Announcement

**brianw999** · 2006-09-05, 10:25

Yes, it is undersharpened and yes, it does seem dark and underexposed to me. It doesn't look like the weather was being too kind to you that day.

Then I saw it was Manchester so you're in trouble from the start.

As for the "part of aircraft cut off", I can only assume that the screener didn't like the half nosewheel unless they would prefer to see more of the "Emirates" word.

Concerning the examples you show.....

1. It's much better lighting, sharp and shows the full airline name. Enough of the aircraft showing through the steps to identify it.

2. These are last pictures of an ageing grounded fleet before scrap. Of historical interest and the kind of picture that gets into magazines.

3. As 2 above.

4. I can see your point here. The ground stairs are intrusive but its well lit and shows good depth of field use. On the registration comment...you always give the registration of the nearest aircraft.

5. Hmmmmm...yes, its a very tight crop but it shows all the relevant information such as reg, airline and sub lease ? operator. There have been arguments elswhere about whether including the tailfin is ALWAYS required.

6. This is the one picture that is the closest to yours. Even thought it appears to be in similar weather conditions its sharp, properly exposed with all parts showing that are in the frame.

On a very personal note, I'm not a huge fan of the habit of using other photographers' work as an example to complain about why "mine was rejected but theirs got in". I personally think that that is bad manners. You would be better served if you showed one of yours that got in against one of yours that didn't. If you don't have such an example then rework the reject on the sharpness and exposure rejection areas and see what happens.

Be warned though... this one of mine was rejected for foreground clutter/obstructing objects.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1...88gastise9.jpg

Quoting me !!

You would be better served if you showed one of yours that got in against one of yours that didn't.

In fact you do have such an example. The very same aircraft on the same day with the same part of the nosewheel missing !!

http://images1.jetphotos.net/images/img2/a/A6-EBF_EK773_upload.jpg.18695.jpg.

**WILCO737** · 2006-09-05, 10:39

Originally posted by brianw999

In fact you do have such an example. The very same aircraft on the same day with the same part of the nosewheel missing !!

http://images1.jetphotos.net/images/img2/a/A6-EBF_EK773_upload.jpg.18695.jpg.

On this pic there is just parts of the nose gear to be seen... (same aircraft, just 2 seconds later than the other shot)

Well, I am a bit helpless here! On the exposure and the sharpen, ok, I could've done it a bit better...

But just because of the part of the nose gear?!

I'd love to hear a comment from a screener, maybe even the one who rejected it...

Sometimes hard to understand why it got rejected... Just the reason doesnt help sometimes... A comment by the screener would be REALLY helpful... But that takes a lot of time, I can imagine and we dont want the queue to be longer

WILCO737
aka Phil

**jid** · 2006-09-05, 12:12

I did not reject this image ... BUT
It is very soft .. the exposure is not too bad, slightly underexposed but not by much. The bigger problem is the lack of contrast. The cut-off rejection would not of been enough on its own if the image was of a better quality IMO

Hope this helps ... Jid

**Billsville** · 2006-09-05, 12:48

Phil,

I think the cut off rejection comes from the emirate logo being cut in half. Maybe if it was cropped tighter to the front of the plane it would be better. Or cropped looser to get the emirates name in it might work. cropping it half way up the name with a dead side on shot doesnt seem to compose right.

I didnt screen the pic, and the above is my opinion, but the cropping rejection seems to pop up a lot especially with regard to Emirates and the name and/or logo on the back.

Hope this helps
Steve Brown

**WILCO737** · 2006-09-05, 12:54

Originally posted by jid

I did not reject this image ... BUT
It is very soft .. the exposure is not too bad, slightly underexposed but not by much. The bigger problem is the lack of contrast. The cut-off rejection would not of been enough on its own if the image was of a better quality IMO

Hope this helps ... Jid

ok about the exposure and the softness... as I said: I could've done better work there...

so my question now is: The picture would have been accepted even if the cut off thing? of course when the sharpness and the exposure is fine...

but this still didnt answer my question: WHAT does the screener means by "parts of aircraft cut off"? I still dont konw WHICH part... Only the nose of the aircraft? or is it the nose gear?

WILCO737
aka Phil

Originally posted by Billsville

Phil,

I think the cut off rejection comes from the emirate logo being cut in half. Maybe if it was cropped tighter to the front of the plane it would be better. Or cropped looser to get the emirates name in it might work. cropping it half way up the name with a dead side on shot doesnt seem to compose right.

I didnt screen the pic, and the above is my opinion, but the cropping rejection seems to pop up a lot especially with regard to Emirates and the name and/or logo on the back.

Hope this helps
Steve Brown

Ok, thank you everybody for your help...

Though I still dont get it to be honest... Half the Emirates logo? Well, I didnt take the picture to show the nice titles of Emirates, I wanted to show THIS part of the aircraft...
Same problem with other longer titles on aircrafts? like Lufthansa, Unites Airlines, South African, British airways etc etc...

I wont re upload it... Because then it doesnt show the thing I wanted to be shown...

Thanks anyway...

WILCO737
aka Phil

**seahawk** · 2006-09-05, 13:15

For me the softness and the underexposure kills it. It looks dull imho. The cut-off alone would not have been so bad, what I do not like is the cut right through the letter. I would prefer to cut between the "a" and the "t" but that is just my opion and would not be enough to reject another wise good photo.

(And I did not screen it)

**E-Diddy!** · 2006-09-05, 14:13

Hi WILCO,

I rejected for dark and soft, it was another screener that ticked "cut off." To me, the photo is just too dull, even by Manchester standards

. Add to that what looks like a shallow depth-of-field (sharp nose, softer as you move out to the side), and it was to me a clear reject. Maybe get out there when the weather improve... oh wait, it's Manchester. Nevermind.

**Alex - Spot-This !** · 2006-09-05, 14:17

Hi,
Ok I don't think I was the one rejecting your pic but i agree with it. First remember that you had an other accepted pic from the same sequence. So you're uploading a second pic, taken 2 sec after the first one... your choice ...but for a close-up it really needs to be good. The exposure of your pic isn't and it's soft. Close-up shots are probably the easiest ones to do so we have to be strict on the sharpness.
About the cropping, please try to avoid "cuting" a letter or a window. note that it wouldn't have been a reason to reject it only for that but again it's the fact that your pic has other issues that lead to the Part Of Aircraft Cut Off rejection.
Please try to be a bit more selective when uploading... don't send 2 pics of the same sequence unless it's a great pic or a very very rare aircraft.

And I also have to second Brian with...

On a very personal note, I'm not a huge fan of the habit of using other photographers' work as an example to complain about why "mine was rejected but theirs got in". I personally think that that is bad manners. You would be better served if you showed one of yours that got in against one of yours that didn't. If you don't have such an example then rework the reject on the sharpness and exposure rejection areas and see what happens.

Some of the exemples you are showing are incredible... http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5807369
Do you know how many pics we have taken in Bolivia ? 45...
and MAN ... 27194 !!!! (and growing...) We just can't be as selective when people send us pictures from such remote places... And I also hope that you see that the compostion of this pic is very nice...

We all had pictures that we liked that got rejected... So no big deal, maybe you can try to re-edit your 777 and reupload.
Hope it helps

Cheers
Alex

**WILCO737** · 2006-09-05, 14:40

Thanks for the replies and the answers...

I say again: I admit the exposure and the softness sucks... so no need to rub it in

I see your point Omar Alex Saffe about uploading 2 pics of the same aircraft just seconds apart. But I thought its a complete different angle and not comparable to the other one... thats why I uploaded it too...

Taking other pictures to ask why my got rejected and the other one not... I agree, not one of the best habits, I must admit. I havent actually never thought about it, so my apologize for that. Next time I just try to compare it with one of my pictures.

So, now I konw what the problem with the picture it, I wont upload it anyway because there are already thousands of pics of a 777 in MAN!

So, I try to get some cockpit shots into the DB (getting rare) and I have a good chance to get such shots.
Also I am not sure what I should upload sometimes! I have nice shots from the fuselage or some parts where you cannot get as "normal" passenger...
But I guess most of them will be rejected for motive or parts of aircraft cut off

Well, at the moment all my upload slots are used, so no more shots possible at the moment... 4 still in the queue.... Lets see what happens with them...

Thanks again for explanation

WILCO737
aka Phil

**Alex - Spot-This !** · 2006-09-05, 15:20

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=540103 ... if you were talking about that kind of shot... please bring them in !!!

Alex

**WILCO737** · 2006-09-05, 15:22

Originally posted by Omar Alex Saffe

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=540103 ... if you were talking about that kind of shot... please bring them in !!!

Alex

I will see what I can do...

btw *cough* www.wilco737.de *cough* as well some nice pics

WILCO737
aka Phil

Announcement

Part Of Aircraft Cut Off, which part?

Part Of Aircraft Cut Off, which part?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment