Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
JakTrax wrote:is the site now overlooking too many flaws in its quest to promote night shots?
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).
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!
cpd wrote:Szabo Gabor's recent aerial night photo is another really awesome one (the ID is 4919797).
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
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?
kjeld0d wrote:I'm wondering how this photo made it to photographers choice, seeing as its blurry. Wouldn't that be rejected normally?
johnr wrote:I understood this site was all about excellent results, not valiant efforts.
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.
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
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?
johnr wrote:The Qantas shot represents a historic moment in commercial aviation
airkas1 wrote:Regarding the screening process of photos, it's always either rejecting too much or accepting too much
cpd wrote:Although some people might suggest that the photographer should "learn how to use a camera",
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.
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
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.
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.
kjeld0d wrote:With the proliferation of high-quality digital cameras, the standards for acceptance should be going up, not down.
kjeld0d wrote:I'm wondering how this photo made it to photographers choice, seeing as its blurry. Wouldn't that be rejected normally?
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.
JakTrax wrote:I don't think anyone is saying that that these night shooters 'should go and learn how to use a camera'.
JakTrax wrote:the classic sunny side-on is held in such contempt these days
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.
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.
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.
dutchspotter1 wrote:My point exactly, which is why I would never take any photographs under such circumstances.
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?
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?
johnr wrote:comment deleted, apologies was very tired when I posted.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
JKPhotos wrote:All in all I just think that shows this is a controversial subject for photographers at the moment!
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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