Announcement

**Anonymous** · 2004-01-06, 16:17

I'm not too sure why, but I think they're brilliant shots! Well done

**mikecweb** · 2004-01-06, 17:10

First one the three really takes away from the photo.
Second one the background is too washedout.
Third one crop it tighter around the plane.

**xiphias** · 2004-01-06, 18:20

Thanks for the comments guys...

Mike, still a bit unclear what you mean with washed out... Do you mean, "blurred" into the background?

Cheers,

-Michael

**Kyuss** · 2004-01-06, 18:50

Number 1: The tree... The untight crop, and why are all pictures at 1600??
Number 2: The sky is so white and overexposed, it washes out edges of the plane. Again, the crop should be tighter. Too much sky, too little airplane...
Number 3: Again, too much sky, too little airplane. The sun is just a big white blob in the picture... If you try to do this kind of shots, wait for sunrise or sunset...

I see what you were after making these shots, so keep trying.
And try 1024 next time. 1600 does not make your shots better. Probably makes them worse.

K

**LX-A343** · 2004-01-06, 20:40

Not much to add. I had to reject quite a bunch of similar pics and at least one of the here mentioned ones.

All of your friend's rejected pics need a tighter crop. The washed out sky (good description above) is a real killer. Even more, it the aircraft itself is too dark, as for example in pic nr. 3.

Some fotografers upload now at 1600x1200, probably without knowing, that requirements get much higher. At higher resolutions, everything gets clearer and better visible: blur, unsharp or out of focus edges, grain, noise, and so on. While a pic can look decent at 1024x768 pixels, it can get a clear rejection at 1600x1200 pixels.

As for the short keywords: what's so incomprehensible in "Bad motive" or "Subject too far away" I wrote in some rejections, what's wrong with them. As most rejected pics looked the same, I didn't want to repeat it over and over again. There are quite a few pics waiting to be screened...

Cheers
Gerardo

**xiphias** · 2004-01-07, 22:17

Thanks fo the new comment's people.

LX-A343:
Don't know why he uploads at 1600 but I like hi res so most of my images are downsized to [email protected] also. And if my cam could take more DPI I would do that, just for printing (A.net). It depends on the image though, otherwise I'll downsize to 1440, 1280 or lower if realy needed. 1024x768 is so 80's, early 90's. I'ld like to upload at 1920 or larger.
As for my friend, he's not to familiar with photo editing software.

Subject to far, yeah, had to agree.. I cropped it so that the sun is sort of verticly sentered and the plane is in the lower right corder. Looks a lot better if I may say so. Also used the higlight/shadow adjustment tool in Photoshop CS as mikecweb points out in this thread.

As for the 2nd one, 'Bad quality', blurry, soft or whased out would be more descriptive. Had to agree when mike stated washed out. He had simular one rejected for 'bad exposure', I have no idea why. Think he used Auto adjust level a bit to much. I used a bit of contrast except level and looks a bit better.

As fot the 1st image, 'bad motive', I never know what that means. To me it means bad motivation. So that there should be a reason why it's done like that. Same with a object in front of the plane, give a good motivation as to what it is and why it's there and no prob. Or is 'bad motiv' something completely different.

My friend was just a bit pissed that 50% of the images got accepted and 50% didn't. Sure I guess they all look the same in the end but why did an image with the plane behind the tree get accepted and one with the plane next to the tree rejected. I guess cropping should help as mentioned above.

I had one rejected on a.net for bad motiv, pic was backlit but motivation was that plane had just made an emergancy landing at HNL after returning 1.30 hours into the fligth to LAX with engin probs. Wrote the whole story and still got rejected for bad motive.. I think I had a damn good motivation for taking that pic. Next time I'll ask the sun to rise again. I'll give it a try here though and use that new feature in PS CS and see if it clears up a bit.
I think I even posted that image before and asked some of the guru's to clear it up. But think it got rejected again or I wasn't to sure it would even get accepted and never submited it.
Here's the image, think I should give it a try?
http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/PICT0994.JPG

Thanks,

Michael & Sander

**JeffinDEN** · 2004-01-07, 22:28

You might be able to lighten it, but ..... Pesonally, I don't like it. But others may. Only one way to find out.. :P

**xiphias** · 2004-01-07, 22:46

Originally posted by JeffinDEN

Pesonally, I don't like it. But others may. Only one way to find out.. :P

True, shot not to good, just the reason. Teh emergancy etc... You can see one of the emergency vehicles behind the plane.

Michael

**JeffinDEN** · 2004-01-07, 22:57

Means nothing to me. Looking at the picture on it's own, you would not know a thing about the emergency.

**egll** · 2004-01-08, 00:11

1600 x 1200 should not be regarded as the standard to which people should upload-it is for top quality stuff only, here is an example

[photoid=206794]

I don't see what benefit there is to the community at large by uploading regular shots at the new size-it just makes pictures look worse in many instances and these pictures fall into that category. The final shot of those rejected was more than acceptable in terms of sharpness so why that couldn't have been uploaded at 1024x768 I don't know, all the extra size does is add 1.1 megapixels of sky to the database.

The first shot needs a tighter crop and preferably a resize, but the angle isn't great and the tree is rather distracting, the second shot really suffers from having such a washed out sky as a backdrop-this is partly due to the angle you have chosen although we know that there is nothing anyone can do about the colours in the sky

Here is a quote from the crew forum (that I wrote):

Would it be acceptable to reject any 1600 x 1200 images as 'blurry' if we feel that the image is borderline but would look great as a 1024 x 768 image?

The answer was unanimously in favour-even the boss agreed on this one

Don't forget Michael that a 1600x1200 generates 1920000 pixels and a 1024x 768 picture generates only 786432, in other words uploading at the larger size increases file sizes by 140% so either the image has to be compressed further thus reducing quality or it's gonna use up more webspace, and with more and more people doing this it is going to slow the site down or lead to a reduction in the general quality of the database.

Matt

**Greg** · 2004-01-08, 00:30

I like to get my photos as small as possible because they are less likely to be used without permission, take less time to load, a frankly I think they look better.

Making those photos smaller, as Matt said could help with the overall quality.

**LX-A343** · 2004-01-08, 08:48

@Xiphias: "Bad Motivation" is indeed a bit misleading. We don't assume bad motivation

, generally said, aviation photographers have a good motivation

.

Seriously: this term is used, when the screener thinks, the picture has a bad composition, or the subject shown doesn't have anything to do with aviation, or such things.

It can happen, that a picture is rejected, while a similar looking one is accepted. There are many grey areas where one screener would rather accept, another one reject. I's say, let's live with it.

Regarding your pic of th AA, I agree with Jeff. Of course, you have another relation to that pic, as you have witnessed the whole story. But the picture itself shows an aircraft with a few cars around. The scene shown in this pic is nothing special, it SEEMS to be a ordinary snapshot. So, it will be screened with this background....probably.

Regarding the size: it amazes me, how many people send pictures at 1600x1200 with a more than doubtful quality. Once again: at bigger size, everything will be better visible, inclusive blur, noise, grain, ....
Then again, we get such shots, which I will happily show as a good example for sharp pics: [photoid=208430]

Cheers
Gerardo

**Kyuss** · 2004-01-08, 09:56

You'd like to upload at 1900+??

WHY??? Do you have a 32" computer screen?

**xiphias** · 2004-01-08, 12:40

Originally posted by Kyuss

You'd like to upload at 1900+??

WHY??? Do you have a 32" computer screen?

Actualy, screen is 42" 16:9 plasma, so yeah... 1024x768 is lowres crap.

On my other, 21", screen I run 1600, 1920 or 2048 depending on what I'm doing. Ever tried to put a 1024x768 image as a full background on 1600x1200, now that looks like crap. Then you get a nice 1600x1200 image and looks great. As for the unwanted usage of image, don't upload if you don't want to share. Or upload 800x600 @ 50% JPEG quality but show no detail. I just happen to like hi res images. The bigger the better. It's my american side.

I just sometimes get the feeling that images are accepted/rejected by means of waht we in Holland call, "Natte vinger werk.", just OK lets reject these 10 and accept these 10 and reject these 10.. I know you screeners are realy busy and the current queue pressure might be getting to you guys.. Viewing 100's of images and seeing my crap come by again and again.

I realy do appriciate it. My stuff still gets appriciated here as for a.net they just reject everything.

As for the file sizes mentioned metioned in a post above somewhere. The max size for an image is 1Mb I belive.. All my images are right there... [email protected] at 97%+ JPEG quality 950Kb.

I personaly downsize to 1600, see if it looks ok, if not I'll scale down more but not all people are wizards at photoshop (not that I am).
It's just realy frusterating that a realy realy grainy 1024 image gets accepted and a clear, maybe a little bit blurred 1280 image gets rejected.

Originally posted by egll

Would it be acceptable to reject any 1600 x 1200 images as 'blurry' if we feel that the image is borderline but would look great as a 1024 x 768 image?

The answer was unanimously in favour-even the boss agreed on this one

Rejecting for 'blurry' would be a bad description in my opinion. "blurry, downsize' sould be better. At least it tells you waht to do. I sometimes get comments like 'Rejected: Unlevel (please level and resubmit)'
I love those. At least it makes me feel that my contribution is appriciated.

What I would like to suggest is a list of reject reasons with a description kinde like a.net does. That one isn't perfect and some reasons aren't in the list but I think that it would take away a bunch of confusion. At least it would for me. It will also help the less english speaking people.
http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejection_reasons.txt

If JP does have this available, please let me know. Havn't found it jet.

(I really love the badscan reason from a.net. I never knew I had a scanner, thought I had a digital cam but h�....)

Most of my images do get accepted even those at 1600x1200. And new cam comming next week so watch out. More better pics to come

Cheers guys and thanks for having this site and hosting my pics. Just so you know I do appriciate the work

-Michael

Announcement

OK, what's wrong with these pictures?

OK, what's wrong with these pictures?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment