Aviation Photography Forum | Forum profile

Jeff, Here in the UK I've never had an issue selling photo's so based on my experiences I feel I'm giving the right advice. Generally (a key word I used in my original post) you are okay to sell your images here in the UK and by not giving positive advice it would be wrongly deterring people from doing so. I'm reluctant to say, "No, it isn't safe" because chances of being met with hassle are slim - although...

Quoting Sharpshooter ( Reply 40 ): Maybe you'd have more success in that area if you followed some of your own advice and e-mailed them directly with your concerns? They are more than aware of the situation. Quoting Silver1SWA ( Reply 41 ): There has been very little, almost no input at all from the screeners in these interesting debates. That is because they have made their position clear many times. Simply starting a new thread is not...

Quoting Conoramoia ( Reply 2 ): As far as I kow that was chosen for ''editor's choice'' when Johan(set up a.net) was in charge.It probably caught his eye.Alos I don't think ''editor's choice'' is added too anymore. I think that's it but I'm sure someone else can provide a better reason. I believe that is correct. Back in the early days of airliners.net, Johan picked his...

Quoting UnattendedBag ( Reply 53 ): Could they not both be correct? absolutely, and your example proves it, but what I was trying to say that if instead of having them both accepted, they were both rejected for, say contrast. Wouldn't that be a correctable rejection, and therefore it would enter in the same group as the level rejections? (note: by no means i intend to say those pics should have been rejected!!   )

Take a look at this Gary in regards to your jaggie questions/issues: Here is an example of my Eraser work. Look at the lower right hand pallette. I de-selected the eye on the Background Layer and only have Visible the Sharpened Layer. I did this simply so you can see my progress so far. The stuff that is erased is basically the sharpening around the edges of the aircraft, removing jaggies. Now here is the difference of what I erased showing...

Quoting BeakerLTN ( Thread starter ): It's not particularly good quality and I'm sure a DC-9 into LAX certainly isn't anything uncommon. You have to understand that back when this photo was accepted, screening standards were nowhere near their current requirements. The site was much younger back then. Not to mention, widespread use of the DSLR wasn't the reality we take for granted today. Even so, this shot would probably...

Quoting NIKV69 ( Reply 64 ): Guys Flo was happy this didn't get ugly but now it is. This photog uploaded a photo and it got accepted. He doesn't deserve this. There has to be a line drawn somewhere - hence why I commented. Any image of a dirty lavatory, regardless of who takes it isn't what I consider to be a tasteful image. I'm happy to fall on my sword though - if it is considered acceptable and tasteful, then my values...

I like the photos from that period; just before digital started to creep onto the scene. We owe a lot to those chaps that were doing this before it was so easy. It still blows my mind that someone can now shoot, download to a notebook, edit and 3g images straight onto the 'net from the airport shooting spot, if they so wish. James

A bit like someone picking at a healing wound, I am back to see what is happening in this thread! I really think genuine questions are being asked about elements of decision making in screening. That is not the same as slagging off screeners or their decisions. We should stop fighting battles, avoid any 'us' vs. 'them' mentality and create a space to discuss some of the themes that have been building up here over the last...

I think i will get the 3 way pan because i have used it before and am used to it, and if i ever find a camera shop near me i can go in and try a ball head or find someone that has one i could try out. Austin