I need A.net expert advice/opinion

[Aerophile]

I'm only subscribed as a photographer on a.net so I can't post my picture there to get good advice, so I figured I would ask you photo gurus on this forum if you have any advice.  I'm mainly concerned with the color and saturation, as I messed with it a little, of the photo but any other advice or criticism is welcome.  This was my best shot of the 742 while rolling down the wet runway on her way to Seattle. Thanks!  

Also, I have a hunch you will be seeing this bird in Seattle very soon for you guys that are there for the unveiling of the 787.

[Ivan]

[quote]I'm only subscribed as a photographer on a.net so I can't post my picture there to get good advice, so I figured I would ask you photo gurus on this forum if you have any advice.

[Aerophile]

Rejected.  Somebody beat me to the punch and theirs even made it to the top photo w/in 24 hr list http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1232203/L/.  I requested priority screening and about 5 mins later I got the rejection letter.
I'm not quite sure if this link will work or not, but here's the link to the "Large" version of what I submitted...

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... ley_04.jpg

Any advise would be greatly appreciated.

Here's what the rejection letter said...

The image quality of these photo(s) does not meet the very high standards
of Airliners.Net. This does not mean that it is a bad photo, but it does
mean that we think it has certain (possibly minor) flaws.
It may be possible to correct this problem, but this depends on many
factors.  If you want to read more about this problem, and about possible
ways to correct it and hopefully attempt a re-upload, please go to
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#quality

Some of the info you submitted together with these photo(s) was either
missing, incorrect, irrelevant or in the wrong format. A common reason for
this message is a missing registration or an airport name or location in
the wrong format. This problem may also be due to the info being written
in a non-English language or grossly misspelled, or to a significant
incorrect use of upper and lower case letters.
This problem is usually easy to correct, and if this was the only
rejection reason for these images, we would certainly appreciate a
re-upload with the correct information filled in. If you want to read more
about this problem, please go to
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#info

When uploading these photo(s) you either selected the wrong categories or
you neglected to select certain categories that should have been selected.
Selecting the correct categories is very important, because many features
of the Airliners.net search engines depend on it.
This problem is usually easy to correct, and if this was the only
rejection reason for these images, we would certainly appreciate a
re-upload with the correct categories selected. If you want to read more
about this problem, please go to
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rea ... p#category

The quality of this image is too low due to the use of too much JPEG
compression.
If the image is larger than 1600 pixels wide, this problem may have
occured during uploading. If the image is smaller than 1600 pixels wide,
then this problem occured prior to uploading. If you want to read more
about this problem, and about possible ways to correct it and hopefully
attempt a re-upload, please go to
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rea ... ompression

These photo(s) have a "soft" appearance. This does not mean they are
blurry or out of focus, but that they need an extra kick of sharpness.
With the help of image editing software, this is usually fairly easy to
do. If you want to read more about this problem, and about possible ways
to correct it and hopefully attempt a re-upload, please go to
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#soft

I think I can go back to the original and do some things differently to fit it into their guidelines.  I got in a hurry and selected the wrong category and typed in way to much info.  I'm going to try to adjust some lighting, change the image size (it was right at 1600 pixels wide), and i'm not going to use so much noise reduction which I guess is what made it to soft.  I'll play with the sharpening tool as well and see how it turns out.  I was pretty frustrated when I found that someone else had gotten theirs accepted before mine.  Oh well, that's life I guess.  At least mine anyway.  :P

[flyboy 28]

It's a nice shot, but there's a lot of image noise poor lighting and it's a bit overexposed to me. Also, only upload to 1024 pixels wide. The bigger the image is, there's more "bad" details that can be spotted. Unfortunately as well, the more expensive your camera is, the better shot you have of making it in. Not guaranteed of course, as the talent to work that $3,000 DSLR and lens is required too.

[F3Hadlow]

It's a nice shot, but there's a lot of image noise poor lighting and it's a bit overexposed to me. Also, only upload to 1024 pixels wide. The bigger the image is, there's more "bad" details that can be spotted. Unfortunately as well, the more expensive your camera is, the better shot you have of making it in. Not guaranteed of course, as the talent to work that $3,000 DSLR and lens is required too.

That's pretty much spot on.

[mrjake2002]

My old, crappy 4m pixel digital camera always takes soft photos and, the most annoying thing, it has a digital viewfinder and screen which both go black while the photo is being taken... making it a nightmare to follow aircraft with. To combat this i have blue tacked the round bit off a keyring just above the lens, meaning i can still follow the aircraft while the screen goes black (look out for a kid with blue tack on his camera at riat... its me  ;D). Anyway, sorry to rant... onto your shot. Overall, i'd be happy with it... but i think you need the quality that comes with a mega expensive camera to get onto Anet, unless its of a very rare subject. I gave up on Anet a long time ago and just upload to myaviation.net. Also, there is a lot of image noise (as mentioned). What camera do you have? Would love to see the specs... it seems to produce similar images that mine does (Fuji S3500). Cheers.  8-)

[Aerophile]

Rejected again.  Oh well.  This time I got DQed on quality, level, soft, and personal.  Quality is ultimately what got me on it.  At the bottom of the rejection letter there was a message that said

Sorry quality is not good enough

.  Unfortunately I can't afford the camera Flyboy was talking about.  I can't even afford a 600 dollar DSLR.  Oh well.  I guess I'll just stick with my Kodak Z740.  Thanks for the input guys.  

[flyboy 28]

Unfortunately I can't afford the camera Flyboy was talking about.

Nor can Flyboy. That's why I practice a lot with the camera I have. It's a Panasonic FZ7, and it produces some pretty nice shots. The model is a few years old now so if you're looking for something along those lines, it'll run you about $300. I bought it new for $400 last August.

[Aerophile]

I might try JetPhotos.net.  Any PIREPs on these guys?  I'll try MyAviation.net as well.  Thanks again for the input so far!  I  think I'll take a breather from airliners.net for a while.  So far I've uploaded 10 pictures and have had only one accepted. And I was surprised that one made it in.  

Kodak

What camera do you have? Would love to see the specs... it seems to produce similar images that mine does (Fuji S3500). Cheers.  8-)

Kodak Z740
5MP
10X optical zoom
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier. ... -path=6547

[flyboy 28]

Jetphotos may be a better choice. They're a bit more lenient. Plus they allow for more "artistic" shots.

[Aerophile]

Well just for giggles and grins I submitted them to JetPhotos.net.  I did some things differently this time.  Here are the two I submitted...

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=1498268

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewqueued_b.php?id=1498277

I'm anxiously awaiting a rejection letter from them.  :D

[Willit Run]

I use a Kodak DX7590 and a I have some of my shots on Jetphotos.com.  Now i've had my rejections from them ( some that I disagreed with!! ) but, like James said they arn't as stricked as ANET but, they still have high standards.

Cory