reality. And the scan is not "pin-sharp" either.
As an airliners.net forum member that hasn't paid a single cent until now and as an aviation enthusiast I can understand those people who disagree with the moderator's behaviour. I mostly use the "Aviation Photography" forum which is practically unmoderated, so I'm not affected by the moderator's behaviours, but the stories I hear and read really sound strange. If anyone complains about the fee for the "Non-aviation" forum ... well, I can only say that such a forum doesn't belong on a site like airliners.net. There a lots of other crap forums like that around the web.
The standards here can stay the same and even go up, if a site for beginners is formed. Since that would be too burdensome for Chris some of us started a site for beginners so when they are rejected here or a.net they can still put their pics online. Check my Sig for more info.
When you were an infant, hopefully your parents did not put you in the midde of a crowded mall, or on the top of the staircase to let you have your first steps walking..
And I am sure when you learned to drive, your Dad didn't take you straight into the busy part of town or onto the freeway.........
Beginners can learn somewhere else. (go to Greg's site) If Chis has desires to make this into a premiere photo database, the standards need to go up. WAY UP.
We don't get the traffic here..... Why is that? Picture quality.
IMO this site simply cannot continue to grow at 20,000 pictures a month for an indefinate period and I'm in favour of seeing the standards go up as it would see more visitors and more hits for our pictures. We would all like to see more people use this site, and I think it is safe to say that most of us would like to see our pictures get more hits, but the current generous standards are hampering that. Firstly the database is growing at the rate of 500-600 pictures a day which is too much for most of us to browse through, if the site was faster (which costs money) and there were 200-300 pictures added on a daily basis I think there would be more people who would browse all the pictures for the day and open up a few of them-that is something I can do on A.net but not here because there are too many pictures and it takes too long.
Secondly, A.net has a reputation for quality images and when the marketing guys from Flight Sim product companies or airline industry suppliers want a picture they will go to A.net first (and probably only). There are some great images here and they deserve a bigger audience, but I just don't see it happening as things stand. As the database grows the costs will rise and the site may try and be all about fun and the enjoyment of our hobby but somewhere the money motive has to kick in and that's when Chris has to choose the direction of the site- do we continue as a gallery for enthusiasts pictures, do we utilise Bill Harm's census and become a database or do we become an amateur aviation photo agency?
ADG:
As much as I respect your decision to pull out of A.net, I don't think there is anything big or clever about removing all your pictures from the site-it seems to me to be a pretty destructive way of voicing your opinion. Johan has posted about how photographers are drifting away due to forum problems and he is now addressing the issue and doing something about it. I take on board your points about screening and agree to a point, I could name two uploads in the last 3 days which were IMO very poor shots but added to the database while I have my own pictures rejected for trifling reasons-of course such a situation is frustrating/annoying/whatever but I put the rejections behind me and get on with the next lot of uploads.
The quality standards that exist are what this website was founded upon. If the standards go up this site has no use in the internet world. People come here to have their pictures viewed. The quality is not that bad. The reason why the views aren't that high is that people assume that the pics here are crap and if they want good ones the have to go over to a.net. That is simply not true.
As far as pulling your pictures off a.net. If you come over here bad mouth them and don't remove your pictures you are nothing but a hippocrite. By keeping your pics there you are acknowledging that you need them and that their outlandish policies are warranted.
Originally posted by egll
...or do we become an amateur aviation photo agency?
Is that truly what you think this site is?
Try telling that to the guys stuggling and trying so hard to get a picture accepted here.
I think a move toward raising standards will only hurt this site. Whats the point if the same photogs are the only ones to get their pics accepted at the two sites???
On the topic of hits, on average my photos on jetphotos get at least twice the number hits than I got on airliners.net. True for the real hot shots, you wont get the mega hits like you do on a.net, but those shots are few and far between, at least for me.
As for potential customers going to a.net first when looking for photos to buy, you are probably right, but I could care less since I am not doing this to sell photos and get "exposure". I do this because I love airplanes and I want to share my photos with others who have the same love.
I also agree that jetphotos needs to tighten their standards somewhat, I dont think it will become a problem like at a.net. The attitude her is different. First of all Chris is a fellow photographer and contributor to the site, unlike Johan.
A.net had the potential to become a wonderful site, but unfortunatey the attitude of the management keeps pissing people off.
I have to agree with Flygaa, most, if not all my pics here get well over 100 hits, whereas at a.net they only get a handful, 30-40 for example. Even my GA stuff, which you wouldnt think would be popular.
Well, I am going to have my photos removed anyway, just because I want to focus on one site, Jetphotos, and none other. Uploading to A.net is too tiring.
Like Richard said, it aint about hits or exposure, its about sharing your vision of airplanes with friends and fellow aviation lovers. Anyone else who may be interested is welcome to look too though...
Leftseat86 wrote: "Well, I am going to have my photos removed anyway, just because I want to focus on one site, Jetphotos, and none other."
Sorry, but this is simply stupid! To a certain extent I can see why people like Richard who don't agree with the screening procedure have their pictures removed from airliners.net, but your reason is not a valid one. I (and there are many other photographers) upload to three databases and I can see not a single advantage why I should focus on one.
Concerning the screening process at airliners.net: Matt is right, on the one hand the screening crew rejects nearly perfect shots with little flaws, on the other hand a bunch of really bad shots (backlit side-on shots in low quality) is accepted. But you have to live with it. Compare it with football. Your team has lost some games because of false decisions by the referee and gets relegated. You don't quit supporting your team then, do you?
To run with your football analogy: If your team kept getting unfair and ridicules calls by the refs you would consider as the owner of the team to protest and find another league.
An unsharp and badly centered picture of a 747 approaching my local gets accepted-despite the fact there are already 40+ pictures of that aircraft in the database, then a very unlevel picture of a prop at a regional US airport gets in.....on the same day I get a 'badpeople' rejection when there are no people in the picture.
Granted I got a lot more accepted that day than rejected but I think that it's this inconsistency that is at the heart of the problem.
BTW, I didn't say that I think this is an amateur photo agency-I hope that never happens. I think this is a gallery of pictures from people whose passion for planes is greater than their passion for photography and long may it continue like that, but adding 20,000 pictures a month is unsustainable without a shift in the way the site is financed and that is something that may force a change of direction in what the site is about.
(delivered 12/11/86) Perfect late afternoon light for this shot as Delta's ship #117 taxis for departure to Orlando as flight 1039.. N117DL. Boeing 767-332. JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!
hmmmmmm........
I like the exposure that the other site gives. but I upload it here because it really is not extra effort (I've already edited the photo and saved a psd copy of the final version that you see) all it takes is a couple minutes to upload. I'll probably continue sending the good stuff to both sites. I just wish that THIS site could increase the exposure our pics get. People are looking at the other sites' pictures because of the quality.
View my photos at JP.Net
Home Airport: Jackson - Evers Int'l (JAN) - Jackson, MS
Camera: Canon 50D, 100-400L/17-85 lenses
Sorry, but this is simply stupid! To a certain extent I can see why people like Richard who don't agree with the screening procedure have their pictures removed from airliners.net, but your reason is not a valid one. I (and there are many other photographers) upload to three databases and I can see not a single advantage why I should focus on one.
Well it's not your decision is it!!
I'm not going to remove my photos already there, but I won't upload anymore and I have quit the forums, which, IMO were just as stupid as the screener's inconsistency.
(NO not ONLY on non-av)
-Clovis
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment