Airliners.net Rejection

[KarlADrage]

No problemo. Yeah, the 'tick box' rejections don't very often help with regard to telling you exactly what's wrong with an image. They did go through a phase not so long ago of including a short-hand comment at least hinting at specific problems though, presumably this has stopped again?

[Sheff]

I swear I honestly don't know why anybody bothers to send any images to Airliners.net. For a start, the whole set-up is slightly bonkers when a site is billed as an airliners source and it's packed full of military pictures. But it's comical how it's become some sort of goal to have one's pictures accepted by them. I mean, who the hell is Airliners.net to dictate what is good, bad or indifferent? Obviously, any choices they make are entirely subjective and are based on someone's personal preferences. More importantly, a good image isn't always about lighting, contrast, sharpness or any other technical detail. It might be about composure or (most important of all) the actual subject. Ultimately, a technically-perfect picture of a Typhoon might be very pretty but it wouldn't compare to a poor photograph of something far more unusual. If someone was to take a truly honest decision on what could be judged to be a "good" photograph, half of the pictures on the site could legitimately be dumped. It's nonsense.

They've created what could be an interesting source of images but it's become a pseudo-sporting activity for people who think it's some sort of achievement to have a picture accepted. My picture is accepted so it's better than yours... good grief, is this what the hobby has come to? Utter madness! Ignore their silly criteria. If you think your photo is good then that's all that matters. Their view is no more valid than yours. Post it on another site... like this one?

[Bilvo]

Very well said Sheff It has often bewildered me as to why people agonise over having pictures accepted by Airliners.net and I still don't get it!

[SteveS]

The thing is, a lot of people see your pics on A.Net and myself and others have had their images picked up off A.Net for use in some major publications!

Steve

[Bilvo]

I'm very pleased for you and others for your success in having your images picked up by publishers from Airliners.net and of course I can see that as a valid reason for trying to get your pictures on the site. However why don't you send your images to the publishers direct rather than waiting around for someone to possibly see them on Airliners.net!?

With the time and effort of getting pictures rejected, re-editing them, re-uploading them, selecting the wrong catergory (for sake what is that all about!), getting the picture rejected again... the saga goes on! Seems an a about face way of trying to get your pictures seen by a publisher!

[Ben Montgomery]

Whoever said it was only about getting your pictures seen by a publisher?

I personally like the satisfaction from getting a photo on that proves to be really popular - it's much better than just having the photo sitting on your hard drive!

[garethbrum]

Hear hear Ben.

It can and does result in useful exposure for imagery, it's also quite interesting to see what proves popular and what doesn't.

As someone who has only recently started uploading to An.net it is actually quite good fun seeing what gets accepted and TBH, why get too stressed if something doesn't? I resolved not to bother resubmitting anything that gets rejected and am quite happy with that plan of action, I just upload some others!

[KarlADrage]

Tim - a.net's rules are much more relaxed where old images and shots of particularly rare aircraft are concerned.

Imagine how many shots there would be of the Lancaster, for instance, on there without any kind of screening process.... The database would be huge and unwieldly.

I know lots of people disagree with many of the rules that a.net lay down - I've had rejections in the past because I've not been prepared to crop an image to within a pixel's breath at either side, and I refuse to do that - but uploading there does unquestionably force you to improve other aspects of your processing and, IMHO, leads to people (those who are prepared to take the rejection reasons on board) producing higher quality imagery - even if it can become somewhat formulaic. I don't see what the problem is with people wanting to improve... Surely that's a good thing?

[Jez]

...why get too stressed if something doesn't? I resolved not to bother resubmitting anything that gets rejected and am quite happy with that plan of action, I just upload some others!

Pretty much my attitude. The only reason that I'll resubmit is if I've screwed up on the info. No point getting annoyed about rejects.

[TonyO]

I'm very pleased for you and others for your success in having your images picked up by publishers from Airliners.net and of course I can see that as a valid reason for trying to get your pictures on the site. However why don't you send your images to the publishers direct rather than waiting around for someone to possibly see them on Airliners.net!?

If I knew what the publishers wanted then I would, but I don't know who all the publishers are?

A.net has opened my images up to a global audience, I've had piccies in magazines in Brazil and books produced in France, Greece and Japan and easily made a 4-digit sum out of my shots on there over the past five years. As Ben says, I'd rather make the effort and put them on there rather than having them stew on the hard drive doing nothing. It's all very well having your own website - I have one myself - but when every enthusaist/photographer has one and the internet becomes saturated with them unless you have something very special to offer, its much easier for a magazine to go to websites like A.net or Pixstel and contact them directly. Believe me, I know this from experience from both sides of the coin.

