> 1 <
| Author | Message |
Higgsr71
See my 863 Photos  
|
2007-12-28 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
All,
After the Christmas break we are finally getting our teeth into the queue screening shots and one thing is very noticeable with uploads in the last week or so, many of you are uploading images way above 1024x683 in size, in particular scanned prints/negs from the pre digital era and to be honest the quality is really suffering because you are uploading them at (as an example) 1600x??? or even bigger, we have rejected several images tonight because they are very noisy and uploading them bigger then 1024x683 makes the noise and lack of quality due to scanned prints/negs really show up. Remember the bigger you upload an image the more flaws will show up and therefore you have much more chance of having them rejected. This also applies to some digital shots we have in the queue that are slightly soft but if uploaded slightly smaller at 1024x683 would look much better. Also there are quite a few images with white scratch/hair marks on them from the scanned prints, could you please remove these before you upload the photos, if you don't they will be rejected for dirty, please remove them just as you would a dust spot, in a lot of cases this is very easy to do with many of these marks being in the sky, very quick and simple to remove in Photoshop or similar. And finally Level, many of you are uploading images that are clearly un-level, please try to level images to the horizon where possible or uprights where appropriate, I know all photos are different and we are not as picky as other sites when it comes to not only level but all quality issues, however, we have had a few uploads recently where horizons were obviously not level and the photographer has made no attempt to correct it. Please self screen your images before you upload them here, it saves our time and yours when you get it right first time in the long run. Many Thanks for your co-operation The Screening Team Regards |
| Author | Message |
Jez
See my 546 Photos
|
2007-12-28 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
I got a level rejection recently. A shot that both A.net and JP.net accepted.:dontgetit}
|
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos 
|
2007-12-28 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Regards scanned negs/slides it certainly is very difficult to retain high quality if posted at larger than 1024x768. Fair points made regards noise, dust spots and levels; will try to keep these in mind before uploading!
One problem that I am encountering is although noise reduction software like Noise Ninja and Neatimage has vastly improved over the last couple of years they do tend to highlight any original shortcomings with photographs such as slight under-exposure for example. I do seem to be having to work hard to get scans from negatives taken around 2001 to 2003 accepted, not sure if this was my bad photography at that time or whether many photographers had digital cameras by then and therefore the comparative standard is that much higher  Michael Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message |
Jörg Pfeifer
See my 1,029 Photos 
|
2007-12-28 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote I think you are talking about this one. So would you please tell me which axis is leveled vertical or horizontal? Regards, |
| Author | Message |
Jez
See my 546 Photos
|
2007-12-28 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote Vertical. |
| Author | Message |
Jez
See my 546 Photos
|
2007-12-28 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Looks pretty level/vertical to me. This is a screen dump of 'view pixels' with the grid on at the centre of the image (where the '14' line is). I hope you do not judge the level by the edges of an image?????
|
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos 
|
2007-12-29 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
I guess it shows that our screeners have their head on straight.
 Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously though, this is a bit off-topic, but I will respond here regardless. Just looking at the Tempest shot above, at first glance it does look un-level, at least to me. It seems to be hanging a bit to the right. I rotated it one degree to the left and now the main pillar looks straight. This is one of those tricky shots where any one point could be level depending on where you are looking. I just drew some lines across and top to bottom and you can see what it looks like:  Doesn't this look better? Looks like this shot has already been deleted. Why not appeal it instead? -Ray |
| Author | Message |
Jez
See my 546 Photos
|
2007-12-29 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I don't mind rejections, which is why I didn't appeal, but thought that John's original claim that other sites are more picky with respect to level was incorrect from my recent experience. Jorg's subsequent claim that my image was 3° from level (a message that has since been deleted) led me to scrutinise the master TIF file and my conclusion is that the image is level. The vertical line '14' in the CENTRE of the image shows this is the case. Obviously the screeners at A.net and JP.net agree with me.
|
| Author | Message |
airwolfhound
See my 538 Photos
|
2007-12-30 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I have to admit that I am finding the screeners to be certainly more picky than usual. This is by no means a bad thing, as I understand that you wish Airfighters to have and attract the best military photographs on to the site.
As you will know my pictures can have a certain lack of consistency in their presentation. However, I am spending a lot longer in trying to understand the various techniques to use in editing my pictures before I submit them. I do tend to look at them after editing and saying to myself does it look acceptable before I submit them ? Perhaps I need new glasses (as well as that monitor I have been promising to get all this time lol !!) The worst thing for me I think are the dreaded jaggies and also a number of my pictures do suffer with the 'softness' problem. Again, I am trying to tackle this via the various sharpening tools available to me via Paintshop Pro X. Hopefully 2008 will be a good year in terms of getting 'out and about' to various airshows as I have only attended a couple this year due to a kidney disorder that I have been suffering from (and various nasty operations because of it). This will, hopefully, mean some better photographic opportunities and a slightly better 'success-rate' for getting my pics on here :-) Cheers, Tim |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2007-12-30 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Hi Tim,
I don't think we're being more picky, but rather just enforcing the basic rules which were a little ignored in the past. The basics: level, focus, light, sharpness, motive, centered, etc. have to be there in order to get accepted. We were very lenient at the beginning, when I was screening photos, I would say the first 4000 or so, and you can't really look at those as a guide to what is acceptable now. For one thing, I'm not much of a photographer, and probably a worse screener. I was letting just about everything on the site as I was afraid of alienating the photographers. I'm not saying all those are bad, or anything like that, but some of those photos submitted today probably will not get accepted. Only the very obvious was getting rejected by me. Now we know better and we have a great team that actually knows what to look for. It's in everyone's best interest to have great-looking photos on the site, and we do have laxer rules for older photos. Many, many times we have asked the photographers to fix their photos and upload again. Whether it be sharpness, size, cropping etc. and everyone appreciates that and complies. At the end they get a better photo added to the database and it makes them look good as well. It's a very time consuming process, but we still do it. Nonetheless, photo screening is very subjective and no two people will see a photo the same way. If we had a computer program doing it, then it would be a lot more consistent, but we're not computers. We all see things a little differently and judge it accordingly. I think I read on Scramble, where two people submitted the exact same photo to a.net to test the screeners, just a few hours apart, and one got accepted and the other rejected. Believe me, it's a lot harder than it looks. If everything was black and white, then it would be very easy, but we all know there are thousands of shades of gray in between white to black. -Ray |
| Author | Message |
aeromilitaria
See my 131 Photos 
|
2008-01-09 GMT-5 hours
|
|
John,
Point taken, specially now that I've started uploading photos from from a recent and exceptional (yet cloudy!) visit to Uruguay's Laguna del Sauce naval air base. I'm puzzled, though, by the recommended dimensions in your message: 1024x683? I though 1024x768 was the norm? Will the latter nonetheless be acceptable in the following submission? <http://www.airfighters.com/photo_5811q.details> Yours, Carlos PS: Did any screener get submissions from recently-registered Argentine photographers "hclaria" and "cicalesi"? They're considered distinguished photographers among the local spotting community in Argentina and possess extensive and exclusive photo files... Quote Carlos Ay |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2008-01-12 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Hi Carlos,
1024x768 is at a 4:3 ratio and 1024x683 is obviously at a 3:2 ratio, so anything between 683 and 768 for the height will be ok as long as the width is 1024px. Anything higher than 768 will not look good. -Ray |
> 1 <