Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Screeners accepting unacceptable photos.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Screeners accepting unacceptable photos.

    Found it very interesting, on the front page today was a cool shot of the new F1 Racing livery, A6-BLV by Dutch, so I decided to take a closer look at it.

    I zoomed in on the nose, and what did I see! an obstruction! If you zoom in, the pole is actually slightly in front of the nose!

    Here is the link, https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9450021, zoom in on the nose and see for yourself! What do you guys think of this?!

  • #2
    Originally posted by phx_airspace View Post
    Found it very interesting, on the front page today was a cool shot of the new F1 Racing livery, A6-BLV by Dutch, so I decided to take a closer look at it.

    I zoomed in on the nose, and what did I see! an obstruction! If you zoom in, the pole is actually slightly in front of the nose!

    Here is the link, https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9450021, zoom in on the nose and see for yourself! What do you guys think of this?!
    What I think? I'm glad you're not a screener.

    Why do you think it should have been rejected?
    My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

    Comment


    • #3
      Ummm... if the pole obstructs nose then how come it doesn't obstruct the tow tug? This one is fine.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by LX-A343 View Post
        What I think? I'm glad you're not a screener.

        Why do you think it should have been rejected?
        Obstruction, and lack of contrast.
        On 3.5, on in the guidelines, "Exceptions may be made if the equipment forms part of the motive of the shot, such as in use de-icing equipment, or if the angle of the shot means only a small part of the aircraft is obstructed, such as ground power units/cargo loading devices."
        This pole clearly isn't a gpu, or cargo loading devices, its a pole.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pawelm View Post
          Ummm... if the pole obstructs nose then how come it doesn't obstruct the tow tug? This one is fine.
          The tow tug has nothing to do with this... The tug can be obstructed and it has nothing to do with the plane being obstructed. The pole is what is obstructing the plane, and is what the problem is.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by phx_airspace View Post
            Obstruction, and lack of contrast.
            The pole doesn't obstruct the nose. The nose just happens to end right at the side of the pole. As was stated earlier, the tug is attached to the plane, and the pole is very clearly behind the tug. You also don't have access to a histogram for the photo so that contrast claim isn't necessarily accurate.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by klaxspotting View Post
              The pole doesn't obstruct the nose. The nose just happens to end right at the side of the pole. As was stated earlier, the tug is attached to the plane, and the pole is very clearly behind the tug. You also don't have access to a histogram for the photo so that contrast claim isn't necessarily accurate.
              Lack of contrast still remains. Histogram is not needed to determine contrast.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by phx_airspace View Post
                Lack of contrast still remains. Histogram is not needed to determine contrast.
                Thanks for providing the laugh. The main reason for your gripe has been proven false, so now you're really reaching for something. If the contrast is so bad, why didn't you mention it in your first post?

                Perhaps now it's time you apologized for making something out of nothing, or do you want to keep digging your hole?

                Comment


                • #9
                  It's behind the aircraft so not an obstruction and it can be confirmed by observing the tug is in front of the post. Yes, it is untidy and it would be much better if the post weren't there but he can't change that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by phx_airspace View Post
                    The tow tug has nothing to do with this... The tug can be obstructed and it has nothing to do with the plane being obstructed. The pole is what is obstructing the plane, and is what the problem is.
                    Ofcourse it has. Tug is attachted to the plane. If the is nose would be obstructed then the tug should also be obstructed, and it isn't.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Guys,
                      This is just a fantastic night shot and if we should reject that night shot, we can probably reject 90% of other night shots for contrast issues...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pawelm View Post
                        Ofcourse it has. Tug is attachted to the plane. If the is nose would be obstructed then the tug should also be obstructed, and it isn't.
                        Pawelm, you've got some perfect reasoning we need no further evidence. It's funny to see that simple rule but clearly not everybody could understand

                        Well I'm wondering how many "haha" reacts this post could get if this were to post onto Facebook.
                        201 flights - 121,966 miles (4.9x around Earth)
                        160 VN - 8 CZ - 5 KE - 4 TG - 4 CI - 4 AK - 4 VJ - 2 NH - 2 QR - 2 VZ - 1 CA - 1 MU - 1 SQ - 1 TR - 1 BL - 1 MH
                        HAN HPH VII VDH HUI DAD CXR UIH SGN PQC KUL KCH SIN BKK CNX PNH HKG CAN PEK NKG HGH NNG PVG ICN GMP PUS CJU TPE NRT HND ITM
                        B78X - B789 - B788 - B77W - B773 - B772 - B744 - B739 - B738 - B737 - A388 - A359 - A333 - A332 - A321 - A21N - A320 - A319 - E190

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by phx_airspace View Post
                          Lack of contrast still remains. Histogram is not needed to determine contrast.
                          Thanks for the comments below my pictures. Cool way to handle.

                          Enjoy your time on insta.....
                          “The only time you have too much fuel is when you’re on fire.”

                          Erwin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by phx_airspace View Post
                            Found it very interesting, on the front page today was a cool shot of the new F1 Racing livery, A6-BLV by Dutch, so I decided to take a closer look at it.

                            I zoomed in on the nose, and what did I see! an obstruction! If you zoom in, the pole is actually slightly in front of the nose!

                            Here is the link, https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9450021, zoom in on the nose and see for yourself! What do you guys think of this?!
                            Check your email inbox. You will find this in it. Lets see how you like public criticism....

                            Well done for contravening every rule concerning comments on other photographers images. Point one.... Screeners do not screen their own images. Point two.... Your assessments of Erwin’s images are total bollocks. Point three.... I sincerely hope that you get banned for your actions.


                            If you have something to say to someone, use the contact photographer link, not the publicly viewed comments section.
                            Last edited by brianw999; 2019-09-22, 13:48.
                            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                              Check your email inbox. You will find this in it. Lets see how you like public criticism....

                              Well done for contravening every rule concerning comments on other photographers images. Point one.... Screeners do not screen their own images. Point two.... Your assessments of Erwin’s images are total bollocks. Point three.... I sincerely hope that you get banned for your actions.

                              If you have something to say to someone, use the contact photographer link, not the publicly viewed comments section.
                              Haven’t gotten an email

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X