To expand on that a little,USAF serials/registrations are written as the last two digits of the fiscal year the funding was allocated for the aircraft (92 for 1992; as a side note, that doesn't always mean that aircraft was built in that year; sometimes there can be a several year difference!), foll...
Jump to postAfter a couple days of trying it out, here's my feedback/complaints so far; some of which have been, or are in the process of being addressed, but overall: no view count in "list" view, and inconsistent display of photos depending on where you're at (e.g. search results, just browsing, or ...
Jump to postGreat, thanks a ton for the feedback! So far, I'm 1 for 1 on submissions from this group. Any thoughts on these ones? (Ignore the quality/sizing, as I haven't done final edits for submission yet) 1a) Side-on <a href="https://flic.kr/p/xRJAHR" target="_blank"><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/...
Jump to postHi all, I've got a few photos I'm considering submitting, but am having a hard time deciding between some, and am not sure about the quality of some others... Any help on those fronts would be appreciated! First, would either of these be worth submitting? #1- the quality's a little lacking, but I th...
Jump to postI used to use a <acronym title="Universal Airways (USA)">UV</acronym> filter, and had almost the exact same thing show up all the time... I stopped using the filter, and haven't had a problem since. I think it had to do with the light bouncing between the filter and the front of the lens, but I'll h...
Jump to postThe full serial is 83-23895. The Army's serial presentation can be pretty confusing; often the 0 is a misnomer, as is the case here. I typically just forego the fiscal year on scramble's db, and use the wildcard function to search instead (e.g. searching for **-23895. Even if there are multiple resu...
Jump to postAny thoughts on a shot like this? <a href="https://flic.kr/p/uez5cZ" target="_blank"/><a href="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/266/18531556799_6f9e6a3441_c.jpg" target="_blank"/><a href="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/266/18531556799_6f9e6a3441_c.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="https://farm1.staticfli...
Jump to postHi all, I just wanted to ask about a series of photos I have- I was fortunate enough to get to play a part in the refurbishing of a classic aircraft, and that included repainting the aircraft's exterior. I have a series of photos, shot over the course of several months, that show the progress of the...
Jump to postHaving worked for about a year at the museum, I can say that yes, photography is definitely allowed (so long as it's not for commercial use)! I've only ever heard of one person being asked to stop, and that was because he was using a camera on a very long pole, and getting close to the hanging exhib...
Jump to postUnfortunately I don't have any input, but I'm also very interested in hearing the responses to this, as that's the exact setup I've been looking at...
Jump to postMany thanks for the feedback, guys! I have yet to have any luck with the F-18 shots, and haven't tried the -135 yet, but hopefully I'll get the time to do some "final" edits shortly! In the meantime, I got a few shots that I was happy with yesterday; would any of these stand a chance in screening, o...
Jump to postHi all, I'm just looking for an opinion: I got the opportunity to catch a couple of really cool planes at <acronym title="Seattle - Boeing Field / King County International (BFI / KBFI), USA - Washington">BFI</acronym> recently, but I'm having trouble deciding which shots to upload here. As such, I'...
Jump to postName: Josh Kaiser
Reg: 9M-MXS (Malaysia Airlines 737 at KBFI)- just received the email (about two days after it went missing from the queue); photo is back in the queue with a note!
It appears that a couple of mine were already used for testing, but feel free to add me (Josh Kaiser) to the list!
[Edited 2014-08-30 23:24:15]
Some interesting ideas so far that I may take some inspiration from in the future, but as of now, my organization is pretty simple: -Folder with airport code (if it's someplace I've visited multiple times, like KBFI, KTCM, KPAE, etc) or with the event/occasion name if it was a one-off event (e.g. Fa...
Jump to postHi all, It's been about 18 months since I last flew, which was before I started actively spotting. On July 11th, I'll be flying <acronym title="Seattle / Tacoma - International (SEA / KSEA), USA - Washington">SEA</acronym>-<acronym title="Phoenix - Sky Harbor International (Municipal) (PHX / KPHX), ...
Jump to postHi all, I have a question of opinion for you: I have a series of photos of a C-17 landing taken from directly underneath the approach path, but can't decide which angle to go with... so I'm asking for your help; which of these three images do you prefer? (keep in mind that these are not the final ed...
Jump to postOk, thanks- I updated the F-18 shot, so now it looks like this: <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/f1391965956.8275airliners_f18-6.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...1391965956.8275airliners_f18-6.jpg</a> I also found a few old photos of mine recently, and...
Jump to postHmm... I suppose it's not worth appealing, since there's also the over-sharpened, but it would be nice to know what the story is... Any thoughts on the B-52 shots in reply 22 (particularly the cockpit one)? Or this one? <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/f1391965956.8275airliners_...
Jump to postOk, so this is a "new" one for me... just had this photo rejected for "Oversharpened, new, and distance:" <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20140207_n1390837823.244airliners-737-1-12.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...90837823.244airliners-737-1-12.j...
Jump to postAny thoughts on these? <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiserjp/11881351736/sizes/o/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiserjp/11881351736/sizes/o/</a> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiserjp/12366081964/sizes/o/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiserjp/123660...
Jump to postOk, thanks! I might try playing with the F-18, but for now I'll leave it in the queue, until I can come up with a better version. I've got a few possibilities in line for when my next slot opens up: 787-8 I'm torn between two from this angle; this one: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiserjp/...
Jump to postUpdated the exposure on one of the Super Hornets:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...90941089.3519airliners_f18-2-4.jpg
Ok, thanks! I completely missed the leveling on the 787 shot (though yes, the taxiways at <acronym title="Seattle - Boeing Field / King County International (BFI / KBFI), USA - Washington">BFI</acronym> are all sorts of wobbly!)! I thought that the contrast was ok, but I toned it down a bit; does th...
Jump to postThanks! Both Saudi E-3 shots got accepted; thanks for the votes of confidence! <img src="http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/graphics/smilies/smile.gif" width="15" height="15" border="0"/> Any thoughts on these? <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/b1390615794.2963air...
Jump to post<table border="0" align="CENTER" width="95%" class="quote"><tr><td><font size="2" face="ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva" color="#9A9DA0">Quoting <a href="/profile/powwwiii" class="quote" target="_blank">powwwiii</a> (<a href="#3" class="quote">Reply 3</a>):<br/><i> back-lit E-3 might need a bit more contra...
Jump to postThanks, guys! With regard to the B-29, I considered the fact that it might get a motive rejection for being covered, but I figured that since it's a unique view, and there's also only one other shot of this a/c in the <acronym title="Brit Air (France)">DB</acronym>, it might be worth a shot... The o...
Jump to postThanks, I figured the 757 was a long shot. I have a couple others from the series that might be useable, but I'll have to check. Do you think there's any saving the FA20? And with the 789, the triangle is the static cone, used to collect airstream data for the test instruments. If you look closely, ...
Jump to postHi all; It's been a little while since I posted in here, so my last thread was locked. I've had varying levels of success with my uploads as of late, and my acceptance ratio is hovering right around 50%. That part doesn't worry me too much, but I'd like to be able to upload with a little more than m...
Jump to post... and on that note, three more to fill the voids! <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/l1386737033.0906airliners-37.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/l1386737033.0906airliners-37.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/z1386741812....
Jump to postHi Gabor, first, sorry if that last post came across as less than polite- I was in a hurry this morning, and didn't take the time to phrase things the way I should have. I really do appreciate the feedback you've given me, both here and in the actual screenings (I assume it was you who screened this...
Jump to postWell, after all that wait, the C-5 was rejected for having "very low contrast" and a distracting fence. That darn fence is the bane of my existence, it seems. As for the low contrast, I disagree, too; it's a huge gray aircraft on a hazy day with the sun low in the sky; there's not much contrast to b...
