Airliners.net Rejection

[BOLLO]

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;

Hey Ben,I got mine rejected as well.Grainy sky Blind tw ts

[Richard B]

Must admit that we spend thousands on the best Camera and lens and it still does not take a shot of what was seen?,


can anybody take a shot from a Modern camera and without doing anything with it, Get the shot on Anet?

You can with an old slide taken with an old camera, so is digital rubbish.

Rich.

[Ben Montgomery]

Rich - apart from Cropping and resizing to 1200px, this is as shot on the camera:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air ... 435193e2ce" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[POL]

can anybody take a shot from a Modern camera and without doing anything with it, Get the shot on Anet?

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov- ... 1585831/L/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Arm ... 1604815/L/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From me

[BOLLO]

can anybody take a shot from a Modern camera and without doing anything with it, Get the shot on Anet?

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Antonov- ... 1585831/L/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Arm ... 1604815/L/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From me

They been rejected have they,thats a shame as they are quite good.

[POL]

They been rejected have they,thats a shame as they are quite good.

Sorry, I'm confused! vulcan588 asked a question, Ben and myself answered it with examples. I don't understand your post

[Richard B]

So you have got 1 or 2 shots out of how many on A.net.?

[POL]

I'm on 12 of perhaps a couple of thousand taken, probably 40 uploaded (Can't remember my details to log in and check in work)

[Richard B]

Anyway my view is that if you have 100 pics on A.nety with only 1 or 2 with the shredded wheat nothing added and nothing taken away.

this means your camera gear and yourself are only getting 1 or 2 good pics, the rest being rubbish and not captureing the scene as it was because you have
had to edit them to adjust many flaws to make them accetible.

So whats at fault your Camera gear or the snapper behined the lens,

But if i spend £1000 on camera and lens i need to spend £1000 on the top software to correct the crap £1000+ gear i have bought.
to compensate for the camera and lens not taking the scene at the time.

puzzled

[KarlADrage]

Rich - Digital output is intentionally 'flat' to give the user greater control over how they want the final picture to look - in just the same way as those who chose to develop their own film/transparencies in the pre-digital era did.

It's a lot easier to make subtle changes to a largely unprocessed image (and yes I concede that an element of processing has already been applied to a jpg v a RAW file) than it is to one that's already been sharpened and has had the contrast and saturation bumped up 'in camera' - all of which you can control the settings for within (most?) bodies today, if you so wish.

[SteveS]

A bit off-topic, but who should be the front page "Featured Photographer" right now.....only our very own MarkK! Congrats Mark!

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.s ... entry=true

[Wallace]

I sometimes wonder if we all take Airliners.net a little too seriously.
It's only an on-line aviation photo database!

[Richard B]

Rich - Digital output is intentionally 'flat' to give the user greater control over how they want the final picture to look - in just the same way as those who chose to develop their own film/transparencies in the pre-digital era did.

It's a lot easier to make subtle changes to a largely unprocessed image (and yes I concede that an element of processing has already been applied to a jpg v a RAW file) than it is to one that's already been sharpened and has had the contrast and saturation bumped up 'in camera' - all of which you can control the settings for within (most?) bodies today, if you so wish.

Agree that all the settings can be made in camera via the Custom and scene modes,
thou the editing to get on (A.net) seems very excessive and time consuming.

[Ben Montgomery]

Not sure on that really Rich - most of my edits for A.net take only marginally longer, or the same time, as any photos I would edit to upload here.

[Seamus]

Seems the screeners don't like me at the moment, five more rejections so far with another five yet to be screnned from the latest batch

Think I got a partically hard-ass screener this time though; resubmitted that Seahawk shot after levelling it (initial reason for rejection), but it now appears to be lacking in quality, blurry and overexposed? WTF?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... 10_016.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ben Montgomery]

I'd go with them on that Shaun, the "Royal Navy" does look blurry.

However, looking at your original upload, it does not look nearly as bad.

[Seamus]

Hmm, in that case I think it must have softened after I levelled and re-cropped the shot then. Still not convinced it's overexposed though

I've re-edited the shot, so see what you think so I don't waste an upload


Culdrose_2010_016 by Seamus_85, on Flickr

I'm determined to get this darn shot on there!

[Ben Montgomery]

Still got that funny soft look on the tail that you get when you pan at low speeds sometimes (when one part of the aircraft is sharp, and the other is just soft, if you know what I mean).

Might just be me though

[Seamus]

Nah, I think you're right looking at it again....

Think I'll concede defeat with this one

[MacksAviation]

I'd go with them on that Shaun, the "Royal Navy" does look blurry.

However, looking at your original upload, it does not look nearly as bad.

And why do you think the "Royal Navy" is blurry anything to do with the dam great jet engine pumping out hot gasses maybe
Not a dig at you Ben just the stupidity of Airliners and one of the reasons I don't bother.

Slightly Off Topic:
As for some peoples comments about editing/not editing images I fail to see the logic in not doing so. You still can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear but ....
Anyone with a digital camera has a digital darkroom at there disposal so use it, I see no excuse whatsoever in not doing so. There are plenty of very good editing programs on the market that don't cost an arm and a leg like Photoshop does, some are even free. It's a completely different style of operation and I think those of us that have moved with the times and taken the time to learn the new tricks are reaping the benefits.

In the days of film 99% of people had to rely on the processor averaging out the whole film and processing it, these days you are in full control of the whole process from start to finish.

Another thing I really can't understand is people NOT using RAW. Once upon a time I could possible understand it after all my 1st 500mb Compact Flash card cost me £180.00!!! the last 4gig CF card cost me less than £20.00....Even with my old 1D that allows approx 500 images per 4gig card. RAW may take a little extra 'processing/developing" but the rewards far out way the time it takes.

I think some people need to move with the times and embrace the opportunities these digital cameras offer, at the end of the day its only like the 1% of people in the old film days processing their own films in the dark room where do you think terms like 'dodging and burning' come from those dark old days in the darkroom.

But above all ENJOY the opportunities

Dave