Subject too far away

[sinkrate]

do you think that this picture is "subject too far away"? :shakehea:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=46693

[AIRLNRGUY]

I'm going with the screener on this one. It is so far away, it looks soft.

[indian airlines]

IMO, this is a wrong rejection. The subject is NOT too far away.

And if that is considered far away, then I think it's time for the site to change it's motto to "We expect all photographers to have high end equipment with lots of zoom, or have ramp access". :roll:

[AIRLNRGUY]

I've had ones closer than that, that got rejected for too far away. To me it looks soft because of the distance. That is what I was told with the pic below, even after an appeal. I was told I cropped it and enlarged it.
<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/toofar.JPG>

[Leftseat86]

GET CLOSER

That shot might have had a chance if it was sharper, had l;ess noise, and was centered in the frame.

-Clovis

[indian airlines]

GET CLOSER

That's close enough. Admittedly it has other problems such as sharpness etc etc, but distance is not a problem in that pic.

[Leftseat86]

I dunno Tanuj, but I prefer photos where the subject fills the frame, especially if there isnt much else in the shot (like a blank sky). Sometimes it is nice to get a wider view, but only when the surroundings warrant.

-Clovis

[LX-A343]

I didn't screen the picture, but I agree, it should be cropped tighter. Whyt do you want to express with the tons of blue sky around the aircraft?

Gerardo

[mikecweb]

Come on guys. Look at the pics your taking. Then go into the Db and look at the pics there. And don't go trying to find one pic from 4 months ago that is worse than yours. Look at the pics overall. Do any of them match the quality of your uploads? I'm pretty sure you'll find the answer being no.
AIRLNRGUY you must be kidding me thinking that 74 would be accepted. Show me one pic of similar quality in the database.

sinkrate What is your camera. By looking at your image name I can tell its an HP. That means you either have really small zoom or if you have my HP850 it has a lot of grain. But if you have the 850 you can definetly crop that picture more. Look on the web for a utility called neat image. It will help you out with that grain.

I'm quilty too of holding pics of my favorite aircraft in high regard. But you have to take a honest look at your photos. If you love the aircraft, location, motiv, and JP or A.net doesn't accept. Big F*cking deal. Keep it in your personal collection. Print it out. Put it on your desktop. If you truly love your photo you'll get more satisfaction hanging it up on your wall than checking back the next morning and seeing how many people clicked on it.

[LX-A343]

Mikecweb, you have a "Free Upload Voucher" for what you said!! :D :clap: :D :clap:

Thanks

Cheers
Gerardo

[gocaps16]

I agree, it is still kinda to ofar away and definatly soft. If you want to get a shot of a plane far away, make sure it either has a really nice background, not just the plane itself and ALOT of blue sky. Those shots do get boring to look at. I would provide an example, but I don't have much time.

I'll try later or if someone wants to provide an example, feel free. I'll give you a Bronze Star.

[gocaps16]

That UA 744 shot is cool but it is soft. I disagree about the subject too far away. Perhaps it was Peter Rolex that rejected it. :P

[Greg]

<IMG SRC=http://www.jetphotos.net/user-uploads/HPIM0640.JPG.11731.JPG>

I cropped it so that it is more full frame. I believe this is what the screeners are looking for. Of course since I downloaded it at the compressed resolution it is a bit grainy but the edited version is just meant to show what the pic could have looked like with a little work.[/u]

[Chris Kilroy]

The EgyptAir 777 shot is too far away, is soft, and suffers from very noticable JPEG compression. It is not soft due to the distance, as gear retraction shots can easily be had provided the photographer is in the right spot.

Example:

[photoid=57671]

At first glance, I thought the UA 744 shot suffered from massive heat haze, but upon further inspection, it seems that the shot is simply very soft. I disagree with the rejection reason given on that one, but not the rejection itself.

Tanuj, you sure do complain a lot for someone who, only several days ago, admitted to not knowing what ISO is, what shutter speed does, and having just read your camera manual.

A lot of people have worked very hard on this site over the last nine months to make it into what it's become, and you are one of the VERY few who seem to have any problems with the standards we've put in place here. If it makes you feel better to compare this site to Airliners.Net because your photos don't meet the standards, fine -- but blaming everyone but yourself for your shortcomings isn't going to make your photos any better, and certainly won't help you get them accepted into the database.

[JeffinDEN]

A lot of people have worked very hard on this site over the last nine months to make it into what it's become,.. .

And it shows. :clap: :clap: A big improvement since it's inception. Well done guys...

v/r
Jeff

[Leftseat86]

Mike, that was a great post.

And thank you Mr. Miller :nod:

-Clovis

[JeffinDEN]

No.... Thank You!

Things have made a 180 around here! :nod:

[Leftseat86]

When are you coming back out west Jeff? ;)

-Clovis

[JeffinDEN]

I'm not sure, but maybe in another month or two! I want more of the winter sun then what you guys got right now. I'll let you know when I'm coming. :nod:

[Leftseat86]

Yeah, by late October - mid November we should have good sun all day long on the south side. Hopefully they'll finish building that deck on Imperial soon.

-Clovis

[PolishAir42]

At first glance, I thought the UA 744 shot suffered from massive heat haze, but upon further inspection, it seems that the shot is simply very soft. I disagree with the rejection reason given on that one, but not the rejection itself.

Tanuj, you sure do complain a lot for someone who, only several days ago, admitted to not knowing what ISO is, what shutter speed does, and having just read your camera manual.

A lot of people have worked very hard on this site over the last nine months to make it into what it's become, and you are one of the VERY few who seem to have any problems with the standards we've put in place here. If it makes you feel better to compare this site to Airliners.Net because your photos don't meet the standards, fine -- but blaming everyone but yourself for your shortcomings isn't going to make your photos any better, and certainly won't help you get them accepted into the database.

I didnt screen that, but maybe whoever rejected it thought that the softness and contrast came because of shooting far away...Id put it under too soft or bad quality (I love using the bad quality rejection reason :D even though its not a good habit.)