Screening: Fair - Process/Method:Inconsistent

[LH764]

AIRLNRGUY, way to express yourself!

[AIRLNRGUY]

Thank you.

[LX-A343]

Airlnrguy, NOW, I see, what you mean. Your first post about my misquote was a bit misleading, as it seemed to have been quoted by mike.

Sorry for that. Cancel that part, but leave the rest.

Cheers
Gerardo

[AIRLNRGUY]

No problem, I just didn't want evryone to get the impression I don't like jetphotos and i think its like airliners.net, which it isn't even close to them.

[PolishAir42]

I read the first page and the first half of the 2nd page but after that I got so terribly confused Im just going to go watch some TV... :P

[rydawg82]

Amen Peter! Cya == Ryan

[Gerry]

So as far as I can see from my original question, JetPhotos will be fair about uploads as long I crop good photos down to 1024x768. I don't know what dpi they expect, but since the ones that they show seem to be at about 72 dpi, anything higher should be acceptable.

Wlyster, forget about the 'dpi', it doesn't matter when uploading pictures.

Other than the fact this thread went off on a wild tangent, I am quite surprised that your Shorts 330 was ditched at JP.net. Okay, it has an 'orange obstruction' but I don't find it that obtrusive. It doesn't cover any vital parts of the aircraft (eg: the nose)...that's my opinion....and I LIKE SHEDS !

But, if you had taken a photo of that same aircraft with the wheels 'cut off' or virtually missing/buried in long grass, or positioned behind a fence with hundreds of vehicles in the foreground (my pet hates!)....then I would reconsider.....but you didn't, so I like it.

A quick edit sequence.
Take your photgraph.
Rotate it, get the horizon level (if it isn't)
Apply some UnSharpMask filter (read up about it/experiment)
Resize to (range) 1024 x 660 >> 1024 x 768 pixels
Apply just a little more UnsharpMask, because resizing will 'soften' the image.

Save and then send.
Keep it simple...

Gerry

[LX-A343]

TO end Gerry's list:

and correct colors and contrast!! No digicam and no scan whatsoever produce 100% perfect shots. There's always something to correct in a photoediting software.

Gerardo

[Leftseat86]

To add to Gerardo's post, you can also bump up the saturation by 20 or so points :P Makes everything look crazy bright :P

-Clovis

[BA747-436]

To add to Gerardo's post, you can also bump up the saturation by 20 or so points Makes everything look crazy bright

-Clovis

We call that "Doing a Clovis"

[screaming_emu]

I know a lot of people edit their photos, but I for one am one that tries to avoid it. It is possible to get pictures accepted without photoshop, and playing with the colors and such. The only editing that I do is cropping/leveling and maybe resizing if necissary, that is it. I still get very few photos rejected (mostly because I do a lot of pre-screening). For example, if you look at my photos that I took while spotting at Narita, I took 180 photos that day, and I only uploaded the better ones. I figure why upload something that will get rejected anyway (because honestly, uploading pictures isn't exactly the most fun thing I can think of). Its not that I have a great camera either, only a Fuji Finepix 2800z (2.1 megapixels and 6x zoom).

[LX-A343]

That's a false pride in my opinion. A camera won't never produce top pictures. EVERY picture can be improved in a photoeditor. In a photoeditor you will bring the best out of a picture: colors, sharpness, level horizon.

The same applies to films, BTW. Why do some people only use Fuji Provia, or only Kodachrome? The films has lots of influence in the result. By picking a certain film, the photographer improves his shot already. Why not doing the same AFTER the shot has been taken?

I'm not talking about cloning out things, and such, but only improving colors and sharpnes.

Cheers
Gerardo

[BA747-436]

There is no way i would upload my photos direct from my camera, a) becuase they come out at some rediculous size and b) they are naturaly soft. Photoshop is needed to sharpen the photos and occasionaly level the colours. If i had a choice i would not use it, but id rather not sacrifice quality just for the knoledge i didnt use a editing tool to sharpen my photos. I'd say this is the case for pretty much all DSLR users.

[Geoffrey]

I'm not sure if I should ask here, but I'll try.
I have just got a few rejections, but some I did not even expected it would be rejected - 'cause of the "Foreground Clutters" too..
Okay, I'm fine with this rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=69149

But definitely not these..

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=69152

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=69159

Do they deserve to be rejected? If yes, how can I improve? (No way to crop more!)
And any comments?

Help appreciated!
Thanks.

[BA747-436]

Geoffrey - The two photos concerned are, in my mind worthy of being rejected. They have fence poles and wire in front of the aircraft in the photo and generaly detract from the quality of the photo. We like to keep our database open to a large variation of photgraphers but we have to draw the line somewhere. As with your two photos the fence in the photo automaticaly means a rejection i'm afraid. If at all possible try to shoot from a higher stand point so you are looking down on the aircraft. Or alternativley wait a bit longer until the aircraft has moved away and shot at a longer zoom so as not to get the fence in the shot. I hope this has given you some ideas for future photographs.