[Wallace]

I know lots of people disagree with many of the rules that a.net lay down - I've had rejections in the past because I've not been prepared to crop an image to within a pixel's breath at either side, and I refuse to do that - but uploading there does unquestionably force you to improve other aspects of your processing and, IMHO, leads to people (those who are prepared to take the rejection reasons on board) producing higher quality imagery - even if it can become somewhat formulaic. I don't see what the problem is with people wanting to improve... Surely that's a good thing?

This makes sense, however I pity those who think that success on a.net means that they are a good photographer, success on a.net only means that one is good at conforming to their standards.

A.net has poisoned at lot of aviation photographers minds as to what an aviation photo should be and not what it could be. The analogy "Monkey see, monkey do," comes very much to mind.

[TonyO]

This makes sense, however I pity those who think that success on a.net means that they are a good photographer, success on a.net only means that one is good at conforming to their standards.

A.net has poisoned at lot of aviation photographers minds as to what an aviation photo should be and not what it could be. The analogy "Monkey see, monkey do," comes very much to mind.

I agree with you Wallace, I shudder when I read some of the tripe on the A.net photography forums...

[Sheff]

I agree with Karl's point that there's always the risk of opening-up a site to endless photographs of the same thing (the beloved Vulcan is another good example) but Airliners.net seem to have taken things way too far in the opposite direction. I can see good reason for declining countless photographs which duplicate each other but they seem to be far too obsessive in terms of many other pseudo-technical aspects which are ultimately just a symptom of their personal preferences. Realistically, I suppose there is no ideal solution which would keep everyone happy but I just despair at the way that so many people seem to have fallen into this notion that to get a picture accepted by Airliners.net is deemed to be some sort of achievement. That's not to knock anyone for taking a good photo - it's just comical that a bunch of people have set themselves up as "judge and jury" to dictate what is to be regarded as good or bad. Worse still, it discourages people who might think that they're not capable of competing with the people who do get accepted. I just don't like the way that taking pictures is becoming a competition. It was always something which we did for fun, not to out-do someone else.

As for capturing the interest of magazine and book publishers, etc., I can see the value of having one's pictures well publicised, but again it is a tad comical that anyone trawling through Airliners.net gets to see only what they see fit to publish. Of course when it comes to selecting pictures for print publications, the choice is often down to the subject matter, not the technical merits of the image. In many respects Air Britain's galleries are far more useful in this respect as they are unashamedly interested in the subject rather than the picture's technical merits.

[awacsfan]

While my Dubai Air Wing 747 is still being rejected "needs CCW rotation" (gee... we've been through that) I was pleastly surprised when my uploaded air-to-air TCA photo (dating back to the pre-digital era) made it to the top photo within the last 24 hrs... wow... couldn't believe it that particularly this one made it. But of course it's nice to see something like that on the front page!

http://www.airliners.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.s ... istory=yes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cheers

Andy

[Ben Montgomery]

Nice one Andy - it's always really nice to see one of your photos do well, and that one is rather lovely


For my own part, I don't seem to be doing to well in terms of uploads at the moment, lots of rejections.

Had this one rejected for soft?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... z417bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dinger]

The wheels on your rejected Shadow shot look a tad soft to me. Other than that, not a bad image.

Dinger.

[Ben Montgomery]

OK, thanks!

[awacsfan]

Nice one Andy - it's always really nice to see one of your photos do well, and that one is rather lovely


For my own part, I don't seem to be doing to well in terms of uploads at the moment, lots of rejections.

Had this one rejected for soft?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... z417bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ben,
I've had images rejected for soft where I thought I already oversharpened them. Guess it all depends on the screener. Had plenty of rejections myself lately. And thanks for the kind words regarding my TCA picture! Very much appreciated.
Cheers

Andy

[POL]

The wheels on your rejected Shadow shot look a tad soft to me. Other than that, not a bad image.

Dinger.

Looks like the windows are a little soft too, though that may just be my eyes!

[Ben Montgomery]

Cheers guys - I'm quite keen on that shot so might give it a re-edit and another go.

Same for this one too - soft (think I can see the issue though)

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... z416bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;