WorldAirPics.com Forum
Site & Board Notices => Site Information => Topic started by: Frank on October 25, 2010, 11:23:46 pm
-
This post is primarily aimed at all the photographers who upload their pictures to IrishAirPics.com / WorldAirPics.com but of course any member is free to chip in.
Over the last few days some of my screening decisions have been criticised while over the last few months I have also heard some moans & gripes about my decisions so I figure I must be doing something wrong somewhere.
The most complained about reject reasons are "Level" and "Aircraft Too Small" / "Aircraft Not Centred" (too small & not centred are interrelated), but I have also heard griped about other reject reasons too.
I'm in the process if updating the site software to (hopefully) improve how pictures are uploaded and how pictures are screened, and as part of that process I want to define (as much as possible) what I'm looking for with regards to uploads.
Now, to give you some background on how I screen pictures, here are my monitor details:
Samsung SyncMaster 226BW 22" flatscreen LCD monitor calibrated with a Spyder3Pro calibration device.
Why am I giving you my monitor details?
Well the brightness of my monitor can affect how your pictures look to me, too dark or too bright, so by default seeing as my monitor is calibrated I trust it is correct. Generally speaking if I decline a picture for too dark or over-exposed I tell you what is wrong in the comments field.
As well as that, when I switched to an LCD monitor from a CRT monitor pictures that I thought were perfect were full of grain, they were quite bad really. So that may be the cause of your picture being declined for being grainy.
My Prior Screening Experience
Well to be honest, outside of screening for IrishAirPics.com / WorldAirPics.com I have no screening experience. I base my screening decisions on my own photographic experiences & preferences, I have also used my experiences uploading pictures to the likes of Airliners.net & PlanePictures.net and adjusting my photos based on their reject reasons.
My Position On The Aircraft Too Small" Reject
All pictures on the website are automatically resized to a maximum of 1024 pixels wide.
Why is this? I do this for 2 main reasons... to minimise server usage and to minimise picture download time.
Therefore, seeing as the pictures are slightly small in these days of large monitors, i like to have the aircraft fill as much of the frame as possible. Now that doesn't mean that the nose or tail of the aircraft has to be within 1 pixel of the edge of the picture, you can find some samples of my preferences here:
http://www.worldairpics.com/screening_guide.php
What do you as a user think of this?
Why Am I Posting All This?
Well I need to get user feedback, I need to know what you think of my screening decisions, am I too harsh, am I too easy, am I too inconsistent?
I need your help guys, I want to attract new photographers & keep the ones I have, I don't want IrishAirPics.com / WorldAirPics.com to be seen as the website that it harder than Airliners.net to upload to while at the same time I don't want the website to be seen as the place to go if Airliners.net won't take your pictures. This is probably one of my more important posts so I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to reply with your thoughts.
Thanks in advance,
Frank.
-
For what it's worth, it's your site and your word is law and if you decide a pic is not good enough or needs tweaking then that should be accepted by anyone uploading photos. Not every picture uploaded is going to be accepted and nobody likes rejection but we have to accept it! Usually your reason for rejecting a pic becomes very clear once pointed out.
-
Good morning Frank and all,
I think this is a great discussion to have to iron out any questions that any uploaders may have. After looking at my stats, over the last 5 years of uploading to the site i have 632 declines out of 2608 uploads. I have probably seen all your decline reasons and you prob made up one or two reasons for some dodgy photo's aswell. Over the last 5 years I have matured from just dumping all my photo's into the que and hoping for the best to actually spending some time on the photo and making sure that I think it's ok.
In my opinion, thats the whole point of the rejection process. You get to learn where you are going wrong. If you take Frank's advise and go back to your photo you will prob see something that you wouldn't have noticed before. Now while it appears that I am brown nosing the site owner just because i've volunteered to be a screener, that is not the case, just speaking from experience. Now i do still have issues with regards to the ramp at Cork not been level and not my photo's, but they have started to re-enforce the ramp at Cork recently, must have seen my moaning!!!!
However, on a serious note Frank there is one rejection that I can't get my head around, even after 5 years. The whole picture sharpness thing. As a general rule of thumb recently, i have been using Adobe photoshop 7 and just upgraded to CS2 and when sharping the pic or ( unsharpening) i use a value of 125%, and it seems to work for screening purposes.
So my question is really, is there a general rule of the thumb sharpenning % to use or do you have any hints when sharpening the picture Frank?
Thats it really,
Best Regards,
Paul
-
Hi Lads,
Thanks for the replies.
One of the issues that came up recently was "creative differences" with an experienced photographer.
Yes I may have helped some of you out, at least I hope I did, the issue here is that I would like to attract all levels of experience and I'm trying to find a happy medium with regards to screening.
@ thurian... We shall keep you, I like your attitude!
@ corkspotter, I struggled for years with my sharpening, probably still do in fact, but I posted my pictures on UKAR and asked for feedback, I submitted to other websites and saw what rejections, if any, came back and I also researched it on the web.
I now have built up a collection of Photoshop Actions that I use, these include edge sharpening & spot sharpening tools. If you want I can email you these and you can have a try of them.
Applying the same sharpening level to the entire image can really boost the grain as well as sharpening the part of the picture with the aircraft in it. I haven't used unsharp mask on it's own in ages.
Regards,
Frank.
-
Thanks Frank,
That would be great! Didn't even know you could sharpen certain parts of the pics!!
Regards,
Paul
-
Hi Lads,
Thanks for the replies.
One of the issues that came up recently was "creative differences" with an experienced photographer.
Phew, that's me off the hook!
Would I be right in thinking that some photos have got to be sharp and clean whilst others can be a little fuzzy and still be worthy of the site?
For example, a simple shot of a plane landing on a runway in good daylight should be sharp and clean but a silhouette of same plane with the moon as a backdrop could be a little "soft"?
-
Would I be right in thinking that some photos have got to be sharp and clean whilst others can be a little fuzzy and still be worthy of the site?
For example, a simple shot of a plane landing on a runway in good daylight should be sharp and clean but a silhouette of same plane with the moon as a backdrop could be a little "soft"?
Generally speaking the subject aircraft always has to be sharp although the background can have motion blur. If the aircraft is a prop aircraft or helicopter (e.g. an aircraft with visible fast moving parts) you can have the props or rotors blurry but the aircraft itself would need to be sharp.
Are one of these pictures kind of what you had in mind:
(http://www.worldairpics.com/images/wap_images/1036373.jpg)
(http://www.worldairpics.com/images/wap_images/1037788.jpg)
If so both aircraft are still sharp.
Regards,
Frank.
-
Would I be right in thinking that some photos have got to be sharp and clean whilst others can be a little fuzzy and still be worthy of the site?
For example, a simple shot of a plane landing on a runway in good daylight should be sharp and clean but a silhouette of same plane with the moon as a backdrop could be a little "soft"?
Generally speaking the subject aircraft always has to be sharp although the background can have motion blur. If the aircraft is a prop aircraft or helicopter (e.g. an aircraft with visible fast moving parts) you can have the props or rotors blurry but the aircraft itself would need to be sharp.
Are one of these pictures kind of what you had in mind:
(http://www.worldairpics.com/images/wap_images/1036373.jpg)
(http://www.worldairpics.com/images/wap_images/1037788.jpg)
If so both aircraft are still sharp.
Regards,
Frank.
With all due respect, both photos are beautiful (in a utilitarian kind of way) but both aircraft are stationary so I would hope that they're reasonably sharp. I mean aircraft moving against a magnificent backdrop like a sunrise/set or moonrise/set should allow for a little unsharpness in either the aircraft or the sun/moon but not both? Personally, I think your picture is better because its silhouetted but it draws me into the picture trying to ID the other A/Cs, Shorts Skyvan on left and Dornier on right?
-
Hi All
It is with immense regret that I have decided not to continue uploading to Irish Air Pics/World Air Pics.
My primary object when editing my photographs is to finish up with a the image being pleasing to the eye. (If it looks right it is right my tutor always drummed into me).
No two of use will edit the same image exactly the same. No two monitors will display the same image the same.( If you are still using a CRT monitor for editing please consider getting a LCD monitor ASAP, I am now having to rescan all my early edits ). Recently Frank rejected 3 images for being dark and he was probably right and I wish I had not uploaded them. Frank edited one of the uploads increasing the levels. On my monitor the whites appeared blown. So I sent emails to four fellow photographers with both mine and Franks edits. 2 favoured my edit saying Franks edit was to bright, The other 2 preferred Franks edit because they are brighter!!
I have add some experience in screening doing about 3 months with ABPIC and I confess to not enjoying it at all. So I do wish the new screeners good luck and hope they enjoy the experience.
I confess to having very limited editing skills and I will try and give a brief outline. I only ever shoot in jpg. Often for moving targets I use the burst mode in short spurts. I use adobe photoshop elements and once I have uploaded a jpg image I save it as a TIFF image. All editing is now carried out on the TIFF image. First like most I guess is to level the image using verticals when possible. Second is to crop the image to 6 x 4 format. Third I remove dust spots using equalize and the clone stamp tool. Fourth adjust contrast and brightness and colour balance ( I never use auto levels ). Fifth is to resize to 1024 x 683. I then use USM once (Amount 50% - radius 0.2 pixels - Threshold 0) I then use neat image to remove a little grain. And finally one or two more shots of USM and save as a jpg with new file name.
Before I go I would like to conduct an experiment with Franks consent. In that a limited number of uploaders edit the same image and see what sort of variation we get.
Finally I wish IAP/WAP all the best for the future and I will still take a great interest in its progress.
Regards
Steve Rendle
-
Steve,
Thanks for posting. I respect your decision to cease uploading but obviously I'd prefer if you kept uploading. I started this thread in part due to our conversations over the last while. I had intended to post a thread similar to this many times but I just never got around to it.
Like I explained in my earlier posts I'm trying to find out, for good or for bad, how I'm doing, I want to attract new photographers and keep the ones that are currently upload, including yourself.
I'm hoping that the feedback that I get through this post will help put in a set of guidelines that both uploaders & screeners can reference. That way then everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
---------------------------
thurian,
You are talking about shots like these then:
(http://www.worldairpics.com/images/wap_images/1031587.jpg)
(http://www.irishairpics.com/images/reports/tiger_meet_09/Tiger_Meet_2009yyyKleine_BrogelyyyBelgiumxxxIMG_1966_118-EB.jpg)
The planes are still sharp. The second picture, the Tiger Rafale, while taken during daytime, the lighting was very poor and a slow shutter speed had to be used, giving a similar effect to dawn / dusk (low light), albeit without the silhouette.
While every picture is taken on it's merits generally speaking the aircraft should be sharp.
Regards,
Frank.
-
Another step along the road towards getting the new screeners set up... Reject reasons. The reject reasons below are what will be emailed to the photographer when their photograph is declined.
If you think some of them need clarification or have a comment / suggestion please say so. I've tried to explain as best I can what the problem is. The screening process also has the facility for screeners to include written messages.
Regards,
Frank.
---------------------
Aircraft Too Small
The aircraft is too small in the picture and cannot clearly be seen, there is too much empty space around the aircraft or the aircraft is too far away. Please try to have the aircraft fill as much of the picture as possible. If you can edit the picture so that aircraft is bigger in the frame please upload that instead.
Aircraft Obstructed
The aircraft is fully or partially obscured by another object, e.g. poles, ramp equipment, people, barriers, etc, and the visual amenity of the picture is poor. If you have a similar picture where the same aircraft is unobstructed please upload that instead.
Part Cut Off
Part of the aircraft is cut off in the picture and is out of the frame, e.g. the nose or part of the fuselage is cut off, and the visual amenity of the picture is poor. If you have a similar picture of the same aircraft where, for example, the nose is visible, please upload that instead.
Picture Size Too Small
The picture is too small, please try to have all your uploads as big as possible. The picture must have minimum dimensions of at least 1000 pixels wide by pixels high. If you can scan the picture to a bigger size or have a bigger digital image please upload that instead.
Picture Height To Small
The picture has been cropped too much in height and as a result the height of the picture is too small. Please try to have all your uploads as big as possible, the picture must have minimum dimensions of at least 1000 pixels wide by 667 pixels high, as a rough guide the picture height must be at least 0.667 times the width of the picture. (Multiply your picture width by 0.667 to find the minimum picture height)
Please Note: All pictures that are bigger than 1024 pixels wide or 1000 pixels high, whichever dimension is greater, are automatically resized to those dimensions and as a result this can bring your picture dimensions below the minimum acceptable size. If you can scan the picture to a bigger size or have a bigger digital image please upload that instead.
Picture Width Too Small
The picture has been cropped too much in width and as a result the width of the picture is too narrow. Please try to have all your uploads as big as possible, the picture must have minimum dimensions of at least 667 pixels wide by 1000 pixels high, as a rough guide the picture width must be at least 0.667 times the height of the picture. (Multiply your picture height by 0.667 to find the minimum picture width)
Please Note: All pictures that are bigger than 1024 pixels wide or 1000 pixels high, whichever dimension is greater, are automatically resized to those dimensions and as a result this can bring your picture dimensions below the minimum acceptable size. If you can scan the picture to a bigger size or have a bigger digital image please upload that instead.
Square Picture
The picture has been cropped so that is looks square, please try to ensure that your uploads have a rectangular appearance. Sample dimensions are 1024(w) x 683(h) pixels or 1024(w) x 768(h) pixels for landscape images or 683(w) x 1024(h) pixels for portrait images.
The picture must have minimum dimensions of at least 667 pixels high by 1000 pixels wide.
Please Note: All pictures that are bigger than 1024 pixels wide or 1000 pixels high, whichever dimension is greater, are automatically resized to those dimensions and as a result this can bring your picture dimensions below the minimum acceptable size. If you can scan the picture to a bigger size or have a bigger digital image please upload that instead.
Grainy Picture
The picture is very grainy.
Factors that can cause grain in pictures are:
- Oversharpening
- Using a high ISO setting on your camera
If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead. Your picture editing software may have a built in noise reduction facility, software such as Neat Image and Topaz DeNoise can also help to reduce the noise.
Blurry Picture
The picture is very blurry, this can occur, for example, if you used a very slow shutter speed when taking the picture. If you have another picture of this aircraft that is not blurry please upload that instead.
Oversharpened Picture
The picture is over sharpened, the edges of the aircraft are jagged, have a saw-tooth edge or there is a halo effect from excessive sharpening. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Halo Around Aircraft Picture
There is a halo effect around the aircraft that can result from excessive sharpening or excessive use of the shadows / highlights tool. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Dust Spots / Dirty
The picture is dirty or has dust spots, this probably means that you have specks of dust on your camera sensor or scanner. These blemishes can usually be edited out of the picture using a photo editing program, the Equalize tool in Photoshop can be used to indicate where these dust spots are. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Dark Picture
The picture is too dark, this could be due to the picture being underexposed, taking the picture in low light conditions can also cause the picture to be dark. Sometimes bright white cloud or a bright fuselage can fool the camera light meter into underexposing the picture. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Brightening Required
The picture required some extra brightness to be applied. Sometimes bright white cloud or a bright fuselage can fool the camera light meter into underexposing the picture. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Backlit
The aircraft is backlit, making the background too bright or even overexposed while the aircraft itself may or may not be too dark, this could be caused by shooting into or against the sun. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Overexposed
The picture is overexposed, it is too bright or overexposed all over or in parts, and picture detail is lost. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Level - Clockwise Rotation Required
The picture does not appear to be level with the horizon and it appears that some clockwise rotation is required. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Level - Anti-Clockwise Rotation Required
The picture does not appear to be level with the horizon and it appears that some anti-clockwise rotation is required. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Aircraft Not Centred
The aircraft is not centred in the picture. The aircraft is either too high, too low or too much to one side in the picture, the picture appears to be un-balanced. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Heat Haze
The aircraft / subject is distorted by heat haze, this is caused either by taking a picture of the aircraft through the jet exhaust plume of another aircraft or you were too far away from the aircraft when you took the picture and heat haze from the ground between you and the aircraft is excessive. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Poor Contrast
The picture has poor contrast and has a washed-out or hazy appearance, blacks do not look to be black and whites do not look to be white, a lot of the time this problem can be fixed by applying some additional contrast using your picture editing software. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Poor Aesthetics
The picture has low aesthetic value. What this means is that the photo has a bad motive or has been badly composed, it has poor visual amenity. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Poor Quality
The picture is of poor quality. What this means is that, for example, the picture appears to have been over-edited, saved or taken at a low picture quality, or taken using a camera that has low pixel resolution or has a poor quality sensor. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Sharpening Required
The picture is not sharp and some extra sharpening is required. What this means is that while the picture is good it does have a soft appearance, especially around the edges of tha aircraft, and a bit of additional sharpening should make it ok. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Out Of Focus
The picture is out of focus. A possible cause of this is the camera not focusing correctly or focusing on something other than the subject. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Badly Scanned
The picture appears to have been badly scanned, has borders visible around the picture or was saved with a low quality / small file size and this gives the picture a pixelated, discoloured or distorted look, jpeg artifacts could also be present. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can scan / edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Borders Visible
The picture appears to have been badly scanned or edited as borders are visible around the picture. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can scan / edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Pixellated
The picture look like it was saved with a low quality / small file size and this gives the picture a pixelated, discoloured or distorted look, jpeg artifacts could also be present. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can scan / edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Bad Upload
For some reason your picture did not upload properly. Please reply to this email, making sure to leave all this text in the reply, and send the original picture as an attachment. It will be put it back into the system and put it through the approval process again.
Duplicate Upload
This picture or a picture very similar to it taken by you has already been uploaded / added. If you have a different / non-similar picture of this aircraft please upload that instead.
Not Copyright Holder
This picture appears to have been scanned from a magazine or post card, taken from some other form of media and it appears that you are not the copyright holder for this picture.
-
Yep, prefer the top pic with city skyline though, military stuff just doesn't float my boat!
Re: Stephens decision to quit uploading, I like his pictures and I'm sure he has tons more that could grace this site but he obviously thinks his stuff doesn't need screening because he's done a bit of screening himself. I've three words to say. Baby, Rattle and Pram.
-
I think the inconsistency of what passes for a good shot is what most users of the forum will find annoying. For example, I've had a few shots which I considered to be perfectly adequate rejected and then seen shots appear on this site of aircraft where the software used by the photographer has actually removed the airline titles and registration of the aircraft!
There is however, one very easy way to bypass this problem. I set up a fotopic page and I'm the arbiter of what appears on my pages and this works very well for me.
The page is at andrewmartin.fotopic.net (http://andrewmartin.fotopic.net) if anyone is interested and the basic set up is free! :airforce_cheesy:
-
I think the inconsistency of what passes for a good shot is what most users of the forum will find annoying. For example, I've had a few shots which I considered to be perfectly adequate rejected and then seen shots appear on this site of aircraft where the software used by the photographer has actually removed the airline titles and registration of the aircraft!
There is however, one very easy way to bypass this problem. I set up a fotopic page and I'm the arbiter of what appears on my pages and this works very well for me.
The page is at andrewmartin.fotopic.net (http://andrewmartin.fotopic.net) if anyone is interested and the basic set up is free! :airforce_cheesy:
Andrew,
I'm afraid I have to totally disagree with you on your point. The website is a quality website with good photo's from all photographers that contribute. If your photo's were rejected, instead of getting into a hump about it why don't you take the advise and try to improve whats wrong. I have to say that ypu do have a great selection of shots on the site and would hope that you keep uploading.
With regards to shots were the software removing the titles and logo, i hope you don't mean this shot!
http://www.worldairpics.com/photo/1038241/M/Boeing-737-8AS/EI-DAV/Ryanair-FR--RYR/?&sid=4384325913&sp=0
:rotfl: :D ;D Only a bit of light humour !!! No offense intended!
Regards,
Paul
-
Hi Paul,
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me and I don't have the hump about having pictures rejected but what I do have an issue with is the inconsistency in determinig what constitutes a 'good' image. As an example, how does this pass the guidelines laid down regarding the quality of a shot...??
http://www.worldairpics.com/photo/1012247/L/British-Aerospace-BAe-146-100/G-BKMN/Dan-Air-DA--DAN/?&sid=4022394632&sp=1616 (http://www.worldairpics.com/photo/1012247/L/British-Aerospace-BAe-146-100/G-BKMN/Dan-Air-DA--DAN/?&sid=4022394632&sp=1616)
The registration has been altered as has the tail logo. So, how did this image get through when other perfectly good shots are rejected?
Personally, I prefer having my own site and it was something I decided to do, not because I had shots rejected but because I get a greater deal of satisfaction arranging the galleries myself! And if you enjoyed some of my shots on this site you can see plenty more at my fotopic page.
Andrew
andrewmartin.fotopic.net (http://andrewmartin.fotopic.net)
-
Evening Andrew,
Totally agree with you on that photo. However, that photo was added 4 years ago when the site was fairly new, and even I had a few dodgy photo's accepted. Now I could stand corrected on this but Frank has only taken over the site since 2007, and since then has tried to raise the quality of photo's on the site. Of course, no offense again to the photographer of the photo in question, but by the standards Frank is trying to outline, that photo would not get passed nowadays. And I'm sure if you looked at all photographers photo's from the oldest addition to the newest addition, you would probably see a vast improvement of their shots online, I know mine have improved.
I think it's a bit unfair to point out photo's that have been accepted years ago to make a point about inconsistency on the website nowadays. Now, if you can find a similar photo added in the last 3 years when Frank has taken over and tried to make the site known as a site with good quality photo's online, then I stand corrected.
Best Regards,
Paul
-
Hi Andrew,
I cannot see a problem with the picture that you are referring to. Yes the picture quality is fairly poor but I accepted the picture as I'm fairly lenient with older pictures.
How can you say that the picture was altered? I thought that decals had blown off between overhauls / paint jobs but maybe you're right.
There's nothing stopping you, or anyone else for that matter, setting up your own website, that's what I did. Yes there are inconsistencies in the pictures that I accept, human nature I suppose, that and the fact that I never really had defined rules in the early years.
In saying that, if you are going to submit pictures to a website that has a screener between your upload and the public then you have to accept the fact that the website has certain standards and that some shots will get declined. With every email I've sent out declining a picture there has been an invite at the bottom for you, the photographer, to contact me to appeal a decision I've made.
What I'm trying to do now is put together a document of standards that screeners & photographers can work from, that way the photographer uploading will know what's expected of them.
----------------------
Paul, I've always owned the site, I set up WorldAirPics.com as an offshoot of IrishAirPics.com about 3 years ago but you are right in one respect, I have been trying to improve standards as the years have gone by, I've been accused of being too harsh and I've been accused of being too soft, trying to find the happy medium is a problem.
I've been a lot more gentle on photos over the last few weeks and accepted photos I would not normally have taken. For example, Andrew you uploaded a shot today of EI-WXB where the wheels & fuselage bottom are not visible, but the "new me" accepted the picture, partly because I've trying to be more flexible and partly because the picture is of Irish interest.
I have to accept the fact that other photographers see things slightly different to me and until the rules are finally decided upon that's the way it'll have to be I suppose.
I'm not throwing all my standards out the window, just being a bit more lenient.
Regards,
Frank.
-
Hiyas,
The picture I linked of the Dan Air BAe 146 displays a known problem involving the use of Digital ICE software to remove 'dirt' from old slides during the scan. If the software identifies the letters of the registration or part of the logo as dirt it will remove it during the scan. This would appear to be the case in the example I linked to. There are a number of other shots by the same photographer that are similarly affected. Personally I feel that these images should be re-scanned with the dirt removal option switched off and any clean up done in Photoshop.
Like I said, I don't have the hump about having shots rejected, I uploaded my first shots here in quite some time today, I just happen to prefer the way I can arrange my photos in fotopic.net. I have a few shots on ABPic but haven't uploaded there in about a year and I have just one shot on airliners.net! I uploaded a couple to airliners on the weekend but they haven't been processed yet...
I think this is a great site with many amazing pictures that I'm thankful to be able to view any time I want and I appreciate the amount of time that goes in to maintaining it... just one suggestion... does every Ryanair Boeing 737-8AS delivery have to go up, each one looks just like the last one! :airforce_wink:
-
Now having never ever scanned slides or prints I never knew about Digital ICE. I have to say I have noticed what you are referring to but I always put it down to decals blowing off.
The thing about a website like this is that you need some kind of standard, otherwise it can turn into a free for all but like I said earlier every photo is taken on it's merits and I have eased off on declining pictures (but utter rubbish is still not welcome). Older pictures are generally treated very leniently, grain and all, maybe too lenient though now that I know about Digital ICE. Some questions must be asked in future I suppose.
As for Ryanair deliveries... I'm an equal opportunities screener!
-
I think in those days that some of those shots were taken the only things that carried decals were model airplanes! But hey, you're totally right about maintaining a certain standard and after all, it's your site so you have ultimate say on what goes up or not as the case may be.
Just for the record my shot of the Korean Boeing 747SP that went up earlier was taken back in '98 when I was shooting Kodachrome K64. I scanned the slide using a Nikon Coolscan, did a bit of post production work in Photoshop but the clever stuff is the noise/grain reducing software that I use, Nik Dfine 2.0. I find that really cleans up an old slide nicely!
Cheers,
Andrew
-
As someone who has been scanning slides for several years with no problems of the sort depicted, I agree that there must be some sort of equipment or settings problem if parts of the image are being missed out. I find that digital ICE works fine on all but Kodachrome slides but it is well-known that you can't use it for Kodachrome. It's only when you scan a Kodak slide that you can see the scores (or even hundreds) of microscopic dust flecks that can find their way onto slides - and which have to be removed from the digital scan.
-
The problem with Kodachrome is that the emulsion is quite sticky compared to others like Fujichrome and as a result it tends to be quite a job removing dust and dirt particles that have accumulated on the slide over the years. One solution is to use software to eliminate these dust particles, ICE apparently does a pretty good job but it isn't clever enough to discriminate between what is and what isn't dust. It would appear that the picture I linked to used some kind of automatic dust removal but also removed other fine detail in the process.
As Frank has already pointed out he wasn't aware of the issue having never scanned a slide. When I started to look into the whole process of scanning slides I learnt quite a bit along the way. I started using a Canonscan 4400 flatbed scanner which used an insert to mount the slides, four at a time, into the lid. This gave reasonable results and a couple of images using this method are on this site. I wasn't entirely happy with the results so I then tried to shoot the slides on a lightbox using a macro lens attached to my Canon 40D. This too gave reasonable but inconsistent results. I then bought a Nikon Coolscan slide scanner and I wish I went with this option from the outset! It gives consistently good results and although the scan takes about 30-40 seconds it is by far the best method for scanning slides at home. For dust removal I normally increase the size of the scanned image to 20000 pixels in Photoshop and use the Healing Brush tool to remove any dust or imperfections. When I'm happy with that then I edit the image as normal i.e. brightning, contrast, sharpening etc. and save the image as a copy.
It's a learning curve scanning old slides but it's very rewarding to see old images come to life on the PC!
Andrew
andrewmartin.fotopic.net (http://andrewmartin.fotopic.net)
-
Hi lads,
Sorry to cut across the thread on scanning slides (I can create a separate thread if you want) but I'm really anxious to get feedback on the screening process, that's why I started this thread.
I appreciate that this diversion started as a discussion on screening but I really need to get this one back on thread, I'm trying to be a better screener and I need as much feedback as possible.
Thanks!
Regards,
Frank.
-
Hi
I wonder if Frank is getting the response he is looking for on this thread?
Why Am I Posting All This?
Well I need to get user feedback, I need to know what you think of my screening decisions, am I too harsh, am I too easy, am I too inconsistent?
I need your help guys, I want to attract new photographers & keep the ones I have, I don't want IrishAirPics.com / WorldAirPics.com to be seen as the website that it harder than Airliners.net to upload to while at the same time I don't want the website to be seen as the place to go if Airliners.net won't take your pictures. This is probably one of my more important posts so I'd appreciate it if you could take the time to reply with your thoughts.
Thanks in advance,
Frank.
I think he was asking for guidance not just it's your site Frank carry on.
Generally I do not have a problem with most of Frank's upload criteria although I must add that I do see a few images on IAP/WAP that I personally would have rejected if I had screened them and some of those even made it to Editors Choice!
The two reject reasons I have a problem with are the following.
Aircraft Not Centred
The aircraft is not centred in the picture. The aircraft is either too high, too low or too much to one side in the picture, the picture appears to be un-balanced. If you have a better picture of this aircraft or if you can edit this picture to improve it's quality please upload that instead.
Aircraft Too Small
The aircraft is too small in the picture and cannot clearly be seen, there is too much empty space around the aircraft or the aircraft is too far away. Please try to have the aircraft fill as much of the picture as possible. If you can edit the picture so that aircraft is bigger in the frame please upload that instead.
If I screened any image I personally would put Aircraft Not Centred over Aircraft Too Small every time.
When Frank screens I sense he favours it the other way around.
Aircraft in flight I feel need a little bit off space in front of the nose especially when not side on and when the tailplane is pronounced i.e. 3/4 view.
This first image was my last rejection for Aircraft Too Small and Frank asked me to resubmit with a tighter crop. I refused to do so because I felt this would unbalance the image. The second image is how I perceive Frank wanted the image to look like.
Please give Frank what he is asking for honest constructive views. Please don't worry about my feelings I have plenty more rattles in my pram.
Steve
-
Steve,
I don't look for a reason to decline a picture, I look for reasons to keep a picture. And as for older uploads... all I can say to you is to disregard them really, I've been improving standards as the years have passed so older pictures could have lower standards than I have now.
There's no point de-selecting them as Editors Choice just because they wouldn't meet the standards I expect now.
And regarding the picture you attached to the last post, I didn't expect you to crop the picture as tight as you did, I would have been happy with the picture I've attached to this post.
Feedback to this thread is slow in coming, and I certainly don't want people to think that it's a case of "my site, my rules", user participation is definitely welcomed.
Regards,
Frank.
-
Frank
In response to your last post
I don't look for a reason to decline a picture, I look for reasons to keep a picture. And as for older uploads... all I can say to you is to disregard them really, I've been improving standards as the years have passed so older pictures could have lower standards than I have now.
When I mentioned Editors Choice I only looked at the first 3 pages and found 3 images I would have rejected.
There's no point de-selecting them as Editors Choice just because they wouldn't meet the standards I expect now.
I did not ask or expect you to
And regarding the picture you attached to the last post, I didn't expect you to crop the picture as tight as you did, I would have been happy with the picture I've attached to this post.
So if I had edited it with a tight crop would it have received a rejection for 'Aircraft Not Centred
Feedback to this thread is slow in coming, and I certainly don't want people to think that it's a case of "my site, my rules", user participation is definitely welcomed.
That is not how it appears. I tried to get some response from other uploaders but I feel that I am wasting my time despite what you say I get the opinion it is your site and your rules and mine of anyone's opinions will not change anything.
Steve
-
Steve,
How about we agree to disagree on "my site, my rules" because I don't believe that is the case. However, as I have been the only screener, and still am, in fairness it has been my opinion versus the photographer's opinion up to now.
A lot of people have appealed over the years and I have re-considered my decision in many of those cases.
If it was indeed a case of "my site, my rules" I wouldn't have taken on screeners. Joe & Paul see things differently to me and I have to accept that.
And no, I wouldn't have declined your picture for the aircraft not being centred.
Other people have continued to upload to the site since I started this thread, maybe they are happy with my decisions in the past and are happy to continue uploading, maybe they haven't read this thread, maybe they are taking their chances, who knows? I thought this thread would have had more replies up to now.
The site is still ticking over, I'm trying to be as consistent as possible, I'm also being a bit more lenient. I'm just trying to strike a happy medium and keep every one satisfied.
Regards,
Frank.
-
Good evening Steve,
I in response to ur request for opinions on the BMI Baby shot, as a future screener I have to say that I would have declined your 1st photo also. To be honest I am quite surprised that you would argue this one as I thought it was obvious the aircraft was not centered and given that you have over 500 shots on the site, I would have thought you wouldn't upload it as is, never mind argue that it was rejected.
Just my humble opinion,
Regards,
Paul
-
Hi Paul
Thanks for your comments, I have now got a rejection for not centred has well!
Oh well Bang goes another Rattle
Goodnight
Steve
-
Well it could have been declined for either centre or aircraft too small, those 2 reasons are fairly close together, at times it can be hard to figure which one to go for.
Either way, a slight crop would have fixed the picture without ruining it, in my humble opinion of course.
Regards,
Frank.
-
Some interesting feedback & points of view.
Frank, Steve,
In regards to Steve's comments on the Editors Choice, I see it as Frank is the Editor and as the Editor it's Frank's choice what photos get selected.
As a suggestion and in an effort to give balance is it possible to have a voting system where Photographers and or the general viewing public can vote on photos and give comment.
Those photos that received substantial votes & constructive comment could then be used as examples of what a good quality photo should look like?
Cheers
Chris :yikes:
-
As a suggestion and in an effort to give balance is it possible to have a voting system where Photographers and or the general viewing public can vote on photos and give comment.
Good thinking Batman!
I dusted off a piece of code I wrote a few years back that allows people to rate pictures & add comments and have integrated it with the WorldAirPics.com website only. You can see an example here:
http://www.worldairpics.com/photo/1038608/
The rating votes & comments are going to be anonymous as we still only have a small group of photographers, a lot of whom know each other, and I believe this will let people be accurate with their votes.
Regarding the comments, I think it's best if all comments should be positive in nature, if you think the picture is complete rubbish the simple thing to do is give it a rating of 1 Star. And if you want to complain about the picture contact the photographer directly.
Only registered WorldAirPics.com forum members can rate pictures & leave comments, and all comments will be screened by me first before they appear on the website.
As always comments and suggestions are welcome.
Regards,
Frank.
-
Hi Frank, I just noticed the rating stars on my latest uploads, great addition to the site, I've often wanted to comment on someones photo without having to contact them directly. BTW, your sample pic is definitely a five star :Oo:
-
Ahem....can you ensure that people don't rate their own photos? ;D
-
I've made sure that can't happen, double voting is locked out too!
-
Just to give an update on the picture rating system...
When you click on a star to rate the picture a window pops up that confirms your vote and also allows you to add a comment (the comment is optional).
To close this window simply click the "close this window" link or hit the "ESC" key on your keyboard.
If you do not want to rate the picture but wish to leave a comment click on the comment icon (looks like a speech bubble to the right of the rating stars).
Again a window pops up for this, you then have another chance to rate the picture as well as leaving your comment (make sure you rate the picture before leaving your comment as the comment box will be refreshed)
No emails will be sent to inform you that your picture has been rated, I have added a rating indicator to the search results page so that you can see at a glance if your picture has been rated or not.
-------------------------------------
Now, with regards to the screening decisions, feedback has been a bit slack to say the least, so am I correct in assuming that all photographers who submit to the site are happy with the criteria I apply?
If I don't get any feedback I can only assume that I'm doing a fairly decent job with the screening, is this correct?
I admit I've occasionally been a bit inconsistent every now and then, if you don't tell me where I could do with improvement I can't meet your needs, I can only take a best guess.
Regards,
Frank.
-
I 4 one think your doing a great job :buttrock: and will not be asking you to remove my photo's, only 5 more to go before I hit the 2000 mark!!!!
Regards,
Paul
-
Post removed to avoid panic in light of SF's reply below :airforce_cheesy:
-
Maybe just a personal thing but I wouldn't have uploaded that pic in the first place because it's badly cropped (IMHO). If it was the only pic I had of the aircraft I'd crop it right down to a nose and engine shot and hope for the best, but I suppose that's not what's being discussed here. Sorry, I'll go get my coat!
-
You're getting very scientific here, Frank.;D Personally I think I would tend to be be dissuaded from uploading if I felt there was a new set of rules to be complied with, especially one that pushes the photographer in the direction of offering shots of a complete aircraft with a defined space (+/-) around it. That may not be what you intend, but I think it could have the effect of standardising the notion of what is acceptable and reducing the likelihood of more interesting compositions being submitted. As a rule I don't tend to click on standard side-on or "record" shots unless of a clearly interesting subject, whereas a closer-in view, perhaps with some cropping of the aircraft, often works better in terms of creating impact. Those are just my thoughts and of course everyone will have their own perspective on what works for them.
-
Lads,
I'm just throwing ideas out here. In light of criticism of my past screening decisions and inconsistency on my behalf I'm just trying to see if I can improve matters.
Only a handful of people have replied to this thread and I want to be sure I'm doing things right, especially now seeing that Joe & Paul have now been let loose on the screening system.
That's all, sorry if I caused any panic!
Regards,
Frank.