Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

And thumbs up for best ever developers team in the world which fix login issue in scarce three full month of hard work!

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

and if I remember correctly you were one of those who complained a lot about the old site. I never complained about old site. I complained about biased and random screening. And about quality degradation of uploaded photos. Both problems was taken to the new site as well. John, please answer me dir...

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

The site IS getting better every week. Compare to the white site and tell me I am wrong... Oh my God! It reminds me of times when Communist Party propaganda compares quantity of computers and TV production in USSR in 1985 with pre-revolution Russian Empire production figures in 1913 :D Compare with...

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

Besides, Airliners.net will never please everyone to 100%, never have. About us Airliners.net is the leading community for discovering and sharing high-quality aviation photography. We thank you for your support and hope you'll join the largest aviation community on the web. Ok, if you don't want t...

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

I don't want to sound harsh, but you've got to face facts. It's useless. From huge crew (which now have even page dedicated for them at the site) and "powerful team of developers working 24/7" only two volunteers has enough courage to communicate with community. Even at photography feedba...

Re: Dark? Hethazed? Soft and oversharpened in an attempt to fix?

Sorry, Kas. With all my respect it seems useless, at least for me. Photos are rejected for random reasons and appellations usually get rejection reason removed but multiple other random reasons added (like blurry or quality). Reducing size doesn't helps. Since end of the last year my acceptance rati...

Re: Is It Anet Worthy 2016?

airkas1 wrote:

kulverstukas wrote:

Thanks. BTW, what is your screening installation?

My screening monitor is an iiyama Pro Lite XB2483SHU.

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

aviat wrote:

OMG, new Homepage. Respectively old Homepage, almost. I'm so happy!

Re: Canon EF 100-400 IS II &Tamron 150-600C Which is better

Just bear in mind that Tamoron's claim of 600mm is likely going to be closer to around 500mm. Why is that? If I make the dangerous (but likely at least close to correct) assumption that the Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II USM Lens is a true 600mm lens, I can use its angle of view to compare it to the 15...

Re: Is It Anet Worthy 2016?

I'm not on my screening computer at the moment, so I'll check back later this week to offer an opinion. Thanks. BTW, what is your screening installation? I changed my old TN set of notebook + monitor (Samsung X360 13"TN 1280x800 + Samsung SyncMaster 2443NW 24"TN 1920x1200) for new IPS one...

Re: Canon EF 100-400 IS II &Tamron 150-600C Which is better

spompert wrote:

...100-400II at 400 and cropped to equivalent of 600 has the same quality as the Sigma 150-600 at 600. If that is really true I would go for the Canon...

Re: Is It Anet Worthy 2016?

airkas1 wrote:

Usually blurryness can't be fixed. But sometimes going to a smaller size will help 'hide' blurryness (as in it being less apparent).

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

BTW can't miss another chance to point on quality degradation of photo after download: there clearly visible that reg. on nose gear hatch became unreadable:

Dark? Hethazed? Soft and oversharpened in an attempt to fix?

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/6/3/3960365.jpg?v=v40dbc1c4fb0 Rejected for OS, appealed and get down with "dark" without OS ... I'm speechless. http://cdn-www.airliners.net/photos/airliners/1/1/3/3960311.jpg?v=v4a7b5f4ae18 Rejected for OS, appealed with a bit salty commen...

Re: Is It Anet Worthy 2016?

That's quite an angle of attack. Looks passable to me. Heh, rejected for OS and empowered with blurry after appeal. And as HS see blurriness in it it's for trash can then because blurriness in contrary to softness can't be cured, right? The An-2 is a bit backlit, but the cool factor might make up f...

Re: Canon EF 100-400 IS II &Tamron 150-600C Which is better

As said, it depends on what you shoot. Also you can wait a bit for new tamron V2.0 glass has some feedback, because V1.0 have a shitty stab (works for static shoots only). Well, a lot of this you must answer yourself..... I've no experience with either the Tamron or the version II 100-400, but I'd b...

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

That doesn't sound difficult - just take the existing images and do something like paste an exclamation mark over the corner of all of them. Voila! No way. Based on what we see since site relaunch it must take couple month and hard work of huge developers team to implement. They also must break mai...

Re: What happened to the home page?

I fully understand Steve. I agree the home page/mobile switch has been broken for too long now. It should be a simple fix as I understand. We've mentioned this loads of times already and it's quite annoying that it's not solved yet. Which brings out two possibilities: either developers are not suit...

Re: Is It Anet Worthy 2016?

An-22 @ F8
Il-76 @ F4,5
An-12 @ F8
Il-14 @ F6,3

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

John you forget pinned topics

Re: Is It Anet Worthy 2016?

Ok, let's look into another cockpit: http://russianplanes.net/images/to197000/196239.jpg or http://russianplanes.net/images/to197000/196236.jpg still part of picture will be OOF because of DOF and here we go with 12mm - still... http://russianplanes.net/images/to190000/189132.jpg

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

Any chances of sign that I have a post in this thread like it was at the old A.net?

Re: Is It Anet Worthy 2016?

What level of tolerance then for DOF in such conditions for A.net?

Re: What happened to the home page?

DLX737200 wrote:

I can't believe this is still a problem almost two weeks later.

Re: Is It Anet Worthy 2016?

As part of it is OOF I think it's no go for A.net?

Re: post screening: zachary165

I won't discuss soft as I seems not in sync with A.net screeners here, but I don't see any banding and I do see quite prominent vignetting (top right and left side). Generally, I suggest that you must try to use some lens corrections settings in your editing software.

Re: Rejected for CW rotation/compression

Leveling issue for skyshot? o.O

Sky abowe a/c look a bit blotchy through. So may be this is what they now calls "compression" (I believe it was "banding" at old A.net). They seems also changed "grainy" to "noise".

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

With upload queue full, one can't edit any photo, throws out red stripe with "upload limit reached" and sent back to main page.

Re: Airliners.net Site Upgrade Announcement & Discussion

PITingres wrote:

I have tried to avoid the temptation to dump on the site developers as being a bunch of clueless morons, but it's hard and not getting any easier...

Re: Full size photos not available?

Perhaps you could provide a pic of original large resolution for me to test. It works for me at Chrome: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia-A ... /2765559/L Not really large though is it. Where is the original size? That's only barely larger than the /M. How do you get the original size? It's ope...

Re: Full size photos not available?