Airliners.net Rejection

[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

[Wallace]

There is the exhaust gasses at that. Makes sense when you think about it.
It's probably the white on the roundel, it seems to glow and that is why they suggest it is over exposed. Hard to say without importing it into Photoshop and checking the Levels.

Assuming the the aircraft is parallel to you and more or less in the same focal plane then all parts of the fuselage should be in the same state of focus, so how could one part of the aircraft be blurred more than any other, apart from vibration or other movement?

[KarlADrage]

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.

Not sure I agree with that. I've not shot in RAW under 'normal conditions' since February 2008 (the exception being at night under non-white lighting) and I certainly don't feel as if I've been 'losing out'. Assuming you get a capture as right as you can at the time, you really shouldn't need that extra flexibility that RAW allows and you're just adding to your workload, IMHO.

[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.

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.

Had thought about that Dave, but it's the same effect on the "WV908" and the "A" up on the tail, so I don't think so (sorry Shaun, not trying to rip your photo apart! )

[awacsfan]

The saga continues..... my Dubai Air Wing 747 has again been rejected... this time for (and now get this).... "bad quality"

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... om_an3.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't get it... I've appealed already, appeal has been turned down already by the head screener (boy that was fast) and although I've done everything they told I need to do in order to improve the picture, it has now been turned down again. Just as if they simply do not want that particular picture in their database. I'll give up with this picture... no sense anymore in trying to make them like it.
First I was told it's soft, so I sharpened it and resubmitted it again only to be rejected again....
then I was told it needs CCW rotation.... did that and it was again rejected
then I was told it's too bright and needs to be darker.... did that and it was again rejected
then I was told it again needs CCW rotation and it's soft.... did that and now it's being rejected for "bad quality"....

A.net.... I don't get it anymore... this is really ridicolous and becoming a joke...

Oh, their head screener was fast... here's the reply already

"A comment from the editor regarding this upload:
"It does not look as though it can be corrected as there is quite bad heat haze causing the softness. We all take them that will never get accepted too""

I've now decided to give up with this picture - I've had it.... I've tried my best, each time did was they told me to do in order to improve the image and it's still not good enough and now that reply.... so basically they tell me to "stuff it" and never try it again.

[TonyO]

Is it just not possible to accept that that picture won't make it onto the database?

As the screener said, we all have those - no point in being rash and lashing out saying the website is rubbish. If several different screeners are rejecting it, democratically that means its likely something isn't right with the image. As a former screener myself, I wouldn't have uploaded it. Knowing the layout of DUS, you'd have saved yourself a lot of heartache by shooting this machine early in the morning, say 9am or earlier, as the light would have been spot on. Move on from this image and try something else.

[DeanW]

What do people make of this pair from Axalp..

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Switzerl ... 1800487/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Switzerl ... 1800488/L/

They're stunning images - great use of the slow shutter. But I'm just surprised the screener didn't reject them for being off centre of something, especially the Pat Suisse machine as it doesn't look off centre enough to be intentional.

[TonyO]

What do people make of this pair from Axalp..

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Switzerl ... 1800487/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Switzerl ... 1800488/L/

They're stunning images - great use of the slow shutter. But I'm just surprised the screener didn't reject them for being off centre of something, especially the Pat Suisse machine as it doesn't look off centre enough to be intentional.

I'd have rejected them because the nose is blurred on both of them...

[Richard B]

The nose blur is perfection thou Tony.
great frameing with that Axlp F5, cracking slow speed background ,
room at the front for lead in. and the blur on the nose give it the perfect look and a perfect capture.

[TonyO]

The nose blur is perfection thou Tony.
great frameing with that Axlp F5, cracking slow speed background ,
room at the front for lead in. and the blur on the nose give it the perfect look and a perfect capture.

How does the blur on the nose make it look perfect?

[MikeH]

How does the blur on the nose make it look perfect?

Because it's perfectly blurred?

[SamP]

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.

Fair enough, they have been rather too picky on some of the shots posted in this thread, stupidly picky in some cases. But theres a bench mark for world class shots and if yours isn't better or more unique than another in the database, you don't have much chance of getting it accepted. You've got to draw the line somewhere when annalysing a photograph, and if you start getting slack, you won't be the No.1 online database for Aviation Photographs anymore, will you?

Please take things into consideration people. Im not one to talk at the moment, as I'm yet to upload any of my shots to the site. But give the screeners their due, they are only doing their job, and each one of them will be different in their opinions.

EDIT: And what I stated in the first paragraph is exactly why that shot is now in the Top 5 of the last 24 Hours.