Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Screening: Fair - Process/Method:Inconsistent

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

  • Geoffrey
    replied
    Can I have more tips?
    So should I move more to the left (Though it was impossible there unless I have brought a ladder!) so that I could have more light on the aircraft?

    Leave a comment:


  • cja
    replied
    Fairness

    As another Novice who as had plenty of rejection I have to say that I think that the screeners do a pretty good job. I dont take rejection personally and use it as constructive criticism. If you can't honestly see the point they are making then there are plenty of people who use this site willing to give friendly advice and I have found this to be really useful (and am grateful to all concerned).

    I have only looked at the skyvan shot but I would have to say that if I had access to the ramp as it appears you did I would have gone around to the other side of the aircraft to take the shot. That way the obvious obstructions would be out of the picture and you would have the sunlit side of the aircraft. Might have helped ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Geoffrey
    replied
    So there is no cure for the 737? I really miss this shot!
    Anyway, I'm getting okay with the rejection so I take what Matt and all other say.

    What about the ATR? Do you think I can crop it without further "de-quality"?

    Thanks for all your comments guys. I really appreciate. Now you have to convince me not to go to Greece (islands) for the same angle shot with the same nice Sun! (I do really want to though I was only brought to there [I'm still a teenager], and I do encourage spotters to go there if you need relaxes!)

    Leave a comment:


  • AIRLNRGUY
    replied
    Re: Screening: Fair - Process/Method:Inconsistent

    Originally posted by QuebecAir
    The planes are sharp and the fence is sort of blurred out, but it isn't blurred enough
    Airlnrguy:

    Are you suggesting that if the fence was more blurred it would be acceptable.......!

    I beleive it still would be cluttered and rejected.
    Not exactly, first, I meant if the object was not blocking the aircraft, such as in the Olympic Aviation pic. The fence to me is distracting, because it is too in focus, so my eye tries to focus on that rather than the aircraft, if it was less in focus, my eye would be less distracted from the plane because it realizes that the fence is not part of the picture.

    Leave a comment:


  • QuebecAir
    replied
    Screening: Fair - Process/Method:Inconsistent

    The planes are sharp and the fence is sort of blurred out, but it isn't blurred enough
    Airlnrguy:

    Are you suggesting that if the fence was more blurred it would be acceptable.......!

    I beleive it still would be cluttered and rejected.

    Leave a comment:


  • egll
    replied
    Geoffrey,

    It was me that rejected those shots and I stand by my decision-I think I gave you a personal message with at least one of the rejects from that batch to help you out a bit. I did like these pictures-in terms of the sharpness and the nice light, but the fence totally takes away all the positive points that these pictures had going for them. But the defining thing for me was that you had other shots (very good ones too) of these aircraft taken on the same day, when you already have a decent picture of the Dba 737 accepted why are you worrying about a second shot which is clearly not as good?



    Matt

    Leave a comment:


  • AIRLNRGUY
    replied
    I have mixed opinions about those:

    The planes are sharp and the fence is sort of blurred out, but it isn't blurred enough, thus, it makes it a distracting object and the eye tries to focus on it because it is so close to being in focus. I hope what I am saying makes sense. I like em' though, not bad, just try to maybe get a few inches higher next time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Geoffrey
    replied
    Okay, but I don't feel they affect the photo too much at all.. May be I always look at the plane only! Are those really that hurt? (I know the trucks at airports would be) The 737, in my opinion, is one of my best shots!

    Leave a comment:


  • BA747-436
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Geoffrey
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BA747-436
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LX-A343
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • screaming_emu
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • BA747-436
    replied
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • Leftseat86
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X