Complete Aircraft vs Not

[SammyG]

I've noticed that sometimes photos get rejected for not having the entire aircraft in the frame. But I have also seen many photos in the database that do not have the entire aircraft in the frame.

So what are the criteria for when it is and is not acceptable to have the entire aircraft? Like, on this one...



(This is straight out the camera except for re-sizing)

If I were to crop this one so it just features the nose, or the nose and the engines, would that be acceptable?

Thanks!

[sluger020889]

Yes I believe a tight crop on the nose would be alright. However showing half the aircraft as you did, even if properly cropped to show the front half of the 744 just leaves an un-balanced image IMO.

[Top_Gun]

Yeah, If I'm going to cut an aircraft in half, I prefer the 1/4 angle shot.

[photoid=5907634]

[thecloudbuster]

I don't think that the original image looks right as a "partial" image. Fine if its a personal reference shot but as a picture it is out of balance. IMO it is a little bit in "no mans land" in terms of focal length used.

I appretiate that it is always going to be a subjective and sensitive issue but I feel that in answer to the original post that there are two issues that are key.

Firstly a partial image needs to look balanced, and intended.

Secondly, what is the purpose of the shot. Many "record" shots should have the whole of the aeroplane, or all of the fuselage with some wing clipped if presented in the classic "wedgie" (3/4) view. This as I can make out, is largely the policy on this site.

However there are times when greater impact or portrayal of an aeroplanes character can alter this rule dramatically. I have taken successful images where the aeroplane fills a tiny part of the frame, and others that focus on a very small detail, however many of these are outside of the requirements of this site.

Like all things such as, crop, horizon position, our own view can be different to the view of an editorial team, and it is then down to whether you are driven by building your own unique collection, shooting purely for someone else's requirements or somewhere in between.

https://www.stevendraperphotography.com

[LX-A343]

Couldn't have worded better, just with one comment added: as it is obviously difficult to make 100% proof criterias, it's finally up to the screeners preference to accept or reject a photo. But of course, there are a few hints:
- focus on a clear detail, like the nose section for example
- be careful when cropping, for example: a cut off engine may have a negative impact, or: the VS B744 shot looks somehow unbalanced with the wing cut tat way.
- obviously, photgraphical flaws will be more prominent on close ups. So, check depth of field, exposure, ...

[Mark Ralph]

Cloudbuster & Gerardo have covered things well, but I would just like to add something.

The best way to get a good close ups is to shoot close ups not half the plane and then try and crop the bit you want. Know what you want from a shot before you take it. I always decide what I am going to shoot before I go out then I can concentrate on filling the frame with what I want.

Just my 2p

[BA747-436]

Agree, dont just use a side on that you've screwed up and cut half the plane off to crop down to a nose shot. It just aint gona look good.

[thecloudbuster]

I quiet agree, detail shots should start out as detail shots, not massive crops from bigger images!

Sometimes in with my other photography I see images within images, it is tempting to crop, but ideally I will go back and shoot the inner images another time. However an afternoon scanning the web (not just JetPhotos or the blue site.) will produce a lot of very good aviation detail and "feeling" work that should give some good ideas.

At airshows it is often very difficult to get the "postcard" shot, however many of the best galleries concentrate on detail, artistic and human elements and are well worth looking at.

https://www.stevendraperphotography.com