Opinions on image (not mine)

JakTrax · Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:23 am

Folks,

I'd like to discuss an image I have just seen in photographers' choice. Let me begin by saying that, under the circumstances, the image is far from bad, however is the excessive flare distracting enough to question the acceptance? Without doubt the best anyone could do given the light, but is the site now overlooking too many flaws in its quest to promote night shots?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qantas/B ... /4915649/L

And no, I'm not interested in hearing any, "You're belittling the photographer by inviting criticism to his work" comments, because a) that's not what I'm doing and b) anyone putting their work in the public domain should not be averse to opinions.

Let's consider this a case study, rather than an opportunity to criticise someone's photo. I hope we can have a sensible debate over this one.....

Cheers,
Karl

airkas1 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:35 am

JakTrax wrote:
is the site now overlooking too many flaws in its quest to promote night shots?

Just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, we are not actively looking to add night photos at the cost of quality/other things. But yes, there has been a big increase in night photos in recent times and I'm happy to see people pushing their (gear) limits.

I think it's an interesting topic and I myself have wondered about this as well, the way those photos are seen by you all. Regarding the screening process of photos, it's always either rejecting too much or accepting too much, but other than that there isn't many feedback from the users. The judging of night photos (especially G2A) is always tough and a little subjective at the least (in my opinion it depends on own experience with taking such photos), so I'm very curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this particular example.

As background info, the image was uploaded to the creative queue and received 2 yes and 2 no votes. The tiebreaker vote made it 3-2 in favor of accepting it. Can the photo be better (without the flares)? For sure. But in my opinion it was passable (hence I was a yes-vote).

JakTrax · Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:43 am

Can I just ask, was the flare issue the reason behind the two 'no' votes?

airkas1 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:59 am

The no votes were 'blur, noise, soft' and 'noisy, lens flare'.

45272455674 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:20 pm

airkas1 wrote:
JakTrax wrote:
is the site now overlooking too many flaws in its quest to promote night shots?

Just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, we are not actively looking to add night photos at the cost of quality/other things. But yes, there has been a big increase in night photos in recent times and I'm happy to see people pushing their (gear) limits.

I think it's an interesting topic and I myself have wondered about this as well, the way those photos are seen by you all. Regarding the screening process of photos, it's always either rejecting too much or accepting too much, but other than that there isn't many feedback from the users. The judging of night photos (especially G2A) is always tough and a little subjective at the least (in my opinion it depends on own experience with taking such photos), so I'm very curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this particular example.

As background info, the image was uploaded to the creative queue and received 2 yes and 2 no votes. The tiebreaker vote made it 3-2 in favor of accepting it. Can the photo be better (without the flares)? For sure. But in my opinion it was passable (hence I was a yes-vote).

Well, my thoughts are that you all made the right decision to accept it. If I'm not mistaken, that is the first image from that person on the site too, right? What a way to do it!

Szabo Gabor's recent aerial night photo is another really awesome one (the ID is 4919797).

airkas1 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:38 pm

cpd wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, that is the first image from that person on the site too, right? What a way to do it!

Indeed his first image, really nice to start with!

cpd wrote:
Szabo Gabor's recent aerial night photo is another really awesome one (the ID is 4919797).

Fully agreed, but as with the above photo, not everyone agrees on that either :tapedshut:

45272455674 · Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:53 pm

airkas1 wrote:
cpd wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, that is the first image from that person on the site too, right? What a way to do it!

Indeed his first image, really nice to start with!

cpd wrote:
Szabo Gabor's recent aerial night photo is another really awesome one (the ID is 4919797).

Fully agreed, but as with the above photo, not everyone agrees on that either

That's a kind of photo I'd love to have tried back when I was still taking photos, but around here it isn't possible due to regulations. Even if it isn't technically perfect, the image is beautiful, unique as well.

kjeld0d · Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:56 am

reposting at the request of PanAm_DC10:

I'm wondering how this photo made it to photographers choice, seeing as its blurry. Wouldn't that be rejected normally?

45272455674 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 1:23 am

kjeld0d wrote:
reposting at the request of PanAm_DC10:

I'm wondering how this photo made it to photographers choice, seeing as its blurry. Wouldn't that be rejected normally?

That was the image I referred to above, and from memory there have always been exceptions for those kinds of images. A static night photo should be pin sharp, but a moving one, especially a moving one taken from a helicopter or light plane is much more tricky to do.

Although some people might suggest that the photographer should "learn how to use a camera", I think he has done a superb job there in difficult conditions.

johnr · Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:04 am

The Qantas shot represents a historic moment in commercial aviation and is one of the few shots of this type where you can actually see something. Most of thes type of shots you can only see the nav lights or the logo light. Interestingly, this is one of the few shots of VV-ZND that failed to get any site promotion despite its historical significance. The other shot is a great attempt at a very difficult shot but should not have been accepted because of blur/ distance etc and certainly should have not been chosen for site promotion. I understood this site was all about excellent results, not valiant efforts.

airkas1 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:04 am

kjeld0d wrote:
I'm wondering how this photo made it to photographers choice, seeing as its blurry. Wouldn't that be rejected normally?

Normally, yes. But if this is the result of hanging in a helicopter at 2500ft, shooting an airliner below you which is traveling at some 145kts, in the dark, then it's worth my PC vote for effort, out-of-the-box shooting and a decent result for the conditions. The aircraft itself doesn't look that blurry to me in this photo.

johnr wrote:
I understood this site was all about excellent results, not valiant efforts.

In my opinion there is room for both. And in this case, I'm of the opinion that the degree of difficulty combined with the result outweigh the fact that the aircraft is distant and perhaps not 100% quality.

dutchspotter1 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:34 am

IMHO photos on this website should be of the same level of quality regardless whether they were taken during the day or during the night. I''m talking about contrast, noise, sharpness, brightness, etc. So generally speaking only night shots of static aircraft taken with a tripod would meet these standards (of course there are exceptions). Many good examples can be found in those glossy bizjet brochures (just a random example: http://valorjets.uhsome.com/wp-content/ ... 1-279e.jpg)
Photos that do not have this level of quality can be uploaded on other "creative aviation photography" websites.
I realize that many people will disagree, but this is just my 0,02

Miguel1982 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:26 am

I think expecting the same quality from a sunny side on of a static aircraft on a night takeoff of a fast jet in the middle of nowhere is just not realistic. No matter what your skills are, the equipment is just not capable of it. ISO goes up, noise creeps in, dynamic range suffers... well, you all know it.

For me, one can expect to find here top quality shots, accounting for the circumstances. This means, the best one can get for a given situation. And Gabor's night shot from a helicopter might actually be close to as good as it gets for that specific environment

I would be happy to see more high quality night shots of moving aircrafts (hear that, Keiichi?) instead of average 1024px sunny side ons.

45272455674 · Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:51 am

Miguel1982 wrote:
I think expecting the same quality from a sunny side on of a static aircraft on a night takeoff of a fast jet in the middle of nowhere is just not realistic. No matter what your skills are, the equipment is just not capable of it. ISO goes up, noise creeps in, dynamic range suffers... well, you all know it.

For me, one can expect to find here top quality shots, accounting for the circumstances. This means, the best one can get for a given situation. And Gabor's night shot from a helicopter might actually be close to as good as it gets for that specific environment

I would be happy to see more high quality night shots of moving aircrafts (hear that, Keiichi?) instead of average 1024px sunny side ons.

Gabor's one is probably just about the best for that, unless you've got a Nikon D5 and a nice F/2.8 lens. People who want day time noise free, crisp photos at night of a fast moving plane shot from an unstable platform (helicopter) should go out and take the photo for themselves and submit it for scrutiny here.

vikkyvik · Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:06 pm

dutchspotter1 wrote:
Photos that do not have this level of quality can be uploaded on other "creative aviation photography" websites.I realize that many people will disagree, but this is just my 0,02

Understand that's your opinion, but we're long past having that discussion. A.net has included lower-quality shots in more difficult conditions for quite a long time, so that's not going to change.

JakTrax wrote:
I'd like to discuss an image I have just seen in photographers' choice. Let me begin by saying that, under the circumstances, the image is far from bad, however is the excessive flare distracting enough to question the acceptance?

So I finally looked at the photo on my editing monitor last night, and I (somewhat surprisingly to me) actually have to kind of agree with Karl here - that lens flare is pretty obvious, and is right over the aircraft. I'd be fine with it if it weren't directly covering the aircraft.

I deal with lens flare during night shots quite often. It sucks - there's nothing worse than looking through a batch of photos and seeing flare that covers almost every aircraft. But I would not consider flare to be something that is completely out of photographer control. The angle matters, so oftentimes one shot may have really distracting flare over the aircraft, but a shot a second or two later won't have it (or at least it won't be covering the aircraft).

Don't get me wrong - it's a great photo. But had it been mine, I wouldn't have uploaded it to A.net.

Also, I should make clear: the flare is the only issue for me. Other than that, it certainly should have been accepted.

johnr wrote:
The Qantas shot represents a historic moment in commercial aviation

Help me out since I don't pay much attention to this stuff - why is it historic?

airkas1 wrote:
Regarding the screening process of photos, it's always either rejecting too much or accepting too much

Despite what I said about this photo above, I think screening should always lean toward accepting too much, and if this photo gets caught in that net of acceptance, then so be it.

cpd wrote:
Although some people might suggest that the photographer should "learn how to use a camera",

Indeed, some would probably say that it should only take 30 seconds to edit such a photo too. :biggrin:

I think Gabor's photo is quite good. I'd be very pleased to have taken such a photo.

JakTrax · Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:41 pm

I don't think anyone is saying that that these night shooters 'should go and learn how to use a camera'. I've rarely done nightshots within aviation but have frequently shot in nightclub environments - it's extremely difficult getting a correct exposure and ensuring that you don't get flare from lights. But let's face it, the only reason the classic sunny side-on is held in such contempt these days is because Photoshop makes it so much easier. These night shots aren't my thing but I appreciate what it takes to shoot and process them - I just think the end result doesn't justify the amount of effort.... but that's just me. If I want to find out what scheme a particular aircraft is in, I personally want to see the sunny side-on, not a nightshot that hides most of the livery.

The fact is, if we don't want to see these nightshots, we don't have to click them. Clearly some people like them, so they do have a place here, but I feel that some just don't have sufficient quality (through no fault of the photographer, mind). The exception I think is Keiichi, whose nightshots are the benchmark.

kjeld0d · Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:35 pm

airkas1 wrote:
johnr wrote:
I understood this site was all about excellent results, not valiant efforts.

In my opinion there is room for both. And in this case, I'm of the opinion that the degree of difficulty combined with the result outweigh the fact that the aircraft is distant and perhaps not 100% quality.

All I know is in the past an image that blurry would not have been accepted. E for effort. I have hundreds of near-perfect images that I won't upload because they don't meet the standard. With the proliferation of high-quality digital cameras, the standards for acceptance should be going up, not down.

dutchspotter1 wrote:
Photos that do not have this level of quality can be uploaded on other "creative aviation photography" websites.
I realize that many people will disagree, but this is just my 0,02

That's how it was on a.net until the recent string of acquisitions.

cpd wrote:
Miguel1982 wrote:
For me, one can expect to find here top quality shots, accounting for the circumstances. This means, the best one can get for a given situation. And Gabor's night shot from a helicopter might actually be close to as good as it gets for that specific environment

I would be happy to see more high quality night shots of moving aircrafts (hear that, Keiichi?) instead of average 1024px sunny side ons.

Gabor's one is probably just about the best for that, unless you've got a Nikon D5 and a nice F/2.8 lens. People who want day time noise free, crisp photos at night of a fast moving plane shot from an unstable platform (helicopter) should go out and take the photo for themselves and submit it for scrutiny here.

A.net was the home for the best quality aviation photos. Instead of taking it personally, consider the history of the community and where others are coming from. The point is that high-quality night photos have been taken for decades with film and digital equipment. It doesn't matter what you use, as long as its not blurry.

That photo is blurry.

johnr · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:06 am

VIK- Australia has a historcal connection to England...the “old country”. Qantas was formed so we could fly there. It took Captain Cook 9 months to sail here. My immigrant “10 pound Poms” parents spent 6 weeks on a migrant ship to get here. 10 stops on an Empire Flying Boat, 6 stops on a Super Connie, 4 stops on a B707/VC10, 2 stops on a classic 747, 1 stop on a -400 and now for the first time non-stop commercial flights between England and Australia. This route has been a holy grail since the days of Bert Hinkler, Amy Johnson and Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith. In aviation terms that Qantas flight was extremely significant, maybe not as big time as a special scheme on a Southwest 737 to people in LA, but to the rest of us it’s significant. Cheers.

45272455674 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:53 am

kjeld0d wrote:
A.net was the home for the best quality aviation photos. Instead of taking it personally, consider the history of the community and where others are coming from. The point is that high-quality night photos have been taken for decades with film and digital equipment. It doesn't matter what you use, as long as its not blurry.

That photo is blurry.

I know the history of the place and very many old names, some who are still around, some who've moved on into the professional world of photography, others who have passed away.

Photos have not always been what you term high quality. We've had photos off centre, planes that are distant in the frame, etc. The site didn't always have this current screening ways that you are talking about.

The site was for me a great record of aviation over the years, a reference point you could go to and find images of sometimes obscure airlines and planes, usually documented with a date and location. There were even personal watermarks on some images, something that would see your photo rejected immediately. But the fact it was a very good resource is what made it great.

kjeld0d wrote:
With the proliferation of high-quality digital cameras, the standards for acceptance should be going up, not down.

In the world of real photography, this style of pixel perfect editing never happens. There isn't the time for selective sharpening, selective noise reduction, etc. You get the images, size them down, apply some very rudimentary edits (usually a preset) and the get them distributed to the people who need them as soon as possible.

If standards should be going up, perhaps then the minimum image size for uploading here should increase to 4000 pixels wide. You can buy a mirrorless camera at 50mp these days, with a 43.8 × 32.9mm sensor. How far do you really want to push the boundaries? There are even 100mp cameras with 53.4 x 40.0mm sensor size. How much more do you want to go?

Goodyear · Fri Mar 30, 2018 6:29 am

kjeld0d wrote:
I'm wondering how this photo made it to photographers choice, seeing as its blurry. Wouldn't that be rejected normally?

For the same reason people rubber neck at car wrecks.

dutchspotter1 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 12:15 pm

Miguel1982 wrote:
I think expecting the same quality from a sunny side on of a static aircraft on a night takeoff of a fast jet in the middle of nowhere is just not realistic. No matter what your skills are, the equipment is just not capable of it. ISO goes up, noise creeps in, dynamic range suffers... well, you all know it.

My point exactly, which is why I would never take any photographs under such circumstances. I'd rather have 5 photos taken in good circumstances than 10 photos in less then ideal circumstances, or to say it in other words, quality over quantity. And IMHO that is/should be Airliners.net's policy as well, as it is one of the reasons why this website has the strict screening (more strict than JP.net and similar websites).

JakTrax · Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:27 pm

Thee are some great points from all angles here. I think it's safe to say that many of us feel that nightshots have a place here; but at the same time, some feel that the benchmark for such shots sits too low. I particularly liked the point about 'valiant efforts', and have to ask if the same standards would apply to equally challenging shots but in entirely different circumstances? An extreme example, I know, but what about a shot from underwater, looking up at an aircraft? Perhaps an interesting effect, but could one argue that, given the circumstances, this type of shot could not possibly have been executed any better?

I guess there are valid arguments for both sides here, but I agree that a blurry shot is a blurry shot, however impressive the photographer's skill and however tricky the conditions. The argument for is that the site is encouraging different shooting styles - which is positive - but the argument against is that we are perhaps opening a can of worms whereby photographers will go to ridiculous lengths to obtain the impossible, then claim that 'it's the best anyone could do under the circumstances'.

One thing I will say is that, in the case of the Qantas image, the first thing I saw was the flare, not blur. In fact, I think you have to look pretty hard to see blur, and for me it doesn't detract too much from the photo. The flare, however, is a big problem for me, since flare can be controlled somewhat.

What I think we'll all have noticed about the two images under discussion is that they are 1024 pixels - I assume had they been larger they would have been rejected with a request to downsize to minimum?

Karl

vikkyvik · Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:07 pm

JakTrax wrote:
I don't think anyone is saying that that these night shooters 'should go and learn how to use a camera'.

No one has said it here, but there are some who have said similar in the past.

JakTrax wrote:
the classic sunny side-on is held in such contempt these days

It is? By whom?

JakTrax wrote:
If I want to find out what scheme a particular aircraft is in, I personally want to see the sunny side-on, not a nightshot that hides most of the livery.

And that's perfectly fine. I'm not shooting aircraft at night to find out what the scheme is. I'm doing it because it's photographically challenging and involves airplanes.

johnr wrote:
In aviation terms that Qantas flight was extremely significant, maybe not as big time as a special scheme on a Southwest 737 to people in LA, but to the rest of us it’s significant.

Don't know why the comment about people in LA was necessary, but anyway, thanks for letting me know why it was a historical flight. Like I said, I don't pay attention to such stuff all that much.

cpd wrote:
Photos have not always been what you term high quality. We've had photos off centre, planes that are distant in the frame, etc. The site didn't always have this current screening ways that you are talking about.

Goodyear wrote:
For the same reason people rubber neck at car wrecks.

Is that so? Or maybe, just maybe, people actually think it's a great photo?

dutchspotter1 wrote:
My point exactly, which is why I would never take any photographs under such circumstances.

Which is perfectly fine, you don't have to take photos in all situations - we all limit ourselves at a certain point. But why not allow photographers to upload shots that explore further limits of equipment, skill, etc.?

JakTrax wrote:
An extreme example, I know, but what about a shot from underwater, looking up at an aircraft? Perhaps an interesting effect, but could one argue that, given the circumstances, this type of shot could not possibly have been executed any better?

One could certainly argue that, and I'd be interested in seeing such a shot.

JakTrax wrote:
What I think we'll all have noticed about the two images under discussion is that they are 1024 pixels - I assume had they been larger they would have been rejected with a request to downsize to minimum?

Who knows? With higher-ISO and long shutter speed photos, it's of course beneficial to reduce the size, and generally makes editing easier. But A.net functions with reduced-size images, so it doesn't really matter, does it?

JakTrax · Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:44 pm

It's pretty relevant, since blur is much less obvious at smaller sizes. If A.net is going to accept images shot in challenging conditions, with their unavoidable and inherent flaws, surely it's in the interest of upholding quality to insist that they be of minimum size? Why bring attention to any blur when you can simply mask it by uploading at no larger than 1024?

Although I do not find most nightshots aesthetically pleasing (too much dark, too little detail for me), I'm in favour of overlooking minor flaws, so long as they aren't immediately obvious. That said, I personally think accepting any questionable images in excess of 1024 pixels IS undermining the site's penchant for quality.

vikkyvik · Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:34 pm

I wasn't really clear with what I said.

First off, these more difficult images are of course judged to a lower standard than regular images. How low is, of course, what we've debated.

That said, if I can get a shot up to the required standard at 1200 pixels, then that's what I'm going to upload. My recent stuff, most of which is low-light / high-ISO, has mostly been uploaded at between 1100 and 1300. For the most part, I hate less than 1100 pixels, and I'll probably not bother uploading stuff that I have to resize smaller (personal preference there, of course).

Anyway, regarding the two shots under discussion, it's difficult to say what they would have looked like at larger sizes. I often find that 1000 or 1024 sized photos can be more difficult to sharpen accurately, just because of how much detail is lost in the resizing. And also, noise reduction can make images look blurry. So there's a combination of factors that play into at what size one "should" upload a photo.

Miguel1982 · Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:55 pm

That lower standard that Vik mentions is where we, as screening team, basically can't win. There will always be photographers pushing their limits that think we're too strict judging difficult shots, and at the same time others, that only shoot in daylight* will see that poor images are being accepted for no reason.

The size debate is another double sided sword. Sure, smaller images hide more defects, but they also lose detail and appear jagged just due to the resizing.

* No offense to "daylight-only" photographers! Not my intention.

johnr · Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:30 pm

johnr wrote:
VIK- Australia has a historcal connection to England...the “old country”. Qantas was formed so we could fly there. It took Captain Cook 9 months to sail here. My immigrant “10 pound Poms” parents spent 6 weeks on a migrant ship to get here. 10 stops on an Empire Flying Boat, 6 stops on a Super Connie, 4 stops on a B707/VC10, 2 stops on a classic 747, 1 stop on a -400 and now for the first time non-stop commercial flights between England and Australia. This route has been a holy grail since the days of Bert Hinkler, Amy Johnson and Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith. In aviation terms that Qantas flight was extremely significantt. Cheers.

comment deleted, apologies was very tired when I posted.

310815 · Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:04 am

JakTrax wrote:
It's pretty relevant, since blur is much less obvious at smaller sizes. If A.net is going to accept images shot in challenging conditions, with their unavoidable and inherent flaws, surely it's in the interest of upholding quality to insist that they be of minimum size? Why bring attention to any blur when you can simply mask it by uploading at no larger than 1024?

Although I do not find most nightshots aesthetically pleasing (too much dark, too little detail for me), I'm in favour of overlooking minor flaws, so long as they aren't immediately obvious. That said, I personally think accepting any questionable images in excess of 1024 pixels IS undermining the site's penchant for quality.

Very well said, Karl. I do personally agree with every point you said.
I am also well in favour for the applied common-sense for non-static night-shots. Still I think there has to be more to them (some kind of asthetics) than just being difficult (not referring to any shot posted- before someone feels offended).
And yes 1.024px on today's monitor resolutions basically masks everything for me.

A thing I really don't like is that these so called "sunny side-ons" will always be presented so negatively (not directly but indirectly) in such discussions. In the end these sunny side-on's are what brought the vast majority of us to the hobby. I basically only shoot sunny side-ons and am happy with it. And whenever I go out at airports I still meet a lot of likely minded people.

Personally I feel like Karl that quite a few nightshots are overall too dark for my personal taste, still I appreciate the effort being made and the outside of the box-thinking. So I think a bit of more understanding for each other can't hurt. There is room for both at a.net.

JakTrax · Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:53 pm

Before digital no-one (at enthusiast level anyway) really tried night-time panning shots, simply because it was too expensive to throw roll after roll of film/slide at it in the hope of getting that one 'holy grail' shot. So the classic 'sunny side-on' ruled the roost. Now, with the advance in photographic technology, people can really test their gear without having to suffer the financial consequences associated with traditional 35mm formats. Unfortunately, mainly due to Photoshop, the art of the sunny side-on is less and less appreciated and, although never said in so many words, considered almost beginner level these days. There seems an inability by some to grasp why people would want to continue to shoot like they still owned cameras from the 1980s, given what today's cameras will allow. It's a little sad for those of us who love our sunny side-ons but I guess times change. Still, there are few skills greater than getting your subject perfectly centred, filling the frame, with the horizon exactly level, and thus not needing the services of Photoshop. I still get a huge kick out of seeing a technically perfect, wide-angle side on shot - the colour cannot be matched by any other type of photo and the livery always really 'pops'!

Returning to nightshots for my final thoughts, I'm not entirely convinced that this drive for them isn't motivated by gear snobbery or one-upmanship, although I wouldn't by any means attribute it to that in all cases. Each to his (or her) own, and this site prides itself on showcasing as many different styles as possible; as long as no-one's hurting anyone, why not?

Karl

Acey · Mon May 28, 2018 11:09 pm

Is there any kind of explanation as to how photos of this quality were accepted? On one hand, the bar for night shots now being at the cell phone quality level is motivation to shoot more, but on the other hand I know full well that if I were to submit work of this quality it would be instantly rejected.

310815 · Tue May 29, 2018 12:05 pm

I think the explanation would be different standards for "difficult" shots that were introduced a while a go.

While I agree that you can't have the same standards as for sunny daytime shots I'd say as well that the gap between what is allowed for nightshots and the normal rules is too large at the moment. From talking to other photographers there seem to be other people that think likewise, yet I think a lot of them don't dare to share their opinion, as the official a.net view is different.

airkas1 · Tue May 29, 2018 1:27 pm

JKPhotos wrote:
While I agree that you can't have the same standards as for sunny daytime shots I'd say as well that the gap between what is allowed for nightshots and the normal rules is too large at the moment.

This has been noted, thanks!

JKPhotos wrote:
From talking to other photographers there seem to be other people that think likewise, yet I think a lot of them don't dare to share their opinion, as the official a.net view is different.

No-one should not express an opinion just because the other party thinks otherwise.

---
But as for thinking that such photos is completely fine is another thing. Often it's tough to find a balance between quality and conditions and sometimes the marginal photo do slip through. I agree that the 2 above mentioned photos aren't great and offer room for improvement.

310815 · Tue May 29, 2018 3:15 pm

airkas1 wrote:

JKPhotos wrote:
From talking to other photographers there seem to be other people that think likewise, yet I think a lot of them don't dare to share their opinion, as the official a.net view is different.

No-one should not express an opinion just because the other party thinks otherwise.

I fully agree with that! I think that those persons I think of are afraid it might be to their disadvantage...in contrast when I think of a few recent comments under the shots, some are rather outspoken (though these comments were all deleted - which is another story for me).

All in all I just think that shows this is a controversial subject for photographers at the moment!

45272455674 · Wed May 30, 2018 10:29 am

airkas1 wrote:
JKPhotos wrote:
While I agree that you can't have the same standards as for sunny daytime shots I'd say as well that the gap between what is allowed for nightshots and the normal rules is too large at the moment.

This has been noted, thanks!

JKPhotos wrote:
From talking to other photographers there seem to be other people that think likewise, yet I think a lot of them don't dare to share their opinion, as the official a.net view is different.

No-one should not express an opinion just because the other party thinks otherwise.

---
But as for thinking that such photos is completely fine is another thing. Often it's tough to find a balance between quality and conditions and sometimes the marginal photo do slip through. I agree that the 2 above mentioned photos aren't great and offer room for improvement.

I might say that maybe the 777 photo isn't quite the most perfect, but the other one looks decent enough to me, pretty sharp and fairly well lit.

JKPhotos wrote:
All in all I just think that shows this is a controversial subject for photographers at the moment!

I can't believe that people seriously are holding back their comments because they are afraid of some sort of retribution, if I'm understanding it correctly. That is just taking things far too seriously.

310815 · Wed May 30, 2018 11:46 am

What you believe and what people think might be 2 different things, I don't think I am taking it too far.
At least I am regularly speaking to other uploaders and as I say they are mostly rather critical about the recent evolution...yet noone replies here.

But that's not the discussion at all. My point was just that the feeling I shared isn't an exclusive opinion from myself.

Otherwise I wasn't referring to any shot specifically.

JakTrax · Wed May 30, 2018 3:45 pm

How many times has the site shot people down for 'insulting someone else's work'? I'm not at all surprised some don't want to air their opinions here. In my opinion, if you choose to display your images publicly, you are agreeing to deal with any feedback, be it positive or negative. I get the impression at times that many of today's photographers are only in it for the praise and simply don't want to acknowledge anything that doesn't brown-nose. You can't just take the positives all the time.

I am not an advocate of 'valiant efforts' (as someone once put it) as I think they undermine the general high quality of the site. I appreciate that a lot of what we're seeing is the very best than anyone could achieve, but I'd much rather see something closer to the original than an over-processed image rife with copious amounts of banding and chroma noise. If I'm honest, I don't really see the point of these nightshots, other than to prove to everyone that you can do it or that you have the most expensive equipment on the block. I may be wrong but I think much of it is about one-upmanship, which isn't really what the site should be about.