Jump to postThank you for taking the time to look at them, Gabor! I'll make a few tweaks to them, though I have to ask, what about the Citation X are you unsure of? Also, I got both C-17 images accepted today. The <acronym title="Atlantic Airways (Denmark)">RC</acronym>-26 was rejected for low contrast, which I...
Jump to postDefinitely! I just finished editing another batch of possible submissions: My two favorites of N789ZB (I assume they won't be rejected as doubles, as they show different sides of the aircraft): <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiserjp/11232590504/sizes/o/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com...
Jump to postStill haven't figured out how to edit posts, so I suppose I'll add another reply: I finished catching up on my backlog from the past few weeks today, and had a few questions about these: Can I just get a general check on this one? <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiserjp/11178486646/sizes/h/" ...
Jump to postI assume you're referring to #8? 6, 7, and 8 are each of different 789s. I updated #8, and think it looks better: 8) <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/t1386023066.4011airliners-18-2.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...t1386023066.4011airliners-18-2.jpg</a>
Jump to post...And added a couple more this morning: 8) <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/u1386000659.8433airliners-18.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/u1386000659.8433airliners-18.jpg</a> 9) <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/k1386001238.632ai...
Jump to postWell, regardless of your track record, I definitely appreciate you taking the time to look at them! It's always helpful to have another set of (fresh) eyes, and I appreciate you taking the time to do so! I added a couple more shots last night, as well: 6) <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/...
Jump to postThanks for the feedback! #1 was rejected, but the other three made it in! This past week was a good one, and I've got a few more in the queue: 1) <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/c1385785957.7412airliners-6.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...dy/c13857859...
Jump to postAnybody? I'd like to know whether I should keep what I have in the queue, or swap them out with some other/ re-edited shots.
Jump to postMmkay, thanks for the feedback- most of them were stretches anyway, so I'll probably keep #4 and forget the rest. it'd almost be easier to re-take #5, since I walk past the B-47 every day. In the meantime, I started work on a few older shots, and have a few in the queue... any thoughts? 1) <a href="...
Jump to postThanks for the input, guys! I went ahead and appealed the E-3 photo, and got back an email saying "the fence is simply too distracting." and nothing else. Guess it wasn't meant to be, though I still don't agree. Anywho, I've got some new ones for critiquing: Several of Xiamen's newest 737 prior to t...
Jump to postWell, the 789 was accepted, but the first JAL 788 was rejected for being soft and overexposed, and the E-3 was rejected for motive because the fence in the foreground was "too distracting." I disagree; would there be anything to be gained by appealing it? Also, I got the chance to do some shooting o...
Jump to postHi all, I recently had this photo rejected for "motive," because the fence was too distracting, and a tighter crop was recommended. <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20131102_c1382562155.4272airliners-1-2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje...
Jump to postJust added this one to the queue- I'm a bit iffy about it, but thought I'd get some feedback. There's a little softness around the tail- is it too much so? <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/p1382973280.428airliners-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.airliners.net/addphot...
Jump to postAnybody? Also, just curious, would a shot like this be acceptable for the <acronym title="Brit Air (France)">DB</acronym> (with some tweaking, of course)? <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiserjp/9902932404/in/set-72157635814175743/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaiserj...02932...
Jump to postThanks, Mark! Updated the Growler and the 787; see any improvement? <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/f1382631686.3559airliners-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/f1382631686.3559airliners-1.jpg" width="650" height="438" alt="http://www....
Jump to postHi all, just submitted my first few photos in awhile, and I'd love to get a bit of feedback on them- I currently have these five in the queue; any glaring reasons why any of them should be rejected? 787-9 returning from its second flight: <a href="http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/n138211...
Jump to postHmm... ok, thanks for the feedback, guys! looks like I might have to do some deleting and reuploading...As for the other ones (EMB-120 and DA42), I didn't have much hope for them anyway, just thought I'd try. Here's a few more from the last couple days... other than all being a bit dark, is there an...
Jump to post