Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Serious question regarding jp.net

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Serious question regarding jp.net

    Hi All,
    I have been uploading on Jetphotos for the past 10 years and have the last couble of years seen a disturbing change in how things a done.

    When I started I of course tried uploading on Airliners.net, but all the photos was rejected and I turned to Jetphotos to share them with fellow spotters and was happy that the acceptence rate was good.

    But as the years have past I have seen some disturbing changes to this site. One thing is that the que have been increased due popularity, but I feel that Jetphotos are starting to become more like Airliners.net in some way when it comes to uploading pictures. This is a hobby for all of us and the minority of us are profesional photographers, if any.
    Many of the pictures I get rejected I honestly canīt see whatīs wrong with, but apparently some donīt agree with me on that part.

    Have Jetphotos really gone from being "The friendly way to fly" to "The arrogant way to fly" ?.
    Best regards

    Peter Lund

  • #2
    I can assure you that the percentage of accepted photos has risen, however I admit that the overall quality has also risen.
    My photo editing guide - updated and improved Feb. 2010
    My Nikon D100,D200,D300, D800, D7200 basic spotting settings guide
    ACIG - the best resource for military aviation information

    Comment


    • #3
      Not many years ago the average digital camera had a 4 to 6 mpixel CMOS sensor and a small amount of grain etc. was to be expected.
      However, things move on and we now have an average of 16 mpixel sensors with some exceeding 24 mpixels....and these are DX format cameras. Some of the larger FX format are now up to larger than that but the average high end for both formats is around 24 mpixel.
      It is therefore inevitable than quality is going to rise and with it raised standards requirements for publication. Add to that the fact that we are now accepting up to 1920 pixels wide in a 16:9 aspect ratio which requires a high degree of perfection as a standard. I've had rejections recently that I didn't use to get. You can quantify current requirements by comparing them with athletics world records. A world record time for the 1500 metres 20 years ago wouldn't get you into a qualifying round these days !

      I am aware of the image and rejection that prompted your post here. I took a look at it and at first I thought that the rejection was a bit harsh. Then I looked a bit closer and noted softness and bluriness at the rear of the aircraft and compression artefacts in the text on the fuselage. You appealed the rejection using language that was abusive and was therefore never going to get you a positive response.
      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

      Comment


      • #4
        Stefan and Brian, thank you for your answers.

        Brian, I fully understand that the quality of the cameras have increased and on these 10 years I have been uploading I am now on my 3rd camera which is not a low-end camera.

        I also agree that my language in my appeal was abusive and I can assure you and the rest of the screeners that itīs not a language I normally use, but was a result of fustration that had been building up over the last few years and the 4th rejection of that picture was the last drop of water the made it go over the top and especially when the list got longer than the first 3.

        When I bought my current camera in October I hoped that it would increase my acceptence rate and I also started to use Photoshop CC and not Elements which I had been using. The picture I uploaded today is the first one taken with my new camera.

        Many of the items like compression artefacts I am honestly not able to see.
        Best regards

        Peter Lund

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Peter,

          I see that you got a D800, well I got one since Sept. 2013 and let me tell you that working those files is harder than with my old D300S. You suddenly see things like blurr caused by mirror slap, the DoF is much more shallow if you shoot wide open and even the slightest heat distortion will be visible. I had to re-learn my whole editing process, especially on which sampling method to use for downsizing. It took me well over 1000 shots until I felt confident with the camera and even today I know I need to concentrate much more when taking a shot.

          Your shot in questions shows typical problems. What was seen as blurry in the rejection, could be a bit of corner softness of the lens in combination with the wrong sampling method in PS for down sizing.
          Last edited by seahawk; 2015-04-17, 18:44.
          My photo editing guide - updated and improved Feb. 2010
          My Nikon D100,D200,D300, D800, D7200 basic spotting settings guide
          ACIG - the best resource for military aviation information

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree with the Team's comments here about new cameras and new software needing a time to get used to. By this I mean the same camera settings may not achieve the same results with a new camera body. It takes time to get used to a new body.

            This then translates into the post processing workflow and this may need to be reviewed and adjusted to suit the results from the camera.

            The other area to consider is the use of new lenses. Once again each camera body may react differently to each lens you attach, and again post processing may need to be adjusted to "fit" the different camera and lens combinations used.

            New technology is supposed to make life easier.....I am not so sure that is true for photography!
            May the Sun be with you. Resist the darkside.

            Comment


            • #7
              I can give a personal example here. For a couple of years or more I have used a Nikon 70-300 VR f4.5 - 5.6. I got to learn the best settings for use in various weather conditions and subsequently got up to damn near 100% acceptance ratio. The only rejects were the occasional missed dustspot.
              Then I recently treated myself to a Nikon 18-300 f3.5 - 5.6 VR. It's a cracking piece of glass that means I only have to carry the one camera now for most outings but I am having to relearn the optimum settings because they are very different to the 70-300. The 70-300 had a focus sweet spot at f8 to f9 but the 18-300 is more like f10 to f11. Exposure compensation in various light conditions is also different between the two.
              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

              Comment


              • #8
                Peter

                Like you I began uploading here using a less capable camera and was using PS Elements for post-processing. Since you changed both your camera and your software you have two things to get used to before you are doing your best work. I'll admit that I have not tried PS CC, but when I moved up from PS Elements to PS CS I found that the learning curve was much longer than when I have changed cameras or lenses. I had to learn new ways to adjust the color, the lighting, and especially the sharpening. Maybe in your case it's not as much a matter of getting used to new equipment as it is getting proficient with new software. PS CC has a lot more power and features than PS Elements so maybe you just need to take some time playing with it until you are totally satisfied with your output. I'd suggest practicing with some of the photos you already had accepted using PS Elements and begin over with PS CC to see if you can get a better version. (Which you could always re-upload here as an improved shot.) I think once you spend a bit more time with the new software you'll find your acceptance rate back up to what you are accustomed to.

                Comment

                Working...
                X