Karl

310815 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:51 am

JakTrax wrote:
How many times has the site shot people down for 'insulting someone else's work'? I'm not at all surprised some don't want to air their opinions here. In my opinion, if you choose to display your images publicly, you are agreeing to deal with any feedback, be it positive or negative. I get the impression at times that many of today's photographers are only in it for the praise and simply don't want to acknowledge anything that doesn't brown-nose. You can't just take the positives all the time.

Karl

Thanks Karl. Someone understood me. :-)

As I said the silence here is telling.

Otherwise I also agree, there seems to be a way of thinking these days that only positive feedback is acceptable.

jupiter2 · Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:44 pm

You know I always thought this site was for aviation enthusiasts to discuss aviation news and happenings and for photographers to show their efforts. We mostly know that unfortunately, most discussions end up being an A vs B fanboy contest, so boring. Then there is the photography side of things, there are some truly wonderful images on this site and personally, the photo for the topic of this thread is absolutely stunning. I love it and couldn't give a rats arse if it isn't technically perfect. It shouldn't need an exemption because it is a special flight, it is a beautiful photo.

Compare it to some of the other photos that get put up, probably technically perfect and with all due respect to the photographers fine images, but boring. I would much rather see a photo which isn't technically perfect, but stands out because of the ability of the photograhper to capture a great image, not a stock standard image, enhanced by the technical know how of the photographer with their choice of software, to bring the image to this sites standards.

I've seen images accepted on this site and actually seen the original photo, besides the aircraft and date, location being the same, you wouldn't believe it was the same image. Sort of miss the old film days, when it wasn't about your editing skills, just how you used your camera.

JakTrax · Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:13 pm

You liked what you saw. Good for you. This site functions on the criticism of other people's work (what do you think the screening process is?) so there's little need to be virtuous. We've all agreed that the results of the nightshoots we're seeing are about the best possible, but you surely aren't suggesting we all have to like such photos simply because of the difficulty factor? I don't have to like an image, or even consider it technically good, to appreciate it. I certainly couldn't do any better, and I know of no-one who could.

Besides, like I said earlier, if you place your images in the public domain, you basically accept any criticism that comes your way - and if we're honest, the nightshots we're seeing do have fundamental flaws, irrespective of the skill and patience required to capture them.

I maintain that, unfortunately, sites such as A.net have bred a generation of whiners who all-too-easily lap up the praise but take issue with criticism. You only need look at Facebook to see that! Interestingly, the photographer under the spotlight hasn't complained (I'm sure he's aware of this thread), so it's quite likely that he's rational enough to deal with what's been said. And what's been said isn't in any way nasty or born of jealousy.

My personal opinion is that nighshots should look more natural, because the current crop is certainly way over-processed in order to meet the site's criteria. I think we need to look more at the actual 'photograph' (i.e. the initial capture) and less at the 'image' (the edit) - surely some excessive grain (in its traditional form) is far better looking than a shed-load of chroma noise and a blotchy sky? If we're going to allow flaws, they should at least be natural, unavoidable ones rather than those introduced during editing.

aircountry · Sun Jun 24, 2018 3:54 am

cpd wrote:
kjeld0d wrote:
reposting at the request of PanAm_DC10:

I'm wondering how this photo made it to photographers choice, seeing as its blurry. Wouldn't that be rejected normally?

That was the image I referred to above, and from memory there have always been exceptions for those kinds of images. A static night photo should be pin sharp, but a moving one, especially a moving one taken from a helicopter or light plane is much more tricky to do.

Although some people might suggest that the photographer should "learn how to use a camera", I think he has done a superb job there in difficult conditions.

I like to know how did he shoot with Av mode with low f number and high ISO or Tv mode with low f number and high ISO with panning? What setting did he use? I want to learn it for night shot on take off or landing. I tried to use Tv mode with panning and picture look too dark when use the photoshop to bright it up and it was too much noisy. How did they remove the strongest noisy to clear off?

45272455674 · Sun Jun 24, 2018 7:10 am

aircountry wrote:
cpd wrote:
kjeld0d wrote:
reposting at the request of PanAm_DC10:

I'm wondering how this photo made it to photographers choice, seeing as its blurry. Wouldn't that be rejected normally?

That was the image I referred to above, and from memory there have always been exceptions for those kinds of images. A static night photo should be pin sharp, but a moving one, especially a moving one taken from a helicopter or light plane is much more tricky to do.

Although some people might suggest that the photographer should "learn how to use a camera", I think he has done a superb job there in difficult conditions.

I like to know how did he shoot with Av mode with low f number and high ISO or Tv mode with low f number and high ISO with panning? What setting did he use? I want to learn it for night shot on take off or landing. I tried to use Tv mode with panning and picture look too dark when use the photoshop to bright it up and it was too much noisy. How did they remove the strongest noisy to clear off?

The trick is really to use manual settings for these types of photos. You need to take a photo ahead of time (or a few of them) to get the correct shutter, ISO and aperture ahead of time. Even if you over expose slightly, you can fix that up, but if you under expose the image, then forget it - the image will be good only for the bin.

With more modern cameras it should be a bit easier to take these kinds of photos than what it was way back in the day with the Nikon D3S, or even earlier than that when Florian Trojer used to do hand held night photos with his Canon 1D Mk.III.

5 years ago I took this photo:

That was ISO3200 and 0.3sec, ISO3200 and F/2.8. Extreme settings in near total darkness. The only light was from the plane itself. When you see some of these night photos where the plane is incredibly bright, but the surroundings are quite dark, that's probably how they are doing it, unless they get lucky with some ground lights nearby. But it's a fine balance as you can easily have the main lights on the plane way overexposed.

Jaxtrax earlier makes a good point about over-editing:

That was 10,000ISO, 1/15sec, 500mm and F/6.7. There unless you've got a big aperture lens, you've got to use high ISO or the shutter speed will be too slow. That thing is doing I guess 170kts at that point and it's dark. And if you go too much on getting rid of noise, the details in the plane will be gone. That was the last photo (as far as I know) anyone took of that plane in that vintage colour scheme. I think now it might even be scrapped too.

With a much more modern camera these photos would be a lot easier, but that's for someone else to try.

aircountry · Sun Jun 24, 2018 11:58 am

The trick is really to use manual settings for these types of photos. You need to take a photo ahead of time (or a few of them) to get the correct shutter, ISO and aperture ahead of time.

Does it mean have to use the setting to Av mode not on Tv mode with high ISO and low F number on manual with panning or without panning? I have 70-200L f2.8 mk 2 canon len and 70D camera can go high up to 25,600 but on that highest get worst noisy so better go far high as 3200 or 5000 will make less noisy. I have noiseware and Topaz NR on ps photoshop.

45272455674 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 2:42 am

aircountry wrote:
Does it mean have to use the setting to Av mode not on Tv mode with high ISO and low F number on manual with panning or without panning? I have 70-200L f2.8 mk 2 canon len and 70D camera can go high up to 25,600 but on that highest get worst noisy so better go far high as 3200 or 5000 will make less noisy. I have noiseware and Topaz NR on ps photoshop.

I don't speak in Canon language that well, but what I'm actually saying is not using those Av or Tv modes, rather using fully manual settings. I realise that on some of the lower end cameras that is made near impossible because they like to bury settings in layers of menus. <begin rant>Of course it is simpler to go through 5 layers of menus instead of pressing a button or two at the same time... </end rant>

You have a F/2.8L lens, 70-200mm and 70D. If you can run ISO3200 or ISO5000 without the image getting too noisy, then team that with F/3.5 or so and you should be able to get decent results. You'll still need to be doing some panning.

The reason for using full manual settings is to prevent the camera making up its own mind on ISO sensitivity and or aperture settings. I used to find that for these night photos the camera could be too easily confused by background light and that would mess up the exposure. Manual settings prevent that.

The only difference with the aerial photos is that you need a higher shutter speed to compensate for the helicopter being an unstable platform. So that means using more ISO, and therefore more noise.

Yetno · Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:00 am

Whats the blue line on the fuselage? It looks disturbing on the photo ..noises are visible too!

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia ... 23/5068815

45272455674 · Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:40 pm

Yetno wrote:
Whats the blue line on the fuselage? It looks disturbing on the photo ..noises are visible too!

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia ... 23/5068815

Can we see your images for comparison? What are your screening credentials. This is your first post, you've been registered for a week and then start picking apart the images of others - I don't think that's a good look or particularly the right thing to do.

Kaphias · Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:32 am

cpd wrote:
Yetno wrote:
Whats the blue line on the fuselage? It looks disturbing on the photo ..noises are visible too!

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia ... 23/5068815

Can we see your images for comparison? What are your screening credentials. This is your first post, you've been registered for a week and then start picking apart the images of others - I don't think that's a good look or particularly the right thing to do.

https://www.airliners.net/search?user=475751

airkas1 · Tue Jul 10, 2018 9:43 am

Kaphias wrote:
cpd wrote:
Yetno wrote:
Whats the blue line on the fuselage? It looks disturbing on the photo ..noises are visible too!

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Malaysia ... 23/5068815

Can we see your images for comparison? What are your screening credentials. This is your first post, you've been registered for a week and then start picking apart the images of others - I don't think that's a good look or particularly the right thing to do.

https://www.airliners.net/search?user=475751

And that image will be removed due to probable copyright violation. User banned for a year.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net