Six rejects and no acceptances - please help!

[philcrandon]

Hi everyone (this is my first post here),

I have over 100 photos on the Jetphotos database, but recently I have been having really bad luck with uploads and rejections. I just submitted six photos and NONE of them were accepted.

I am the most concerned about is this one:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91295

It was rejected for "Part of subject cut off/missing". I personally think that this is a little harsh since practically none of the plane is cut off and I have had identical photos accepted only two months ago!

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=135001
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=136996
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=134927

This one was rejected for "Blurry". It looks fine to me!

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91300

This one was also rejected for "Blurry", but I can understand why more than I can in the other photo. I just thought it was an interesting angle and worth a try for submission:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91305

This one was rejected for "Blurry" as well, and it appears that I got the info wrong on this one. I suppose the rejection may be as a result of the blurriness of the truck and the ground cleaner in front of it. I was actually VERY frustrated when I took this one because that guy just HAD to be in front of the plane at the time I took it, but I tried to submit it anyway, using the caption to make the most out of what I had:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91309

Here's another "Blurry" which I think is harsh:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91314

Go ahead. Insult this next one all you want. It sucks. Of all the pictures I submitted, this was the only one I really shouldn't have and I don't know why I did:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91319

These are not the only rejections I have had recently. Is is just me, or did the acceptance standards get a LOT tougher in the last couple of months? Although I am nowhere near a professional photographer and have nowhere near the best equipment (I use a Pentax Super Program camera manufactured in 1984 and a manual focus zoom lens), I am proud of my contributions to Jetphotos.net and I believe the rising acceptance standards have made my photos better. However, I am worried that the standards are now above my capabilities and I may no longer be able to add photos to this site.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Phil

[SWA733Captain]

Hey Phil, lets see if i can help...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91295 You cut off the tip of the horozontal stabalizer, it's a bit dstracting to the picture.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91300It's a bit out of focus around the tail.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91305That one is pretty blurry and/or out of fovus.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91309That one i would have to say is a bit blurry, it is really out of focus in the foreground, probably caused by a low f-stop.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91314It's a little blurred, it's also quite grainy.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=91319Definately blurry, you can see around the words connection, it is also extremely grainy.

Hope this helps.

[Katamarino]

They all seem very grainy indeed to me.

[JeffinDEN]

Phil,
Why not just shoot the whole aircraft? Cutting off the tail looks bad. If we all submitted shots with the tail missing all the time, what would this place be like. In a tight crop is one thing, when you could have easily just shot it correctly, that is another thing. The rest are soft, and very grainy. They need LOTS of work, but you may not want to spend the time on them as they are just routine pictures.

Keep at it, have fun.

[indian airlines]

Yeah, the grain is the first thing that struck me.

[PrinceAir]

Phil, they need some work but don't give up! All of us get rejections from time to time... try to use some "smoothing" and "Unsharp Mask" on the soft and grainy pictures. As for the part of the plane cut off, try to capture the entire plane and I think you'll be fine.

Remember don't let a few rejections get you down... just do a little more post image processing.

[philcrandon]

Thank you for your replies and suggestions!

In all honesty, the quality of my photos may have gone down a little since I am no longer using the best film and post-processing equipment. When I was in Los Angeles, I could get Fuji premium quality 100 speed film (I can't remember the name very well). I'm now at college in the Twin Cities and the only film I can really come by easily is standard Kodak 100/200/400 speed film - I use the 100 speed since it has the least grain, but it is still more grainy than the premium film. The less reliable weather at MSP (compared to LAX) is also an issue for photo quality.

I also no longer have PhotoDeluxe (my photo editing program back in LA) but instead some demo photoshop program made by the same company (Adobe) that doesn't seem to be quite as refined - if I use unsharp mask too much the grain gets really bad. I think this is partly because of how grainy the picture is before post-processing, but the program definitely has something to do with it.

I have spent a lot of time working on these photos to try and make them look good, but apparently they're still not good enough. Oh, and about the 757 picture with the stabilizer cut off - that was how it fit into the frame, unfortunately. I just thought the quality may have been good enough to warrant submitting it like that, as similar photos have been recently accepted (as I have shown).

I don't think there is much more I can do with these photos, but I have two questions:
1) What kind of film and camera techniques would you reccomend to minimize grain? I would certainly be willing to look for a camera store to get whatever would be the best.
2) What is the best way to bring out sharpness in post-processing without making the photo too grainy? I know that unsharp mask is probably the best but I don't know what the best values (amount/radius/threshold) to use when doing this.

Thanks,
Phil

[LX-A343]

If you don't want to go digital, then the best way - at least in my experience - is to use slides (I used Fuji Sensia 100 and Provia F 100) and a real slide scanner.

Gerardo