> 1 <
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos  
|
2011-08-08 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Hi all,
After discussion with the crew and dozens, and dozens of bad-weather shots added and some in the queue, I've added a new rejection reason: Bad Weather! Lets face it, most, if not all, bad-weather photos result in a rather low-quality, dark image that is not very appealing to look at. Thus, I've had to make it a new rule. It's also, leading to a false pretense that we allow dark, back-lit images, simply because we allowed a bad-weather image that was just as dark, if not darker. Therefore, from now on, any dark, hazy, and low-contrast photos taken in bad weather will be rejected. Once in a while, a shot does come through ok, like pouring rain for example, and that will be allowed, and we will make exceptions in certain cases and anything out of the norm of course. I understand it can be frustrating to get to an air base or show with complete overcast or rain, but we have to maintain the high-quality level of the database and keep the viewers best interest in mind. At the end, it's in everyone's best interest. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding. -Ray |
| Author | Message |
emkey
See my 1,846 Photos 
|
2011-08-09 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Why you have rejected this picture?
 Of course it was bad wether on this day but in my opinion the quality of this picture is good enough,too! It`s not dark and no low contrast. One person has three pictures of this jet of the same location and day in the database. For me thats not fair! |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2011-08-09 GMT-5 hours
|
|
That one is ok. Please upload again, I don't see it in your queue. Sorry for the trouble. We will get it right eventually....
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
emkey
See my 1,846 Photos
|
2011-08-09 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Thanks for your answer Ray
 I upload it again. The reason for the other rejected piture can I understand but this one was a little bit strange. |
| Author | Message |
YIFLY
See my 7,078 Photos
|
2011-08-10 GMT-5 hours
|
|
If we were still shooting analog, I'd agree with this decision. However, DSLR allows for much, much greater exposure latitude. If a photographer adjusts their aperture accordingly, the result can be a very dramatic image. I'd hate to see images rejected out-of-hand simply because of poor weather conditions. When I shoot in overcast, I see it as a challenge, an opportunity, something different than your typical severe clear photography. Just my two cents.
Cheers, David F. Brown “There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” -Ernest Hemingway |
| Author | Message |
EF2000
See my 8,563 Photos
|
2011-08-10 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Yes I absolutely agree with you David. There are a lot of great photos in the database, taken in not so typical clear weather
conditions. Cheers, Rainer Mueller |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2011-08-10 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Gentlemen,
You are taking this too seriously. A bad-weather shot does not mean an automatic rejection. We are trying to avoid the really dark and gloomy shots, some of which have been accepted in the past and are causing problems with other photographers, making them believe that dark and back-lit shots are okay. They are not. Photographer B sees a cloudy photo with a rather dark plane from Photographer A and says, "oh, dark photos are ok, I have a dark backlit shot, I should upload it." We reject the photo for "dark and backlit" and he cries foul. See the problem? I probably should not have even made an announcement about it in the first place. -Ray |
| Author | Message |
YIFLY
See my 7,078 Photos
|
2011-08-11 GMT-5 hours
|
|
So, nothing has changed then. Every photo will be accepted or rejected on its overall merit.
“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” -Ernest Hemingway |
| Author | Message |
Andreas
See my 4,495 Photos
|
2011-08-11 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Good decision!
This has for sure been driven by the recent additions of some of the European airshows which did not have the luck to get sunny blue skies?! I think in the "good old analog days" we would not have wasted dozens of film rolls to shoot in grey weather. Arguably today's technique allows us to capture images that were not possible previously, but for a database as af.com is I somehow doubt the sense of uploading multiple shots of a) the same aircraft in bad weather or b) a photo of an aircraft in bad weather if it is already in the db in good weather. Furthermore some of the image processing of these bad weather photos to 'improve' them is really on the limits imo. Regards Andreas Regards |
| Author | Message |
mark_munzel
See my 952 Photos 
|
2011-08-12 GMT-5 hours
|
|
To me the whole issue seems very straightforward: we, as photographers, should only submit photos we're proud of, not of every aircraft we see just to prove that we saw it. Except in rare cases of the type Rainer and David are thinking of, a photo of a dark aircraft against a rainy sky will almost never fall into the former category. If someone submits a black silhouette just so he can be one shot closer to Chris Lofting or Rainer or Andreas or David (all of whom, it should be noted, don't submit bad-weather photos of the type that started this discussion), all he's really doing, other than giving the screeners more work, is proving that he lacks the ability to self-assess his work.
Or in fewer words: I'm with Ray on this one.  -M.M. |
| Author | Message |
YIFLY
See my 7,078 Photos
|
2011-08-12 GMT-5 hours
|
|
http://www.airfighters.com/photo/34912/M/Canada-Air-Force/McDonnell-Douglas-CF-188A-Hornet-CF-18A/188719/
Ray, I guess you better delete this image 'cas it was raining when I shot it! You are either a photographer or a camer-aimer/computer programmer. Cheers, Dave “There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” -Ernest Hemingway |
| Author | Message | ||||
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2011-08-13 GMT-5 hours
|
||||
|
But it doesn't meet all the requirements for the rejection reason. Bad weather AND dark and hazy. Maybe I should take the bad weather part out, and just make it "dark and hazy shots"?
I was really trying hard not to give examples, but I think I have to. Basically, this is what we're trying to avoid.
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
YIFLY
See my 7,078 Photos
|
2011-08-13 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I concur. Gray/grey airplanes on a gray/grey sky are not appealing.
“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” -Ernest Hemingway |
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos 
|
2011-08-13 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Ray, whilst I *can* understand to some extent what you are trying to achieve with this new 'Bad Weather' rejection category I do feel very uneasy with it. Bottom line is that the majority of modern military aircraft have to be able to perform their missions in all weathers and conditions and that is especially true here in Northern Europe. For example back in the bad old cold war days in the 1960's F-84F Thunderstreak and F-104G pilots were expected to undertake what would have been a one-way nuclear mission against WarPac targets in all weathers and, being Northern Europe, the weather would most likely have been the nastiest clag imaginable. But that is what military aircraft here have to do and I think a photo database dedicated to military aircraft should reflect that.
I am also very uneasy with Niels Roman's photos being singled out as they have been. I have had a look through Niels' photos and I think he is a very capable and versatile photographer and he has some great photos taken on very grey days, you use his photo of Portuguese F-16AM 15123 as an example of what Airfighters does not want but I think he has caught the afterburner shock diamonds really well and that is not something that you see on bright sunny days on the USA West Coast, so for me this is a great shot. Way to go Niels  :I agree with YIFLY: "Every photo will be accepted or rejected on its overall merit" and that is the way it should be. Irrespective of the weather conditions, has the contributing photographer submitted a photo up to the standards of this photo database? The alternative is that we go back to bad old days of 35mm slide photos taken only from the side in flight in bright sunny weather. No thank you!! Michael Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message | ||||
Hunter Mk58
See my 4,162 Photos 
|
2011-08-13 GMT-5 hours
|
||||
|
Michael, you really read my minds!
What you say / write is exactly my opinion. In Europe the weather sometimes is very difficult for taking pictures, but this is the big challenge over here! It was in the old analog times and still is today with all the good digital technic we have! In my eyes it is easier taking a good action photo of an aircraft in sunny conditions, but do the same in the european weather..... Below you see some photos taken in typical swiss weather (snow and Rain!) I don’t think they are bad because of these conditions, I think they are very special because of this nasty weather!!!
Quote I wish back the good old times, when a picture was a picture and not only bits and bytes and when the people knew the meaning of the word respect. Respect is a very rare thing in our days… |
| Author | Message |
Andreas
See my 4,495 Photos
|
2011-08-15 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote don't let the Swiss Toursit Board hear this :wink Some nice examples about interesting photos in bad weather Martin, but I think what Ray intented with his first post are more examples like this:
And especially looking at the fact that the DB is getting bigger and bigger and thus and has to stay attractive for the visitors I think it is more than understandable that Ray has to rise the limits for uploads. Andreas Regards |
| Author | Message |
Hunter Mk58
See my 4,162 Photos
|
2011-08-15 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote I know what you mean Andreas. I think what Ray wants to tell is, that as long as we have photos in bright and sunny light, we don't need to upload other photos. But the problem here in europe is sometimes, that we don't have this bright and sunny conditions :-(( You know that, your living in Germany. I'm sure we all try our best to make great aviation-photos. But sometimes the weather is not with us :-( But even when the weather is nasty, we can make great pictures (nice, as you said). To come back to your words: in this special case with the two PC-7 it has nothing to do with bad weather. The left picture was taken in the very early morning hours (in dawn) and the right one was taken in midday. That's the difference between the two photos. Airfighters has to stay attractive, thats true. But I think not only photos in sunny weather are attractive. Sometimes I'm a little bit tired about all those big blue photos with no clouds and I'm sure that I'm not the only one. If Ray has to rise the limits for the upoads, it could be good to take more action-photos and less 0815-sideview-photos  (don't take this one for serious..... :wink)P.S.: About the swiss tourist board: I think the know about the facts of our weather ;-) Martin http://www.powerplanes.ch I wish back the good old times, when a picture was a picture and not only bits and bytes and when the people knew the meaning of the word respect. Respect is a very rare thing in our days… |
| Author | Message |
phantom phixer
See my 2,388 Photos 
|
2012-04-06 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I don't think my question merits for a new thread so I'm using this one as I think it is pretty close.
Could you please explain why "aircraft in the shadow" (completely or partially) is such a bad thing? I'm not talking about an over or under-exposed subject, but merely the shadow as a rejection reason. You all know there are hangars where the sun never shines with aircraft in them and there are buildings and trees next to flight-lines and taxiways. Thank you for yor time. Kostas D. Pantios |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2012-04-07 GMT-5 hours
|
|
If half the aircraft is dark and very hard to see then that's not a very pretty photo. Same with bad weather. Dark, dull, gray photos are not very pleasant to look at.
Still, I think we are too lenient with bad weather shots. Why upload a dark, gray photo when you will have another chance to shoot the same plane under ideal conditions? -Ray |
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos
|
2012-04-07 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote Ray, that might be the case for the 'Civvie' aircraft photographer who can plan to pop along to their local airfield when the sun is predicted to come out and airliners are timetabled on a daily basis however for many military aircraft photographers this might not be the case for a couple of reasons. The first is that that public events involving military aircraft participation are relatively rare and the photographer takes their chance regards the weather at those events. This includes airshows, spotters days, demonstrations and deployments and most of these are at best over just a few days in one year and the weather here in Europe is quite capable of being bad for that period of time. My experience is that there is a large element of luck involved here. The second is that many of us travel long distances to take the photographs that we do and again this means that our time 'window of opportunity' is very limited at the location because we have spent large sums of money to get to where we are and we try to cram as many locations as possible into our itinerary. I have been lucky to have had several military ramp tours and the military units concerned was very specific about the time when we had access. It did not matter what the weather was, nor the position of the sun (and therefore the shadows!) I have had to accept what I was offered. More recently many military units will even specify the direction in which the photographer can take photos in order to avoid photographing military installations. I don't aim to take "pretty" or "pleasant" photos, I just record what is there at the moment I am there come rain, sun or snow. I very rarely have another chance to shoot the same plane under ideal conditions. I suspect I am not alone in this. Michael Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message |
Chris
See my 6,058 Photos
|
2012-04-08 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I totally agree with Ray, I have no particular wish to see dark, dull and grey images on the site. In my opinion the screening is a lot more lax than I would like.
Sorry Michael, but just because the conditions are bad when you are on a visit its no excuse for posting dark or dull images if thats all you managed to get. If all your interested in is taking record shots regardless of the conditions and as you put it "don't aim to take pretty or pleasant photos" then maybe this site is not for you. |
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos
|
2012-04-08 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Chris, my photographs reflect reality. Simple as that.
Michael Quote Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message |
Chris
See my 6,058 Photos
|
2012-04-08 GMT-5 hours
|
|
A photographers reality always involves ending up with a lot of duff images for one reason or another, but just because thats reality you cant really believe thats an excuse for posting poor images.
Possibly its a matter of standards and everyones standards are different. The real reality is that people can tell the difference between a good and a poor image and if Ray feels it will benefit the site to up the standards then I support him 100%. Quality over reality please! |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2012-04-08 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Michael, I understand your point, but we all have good and not so good images. I've gone to airshows myself on several occasions where the weather was pretty poor. I hardly took any photos. That was just my luck. It's an unfortunate situation, but that doesn't mean we have to accept the photos here. We have to keep the viewers in mind. Like I said above, even after I implemented that rule, I think we are too lenient and I have to discuss with the photographers to tighten things up a bit. As I have said before, the hardest thing for us is deciding where to draw the line for anything, and this is no exception. Of course, some exceptional photos, in extraordinary cases will be accepted regardless of the conditions. I'm sorry it has to be this way, but we have to keep the quality of the site high.
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos
|
2012-04-08 GMT-5 hours
|
|
And exactly where did I or anyone else advocate "posting poor images" or accepting lower standards Chris? Please do check back through the thread and tell us where this was stated?
My personal 'photographer's reality' is that I turn up at a location with my camera and I take photos whatever the weather and conditions, my favourite was turning up at Keflavik, Iceland in a blizzard, and no you won't see any of those here! I love museums and have been in some hangars where I have had to take timed photos using a 'Gorillapod' for over five seconds exposure and that is kind of fun to be honest. A competent photographer copes with the conditions at hand and hopefully does not generate too many duff images. I happen to disagree with Ray and the screeners regards 'bad weather' rejections (though I have never had one) and am not afraid to say so publicly here. If a photo is sub-standard as a result of poor weather conditions then the quality connected rejection reasons we are used to should be sufficient. I personally think that 'bad weather' as a rejection is a cop out and does not need to be used here especially as the screening standards are pretty high. However at the end of the day it is Ray's site and I will support him when he rules on this. Finally, Chris, your comment above "then maybe this site is not for you". Would you kindly take a moment to step into my shoes and read your comment and then think exactly how that sounds to me after five years contributing here? Michael Quote Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message |
André Jans
See my 71 Photos 
|
2013-03-10 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I know there are many bad WX photo's around but sometines they come out okay, I think.
Digital photography allows us way more options. No way I would have spent uh wasted a Kodachrome 64 in this weather. ::thumb_grin} Cheers, André |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2013-03-10 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Sometimes, bad weather can have a nice effect.
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
Walter2222
See my 2,711 Photos 
|
2013-03-11 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Hi Ray,
Sorry to hi-jack this thread, but I have also a question related to poor quality pictures. I had uploaded recently some old slide scans (which had already been accepted at other websites), and lots of them were rejected. I know they were rejected for obvious quality reasons (some of the slides date back from the seventies, so quality on the original slide has already faded as well) and I had been using a flatbed scanner (which I know is not optimal to make good quality scans). Anyhow, since they had already been accepted elsewhere, I did not consider to re-edit them at this stage (after a recovery of a major PC crash). What I am wondering about is, whether the acceptance criteria for old scans is more lenient or not? I am not complaining about the rejections itself, but would like to know whether it is worthwhile to improve on the editing or not? PS: Since I lost a lot of e-mails on the PC crash, I can recall all the rejection reasons on the old scans. It is possible to find the rejection reasons somewhere else? It might be good to add them with the rejected picture? Best regards, Walter Best regards, |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2013-03-11 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Hi Walter,
We are definitely more lenient on older photos/slide scans, but they still have to have the basics there. For example, a photo can't be completely out of focus and still be accepted just because it is older. Focus is focus. But we do make exceptions in certain cases for rarity, etc. No, unfortunately, the rejection emails cannot be recovered. Sorry. -Ray |
| Author | Message |
Walter2222
See my 2,711 Photos
|
2013-03-11 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, Ray!
I agree that focus should be OK. But most of my scans of older slides show indeed a lot of grain/noise, which cannot be corrected without losing detail, which is already limited in these old slides... Best regards, Walter Best regards, |
> 1 <