JakTrax
Topic Author
Posts: 4818
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Opinions on image (not mine)

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?

http://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
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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
Topic Author
Posts: 4818
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:43 am

Can I just ask, was the flare issue the reason behind the two 'no' votes?
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:59 am

The no votes were 'blur, noise, soft' and 'noisy, lens flare'.
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5328
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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).
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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:
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5328
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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 :tapedshut:


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
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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?
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5328
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.
 
User avatar
johnr
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:46 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6455
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:24 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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 ;)
NO URLS in signature
 
User avatar
Miguel1982
Screener
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:53 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5328
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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
Posts: 12211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JakTrax
Topic Author
Posts: 4818
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:21 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.
 
User avatar
johnr
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:46 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5328
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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?
 
User avatar
Goodyear
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:25 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:24 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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).
NO URLS in signature
 
JakTrax
Topic Author
Posts: 4818
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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
Posts: 12211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.


:checkmark:

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?
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JakTrax
Topic Author
Posts: 4818
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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
Posts: 12211
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Miguel1982
Screener
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:53 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.
 
User avatar
johnr
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:46 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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.
 
JKPhotos
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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
Topic Author
Posts: 4818
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Opinions on image (not mine)

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos