Open minded screening

[Darren Howie]

G'day Guys
I would like to make a small comment about the screeners here and the selection they have for some photo's.
It is nice to see they actually appreciate different styles and types of aircraft photography.
It seems from my recent experience that the other major webpage clearly favors the same old same old style of aircraft photo's.
With a full aircraft view from nose to tail centrered side on.
As an aviation fan,photograohy fan etc etc its just a bit boring for me i'm afraid.
I,along with many others can only get excited about seeing a side profile so many times.
Since arriving here and spending a bit of time in the DB,i enjoy seeing different perspectives of aircraft both in flight and on the ground.
The other major website has a clear tendency to reject any photo's which do not fit the so called mold they desire.
I am here to say that i appreciate that the screeners here appreciate nice photo's for what they are,nice photo's.
Even if slightly off centre or a different not normally seen angle its great to see that if the pic is good quality it gets through.To provide people with variety of idea's in the way aircraft can be successfully photgraphed in an attractive and artful way.
Bring on variety!!
Its great to find a site which while maintaining a good standard has enough vision to allow people to explore the way you can present an aircraft in a photograph.
Well done and keep up the good work.
Darren Howie

[JeffinDEN]

Hey Darren....wipe that brown stuff off your nose..... :P

just kidding..couldn't resist. It is the same type of speech we hear when people get their shots rejected at Anet., then come here.

Jeff

[Leftseat86]

Thanks.

What comes to mind for me is recently I screened some of Colin Work's shots of aircraft on final at night, very dark blue but with the cabin lights and strobes/landing lights/position light providing for a very realistic view of what it looks like when we see aircraft on approach after dusk. I have no idea how he managed to do it, but the result was awesome!

-Clovis

[Darren Howie]

Hi Jeff
No worries i have the tilet paper at the ready!!
I am not bothering with A.net any more due to lack of consistency in their screening,slow turn around and generally theri very conservative attitude to photography.
I think only one of their screeners actually appreciates anything thats not plane old plane old.
Yea i can get my stuff up there(only good stuff) but given a couple of rejections on what i thought were generally spot on photo's i will not bother.
Rejection is not the problem with them its more consistency and lack of vision.
Anyway off my soapbox.
All the best

[ckw]

Thanks for that Clovis

There's no way I'd claim these are great pics by any means, but I thought it would be interesting to try and capture what we see when a plane make a night approach.

I think this is what I like about J.net most - the willingness to accept something a bit different. I doubt these would be accepted at A.net beause its very easy to spot flaws in the pictures - sometimes a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

From a technical point of view, they were shot using a Canon 70-200 f2.8 LIS lens wide open, IS0 800 at 1/20th. The main difficulty is dealing with the contrast, as the sensor/film can't cope with the dynamic range of a completely dark sky and the aircraft lights - you tend to get either just the lights and pitch black or totally blown highlights. In this case I took a series from dusk until full dark - the ones that gave the result I wanted were taken at "deep dusk", just a bit of afterglow in the sky. Timing seems to be pretty critical - perhaps only 10 or 15 minutes when the light is properly balanced for this effect.

Now, if only the moon will co-operate!

Cheers,

[Leftseat86]

Colin,


I thought they were nice because, really, when we as people go to the airport we don't see a streaking light when a plane comes into land

As you said, one of them was a little soft, and had the signs of sharpening to get over that blurryness But overall they were very interesting, and that is what I look for first. Trying that with a bright full moon out would indeed be something! And you might be able to get away with 1/40th or 1/60th then.

-Clovis

[Skymonster]

Hi Jeff
Yea i can get my stuff up there(only good stuff) but given a couple of rejections on what i thought were generally spot on photo's i will not bother. Rejection is not the problem with them its more consistency and lack of vision.

Experience suggests that those making such accusations are almost invariably the ones who lack consistency and/or vision, or they just don't understand or don't want to understannd the rules and guidelines.

Andy

[Leftseat86]

Experience suggests that those making such accusations are almost invariably the ones who lack consistency and/or vision, or they just don't understand or don't want to understannd the rules and guidelines.

Yep, and I learned that the hard way...making a fool of myself!

-Clovis

[Darren Howie]

G'day Skymonster
As i said i don't mind the fact that a photo is rejected,that is not the problem.
I am a big enough boy to realise not everything i do is perfect.
What i do mind is when something which is not as good (given their rules and regulations) as what i have done goes sailing through with no problems.
Inconsistency is the problem.
By having a smaller group of screeners means more consistency in standards which is what does not happen at A.net.
I am happy with the standard but when you get inconsistent rulings on the same photo on different days something is fundamentally wrong.
Criticism i am happy to deal with but other people's errors i am not.
Take it easy

[ADG]

Experience suggests that those making such accusations are almost invariably the ones who lack consistency and/or vision, or they just don't understand or don't want to understannd the rules and guidelines.

I would have to disagree with you completely in that statement ... i've heard the same type of comments out of at least 4 screeners or ex screeners from airliners.net.

Pft.