Do you need any Pre-Screening? - Limited to CREW reply ONLY.

[Billsville]

Seems a bit too close for me....Wheels would be nice.

The focus goes out quickly as it goes down the plane.

But hey, thats just me.

[seahawk]

As Stephen says, the cut-off wheels and the out of focus tail does not appeal to me. Give it a try, but sonīt bet on it getting accepted. I would rather tend to reject it it for parts cut-off. Sorry

[BA747-436]

Looks like an F2.8 almost lol. Seems to be a slight lack of quality to. Abit soft and is suffering from commpresion on that version. Is this the same in the original?

[AdyWilliams]

I like the refelctions on this one? Any comments from the screeners? And yes I know its backlit, but it makes the reflections stand out, or can I only get away with that excuse a few times?

[BA747-436]

Imo, it stand s a chance of getting rejected for Angle, and heat distortion possibly. Its also abit soft and could use some brightness. Hope this helps

[MaxPower]

Hey Dan. A little question for you. What do you guys judge on when rejecting a photo for the "Angle" like you said. ????

[seahawk]

The BA does not do it for me. If you edit it make sure you do not creat a halo around the plane, when trying to brighten the dark side.

[FAJS-SAA]

Looks like an F2.8 almost lol. Seems to be a slight lack of quality to. Abit soft and is suffering from commpresion on that version. Is this the same in the original?

Spot on!! It was indeed a 400 1:2.8L lense.

The original is miles beter. I only compressed it to upload it to this thread...

[BA747-436]

Hey Dan. A little question for you. What do you guys judge on when rejecting a photo for the "Angle" like you said. ????

Its mainly about aesthetics of the photo. In terms of that BA shot, the angle that it has been shot at is such that you can hardly see the side of the plane while the rear is quite prominent. If, however you had shot it maybe a couple of seconds prior to this you would have got a more detailed side view. Its hard to pinpoint exactly where bad angle and good angle starts though. But to put it mainly down the visual athetics of the photo is a good rounding of the term. For approach shots most that are taken when you are very close to being under the approach and shooting at a more direct vertical angle will not look as good as those shot from a slightly further distance away where more of the 'detail' of the aircraft is included.

[royisher]

I know the quality isn't the best, but what about the motive?

Thanks!
Royi

[BA747-436]

Evil Heat haze and the smoke doesnt really warrent such a crop if you ask me. Sorry

[royisher]

Thanks Dan! Just wanted to know for the future .

[JordanD]

Here's a few "different" shots I took over the weekend. Just wondering if the motives would hold up here.
Number1

Number2

I'm thinking bad motive for this one.

I'm thinking this one could get bad motive or angle, but I'm not too sure.

Also this one, I personally think the man in front adds to the shot but I don't know if the screeners would agree.

[Billsville]

1. Crop a bit closer to the plane.

2. ok

3. Correct, not a good Motive....

4. Looks okay to me

5. Horizon and a tad dark.

[magic48]

I'm not so sure about motive and lighting on this one: