Airliners.net Rejection

[TonyO]

Look the reason they have been accepted is because they have required alot of skill to have been taken in the first place. Using a shutter speed as low as 1/50th on such a fast moving object and ending up with results like that is fantastic. At the end of the day you have to accept that the nose will be blured, you would have to pan the aircraft absolutely perfectly to achieve an overall sharp picture. The screeners have accepted this due to it being such a well tried and unique shot, thats why they have accounted for, and accepted, the fact that the nose is blured.

Or people are looking at the shot because they cannot believe it got accepted and/or the photographer is a well-known name on the forums...food for thought

[Richard B]

The Blur on the nose is indeed part and parcel of Pro photo takeing,
to be honest it would look rubbish pin sharp with the background with so much motion,
note the word motion as this pic gives the aircraft motion, seen some crackers in my time with blur also creeping off the wing tips and tail.

this whats makes a pefect shot in the world of top pictures.
thing is most of the young snappers are hell bent of pn sharp nose to tail pics and do not understand the true art of takeing pictures,
many top F1 shots have blur on the nose and tail bleeding into to background blur.

Useing the focus points in diffrent areas of the frame is the art to this and good panning etc.

stick with your nose to tail full frame pin sharp pics and you will learn nothing.

[Jez]

Sorry 558, I think you are talking complete and utter rubbish. I bet that a sharp aircraft against a blurred background was what the photographer was going for. It didn't work out, so a loose crop was chosen in vain attempt to hide the blur.

[Dunk]

Sorry 558, I think you are talking rubbish. I bet that a sharp aircraft against a blurred background was what the photographer was going for. It didn't work out, so a loose crop was chosen in vain attempt to hide the blur.

Keep it civil please, if you disagree then just say so, no need for abusive language to other members or Mods. Thanks.

Edited your post.

Dunk

[Jez]

Sorry 558, I think you are talking rubbish. I bet that a sharp aircraft against a blurred background was what the photographer was going for. It didn't work out, so a loose crop was chosen in vain attempt to hide the blur.

Keep it civil please, if you disagree then just say so, no need for abusive language to other members or Mods. Thanks.

Edited your post.

Dunk

Apologies. Won't happen again, but I have updated my original post to better reflect my sentiment.

[Richard B]

No problems jez, thats your own view and not of mine on a professional in motor sports or action of 30years view.

[Wallace]

A.net is not the bible when it comes to aviation photography but it will help you edit you're shots to a respectable standard and that is no bad thing. Once you reach it you'll look back and realise why your shots got rejected and at the same time should have no real difficulty getting them accpeted, of my last 14 uploads all 14 have got on, and they were all at 1600px, however this does leave me in a predicament...what should be my 500th acceptance?

An interesting statement. To my way of thinking, A.net has poisoned a lot of minds as to what is acceptable in aviation photography. I will agree with one thing. I also look back on my early stuff and cringe. However seeing others suffer that same, pain, anguish and frustration as I did with a.net rejections does not full me with a rosy glow.

May I be one of the first to offer my congratulations on your impending 500th photo on their database a notable achievement, however 14/14 only means that you have been fully accepted into the Airliners Collective and fully conditioned as to what they regard as an acceptable photo.

[IanOlder]

A.net is not the bible when it comes to aviation photography but it will help you edit you're shots to a respectable standard and that is no bad thing. Once you reach it you'll look back and realise why your shots got rejected and at the same time should have no real difficulty getting them accpeted, of my last 14 uploads all 14 have got on, and they were all at 1600px, however this does leave me in a predicament...what should be my 500th acceptance?

An interesting statement. To my way of thinking, A.net has poisoned a lot of minds as to what is acceptable in aviation photography. I will agree with one thing. I also look back on my early stuff and cringe. However seeing others suffer that same, pain, anguish and frustration as I did with a.net rejections does not full me with a rosy glow.

May I be one of the first to offer my congratulations on your impending 500th photo on their database a notable achievement, however 14/14 only means that you have been fully accepted into the Airliners Collective and fully conditioned as to what they regard as an acceptable photo.

Every time an A.net thread appears you can guarantee the same old criticism's will be wheeled out by the same people who don't even use the site. Why don't you blokes just accept that those of us that have been "brainwashed" are happy to mindlessly conform and enjoy using the site for our own motives. Occasionally we'll be frustrated by the odd rejection and we'll have a little moan about it on here but afterwards we'll carry on uploading.
Quite clearly there's many different aircraft photo's in the FC picture threads, and on other aviation forums, that aren't all A.net format and show's not everyone has been 'conditioned' to produce the same standard results that your post implies.
The post you quoted concedes the point..

A.net is not the bible when it comes to aviation photography but it will help you edit you're shots to a respectable standard

I think there's plenty of creativity around and to suggest A.net has poisoned every aircraft snapper is, in my view, nonsense.

I'm not personally interested in all types of photography but wouldn't go knocking, say, landscape or nature or HDR shots. I'll leave those who do enjoy that to carry on doing it, in whatever way they feel fit, in peace.

[TonyO]

Nicely said Ian, If A.net's rules seem draconian and unwieldy, so what, Ian and I and numerous other people use the website to showcase our photos, but it would be stupid to say it shapes our photography. My stuff on A.net represents only a small fraction of the pictures I take, what I upload what I feel best represents the aircraft within A.net's rules.

Now, Ian - regarding those beers...

[Wallace]

Draconian is a good choice of word - a set of laws devised by Draco, a 7th century Athenian statesman and lawmaker whose code of laws proscribed death for almost every offence.

I too was part of the a.net collective but I'd like to think that I saw the light and how inane some of their rules were, which is back to the start of this thread. Let's face it, who said the subject in a photo should be within a gnat's whisker of the edge of the frame and that every piece of the subject should be evenly distributed within the frame?
WHY?

A.net is all about quality, sure they have a great selection of images but absolutely no sense on composition. I'll take someones word that a.net is becoming more liberal but the leopard does not change its spots that quickly. Perhaps this change of attitude is an admission that they have been short sighted in their approach to screening.

A.net could be the pinnacle of achievement for aviation photographers or a corrupting influence on others. Let's beg to differ on that, which is what debate is all about and certainly not a Draconian measure.

[TonyO]

Just as I was defending the website, I have had every shot recently uploaded rejected despite the workflow being no different and have once again been accused of 'editing' images, something they've done twice in the past and proved wrong. Very disappointing!!!

[awacsfan]

Just as I was defending the website, I have had every shot recently uploaded rejected despite the workflow being no different and have once again been accused of 'editing' images, something they've done twice in the past and proved wrong. Very disappointing!!!

That sounds familiar - any and all images I have uploaded within the last say 7 -10 days have all been rejected for various reasons. The "best" rejection reason was "soft & oversharpened" Oh well...

[rattler]

Having followed this thread with interest for some time now, I thought I'd add my views.

I now have nearly 3000 images on A.net with nearly 10 million hits. Most of them are old slide scans and I know how difficult it is to have digital images accepted. For example, the last batch of 10 images uploaded were viewed by two different screeners. The first five were accepted and the latter five rejected. All were taken on the same afternoon in the same weather conditions. Just goes to show what a subjective game this is. My biggest moan with A.net is that some of the shots accepted lack composition. Though they meet the technical criterion, no thought has been given in the way the picture was taken. I recently saw some static shots taken at an air show with barriers in front of the aircraft and the fairground showing in the background all topped off with the shadow being cast of the photographer. These are shots I would not even take, let alone upload to a website.

Having said this, IMHO, I consider A.net the world's leading aviation website - by far. Others have tried to emulate it, but come no where near. Over the years, I've got to know some of the screeners, and to be honest, rather than reject my images out of hand, some have offered advice as to how to improve my photography. I must admit, I think it has made me a better photographer. At the end of the day, it's only a hobby and one that gives me a lot of pleasure. If people from around the world click on to my images, it makes all the hard work that much more rewarding.

Mick F

[Ben Montgomery]

Off topic, but anyone having problems logging in? Works on IE, but not on Google Chrome for me. Odd.

[POL]

Off topic, but anyone having problems logging in? Works on IE, but not on Google Chrome for me. Odd.

Can't log in on anything, was about to ask that myself!

[Ben Montgomery]

Anyone else having issues, or is it just me and Chris?


Oh - and had this rejected for "Soft"?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... e341bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[awacsfan]

I can log in on airliners.net okay - using Firefox though... ry to clear your browser cache and delete the respective cookies and give it another go... should most likely work then.
Cheers

Andy

[Jez]

No problem logging in for me (using Firefox on Linux and Windows).

[IanOlder]

Anyone else having issues, or is it just me and Chris?


Oh - and had this rejected for "Soft"?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... e341bm.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not had any recent problems logging in. Had several rejections though.
I'd say the F3 shot could use a touch of additional sharpening, worth trying again I reckon.

[gary1701]

Gents,

I don't usually put up A.net rejections for examination, as even if I don't agree with the reason given I can normally see what they're getting at and will adjust accordingly. The reason given for this one has me stumped though. 'Washed out' is the reason in the message, and I don't know what they're reasoning is. Washed out to me means too bright, detail lacking through low contrast, over exposure, all that sort of thing. That's not the case here, and I would have thought it might have got rejected for too dark/high contrast if anything. Anybody got any further ideas on what they mean please?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 92mild.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gary