I quit Airliners.net

[Richard]

Clovis that pic was great! Pretty stupid that they called it low quality if you ask me. I've seen worse on that site. Maybe different screeners have different standards and it just so happend to your bad luck you had a super anal photography perfectionist.

Hey what was up with engine #1? One of the rear covers was blue....

[DevilDog]

A.net

Hey guys count another guy that has quit A.net. Just last night I told them to take all of my pictures off. I only had 3 on the data base so it was not difficult. They e-maild me this mourning saying that they have taken the pictures off the data base. At the end of the e-mail Johan said, " Cheers, Johan" what is that about.

Nick

[Wietse]

Hmmm... so now it is something to be proud of? Telling them to have your pictures removed? Come on...

[FUAirliner]

By asking airliners.net to remove your pictures you only hurt yourself. Airliners.net was, is and will be the biggest and most important database for aviation images. There your photos are viewed by more people than here or at any other database, if somebody searches for a picture for use in a publication he searches at airliners.net first.

You don't hurt airliners.net in any way if you request to remove your pictures. There are enough photographers around the world who are willing to support the site. Requesting the removal of your pictures only shows that you are giving up in achieving the highest possible quality for your pictures.

Wietse, you're right with your "no good photographs", but have a look at other databases than airliners.net. It is far worse! (Please note that I'm not referring technical issues, I'm referring to composition, lighting and subject)

[Greg]

But if you are a hobbyist does it really matter if they are seen by more people? I am content to have a least 300 people see my work and 300+ for one pic is more than I could have dreamed of. the growing intolerance of a.net is because of inconsitencies and the realization that they can go somewhere else. A.net used to be small but it's growth has alienated the little guys who don't take hundreds of pics with their 10D's. The choice to leave a site is that person's beliefs and they shuld be congrtulated for doing what that beleived was correct.

[mikecweb]

Very true greg.
Maybe if enough of the big boys leave a.net they will be a little more consistent in their screening of pics. I realize that I will never with my equipment get a photo in a mag but does that mean that I should never get a photo on the internet either?
Also I wouldn't be so sure that it will always be the biggest on the internet. If Jetphotos.net stays its course and keeps accepting the way that they are we will surpass a.net with in the next couple years. And if you look the pictures here are not crap. They are damn nice and truly show a love of aviation.

[JeffinDEN]

It is not the equipment you own that gets you published in a magazine, it is the photo itself. I have sold a bunch of shots taken with my Olympus C700 which is by no means even considered an advanced amature camera. Basically a point and shoot. But, some of the shots are very good based on lighting, composition, etc. I did that, not the camera.

The "bar" at A.net rises every now and then, just as many people here are noticing it inching up as well. Raising that bar is good for the site and the photographers. If you are just a hobbyist, then getting a rejection should not be a big deal, but, if you are into selling some of this stuff, then obviously, the better the shot, the more views you get, the more potential customers you have, the more money you make, etc. etc, etc.

Most "guys" do take hundreds of shots on an outing...... Just not all with Canon , Nikon can be seen around some perimeter fences as well....

[Greg]

Didn't mean to say only good pics were tasken with Canon's, I just know more about them then Nikon's. Most of pics are taken with a Kodak though.

[AlohaPacific]

You're not alone Clovis. I just had around 12 photos rejected for low quality. I think some of the screeners at airliners.net are still anti Nikon. Since most, if not all, of the screeners have Canon's. I've had more shots uploaded there with an Olympus C-3000 than with a Nikon D100. And it makes me mad to have my photos in the queue for almost 3 weeks and then have them all rejected for something they shouldn't have been rejected for.

[Scunner]

Yo Wietse! I'll give you some benefit of the doubt, perhaps,
but you have fallen on your own sword:

What makes a good photograph?
- lighting
- composition
- subject

I am talking about shots that are
-backlit (or in any case the sun is not behind the photog at all)
-3/4 rear shots in the approach
-Fokker 50s, Transavia 737s etc... just the regular boring stuff..

And again, if there is no other possibility to shoot a/c at that time, its fine with me... but just take a 10 mins drive, and you have PERFECT sunshine!

Your own capabilites are showing a defecit.
[[ Backlighting and creating a stunning photograph from a boring subject. ]]
Have you ever tried it? or are you just a sunshine junkie?
(Sorry Frank, I am not getting at you, I know you do have a specific target audience)
Yes, sunshine behind you is the basic building block of a standard aircraft shot, but aviation photography is more than just that.
Once you enter the comfort zone there is no challenge left to achieve, unless you look for it.

When you have developed and mastered those objectives, I'll listen to you more intently.

[andyhunt]

Aloha Pacific,

I'm a Screener at a.net and I'm a Nikon user...................

Andrew

[AlohaPacific]

Andrew, your probably one of the 'good guys'. But I still bet MOST screeners use Canon.

[jwenting]

What irritates me is the constant flow of accepted pics at A.net which are below standard, taken at the wrong time of day (sun behind the plane) and boring subjects..: Fokker 50s and Transavia 737s with bad light and low quality... I cant stand it that those are accepted while others like yours are dismissed... I am talking about Amsterdam, and if you want to have a look at them, just do a search for AMS and look about 4 pages down....

That is an arrogant Wietse.

Be happy with your own photographs.
When you publicly express those thoughts, you lose all your credibility.

Actually, the first Transavia 737 I noticed when doing as Wietse suggests is on page 9 with page 11 indeed including quite a few.
The first Fokker 50 is on page 12.
If you can't take it that someone else gets more shots accepted than you you might want to look for another place to upload Wietse...
You have no exclusive rights to Schiphol OR to airliners.net.

[jwenting]

Yo scunner... I am not saying I dont like the photographs, if they are worthy to get added, so be it, I just wont look at them. Simply all aircraft coming by are photographed. That is not a problem, since I do that too, but they are all uploaded too! What im saying is pick your best shots and upload them!! Quality over Quantity! But this isnt too bad and it wont irritate me...

For most people it's a matter of uploading 100 shots in the hope to get 1 accepted at a.net.
I guess he got lucky and had more accepted than normal...
And what if you have a lucky day and everything just works out? Should you still only upload 1 or 2?

The thing that does irritates me, is the rejection of some shots that are special or marginal rejections in contrast to the acceptance of those bad side ons.

I'm with you there. I've had my share of rarities rejected for weird reasons.
That includes one shot that would have been the ONLY shot properly showing the colours of the aircraft at the site (and the 3rd only of that aircraft) which was rejected for badcommon (and again when I appealed it).

And : I just think its a shame that people go to locations at times when the sun and light is just so bad. Going to another location would easily solve that...

Unless you can't go elsewhere or there is no other runway in use... In such situations you do the best you can and hope (or give up and go home, but that might mean a lost trip if you flew over for that shooting).

[jwenting]

I am talking about shots that are
-backlit (or in any case the sun is not behind the photog at all)

Nothing wrong with backlighting, if used properly it can look stunning.
It does take a knowledge of what effects to expect to get decent results though (and critics who think beyond the box you're in which states that the sun should always be at your back).
I've even used lensflare to excellent effect to produce artistic shots. It's all in the photographer's eye...

-Fokker 50s, Transavia 737s etc... just the regular boring stuff..

Boring to you maybe, but to someone who comes from a place where such aircraft are never seen or rare they're quite exciting!
I was at CUR last year, the daily KLM 747 didn't do much for me as I see them here all the time. To the locals it was the big event of the day.
In contrast I was happily shooting away at DCA and Aeropostal aircraft that they think boring because they see them so often.