High in the sky rejection

[saupatel]

This one was very amusing to me. I uploaded this shot cause it looked similar to photos I have seen accepted. Recently smiliarly edited shots got a SCA and a PCA too.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2431556

The screener said "Screener's Comments: sky can't be that black and the contrails that white".

Sure I agree completely but when you accept similar photos then why treat this one differently.

shots currently in the DB:
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6380300
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6507137

[AJ]

Sorry but your photo does not come near the effect of the two you have linked.

Additionally the location in your shot is incorrect (unless it was an air-to-air shot?).

[saupatel]

Sorry but your photo does not come near the effect of the two you have linked.

Anthony, my question was for what the screener said that black sky and white contrails is not possible. That is what I was refuting.

Additionally the location in your shot is incorrect (unless it was an air-to-air shot?).

BTW, if an aircraft is flying over a state, isn't it technically "Inflight-state" ?

[Tanner_J]

The one with the moon is at night, therefore the sky is that color. The other is not a black sky.

Not to be rude, but get your eyes checked. The aircraft in your photo is not sharp, it is blurry and there is no way the sky is that dark with the contrails being that white. Just a fact.

[AJ]

BTW, if an aircraft is flying over a state, isn't it technically "Inflight-state" ?

The majority of the aircraft on this site are 'Inflight'. The location refers to the location of the photographer.

[rohank4284]

Very nice shot, unfortunately, I don't think there's anyway this is going to be JP.net worthy. The other shots had the moon in the background, which probably makes the photo more interesting, gives it more contrast, etc. The plane in the database photos weren't very sharp either, but I think the lighting and contrast provided by the moon helped in those instances. As for the contrails if the moon were nearby, but not visible in the photo, it could account for those white contrails.

Regards,

Rohan

[saupatel]

How amusing. I saw this shot on the site recently. And once again iterating what the screener said "Sky cant be that dark and contrails that white". And this one doesnt even have the moon in it .

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6606745

[LX-A343]

No idea, what it has to do in this post. Anyway, do you want us to delete it?

[saupatel]

Don't delete it. The photographer should not be penalized for it.

I can imagine that there are disagreements between screeners on some things but this kind of edit should either be accepted or rejected for everyone.

PS: I am not defending my shot. I know it has its issues.

[TCASAlert]

Those taken with the moon could not have been taken at night. If they were, then how are the aircraft and contrails brightly lit by the sun? Twilight maybe but not at night.

None of the examples quoted here have sky that dark. The Cargolux for example - the sky is never that dark and contrails that bright during the day here. If it's at night how can the aircraft be lit?

In fact look at the guys next photo:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6606737&nseq=9

Taken only 5 minutes later on the same day, same location, according to the EXIF data, but in broad daylight. I know it gets dark quickly over here but not that quick


It's a fact of life taking contrail shots - to get a sharp, bright aircraft you have to use small aperture and fast shutter speed, otherwise you get either blurry aircraft or overexposed aircraft. The result is a dark sky and bright aircraft.