Airliners.net Rejection

[Ben Montgomery]

Guys,

Had these two rejected,

First one http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... al-1-2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reject reason: quality size motiv soft centered

Second One http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 1-al-1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reject reason: quality motiv soft contrast

Thoughts?

Dunc

I think the size thing on the first one is that it is cropped to 1024 x598px. A.net like 3:2 ratio, so 1024x683

[crazydunc]

Ah okay! Thanks Ben!

[DeanW]

Cheers Ben and Jez, will run them through Neat Image!

[Jez]

Ah okay! Thanks Ben!

Resizing the image is unlikely to change the motiv rejection. I like the B-52 image, but the C-17 shot doesn't work for me. It's a shame about A.net's seemingly unwavering rules on image aspect ratios, sometimes shots can look better when cropped 16:9, 1:1 and everything in between and beyond!!

[DeanW]

I uploaded this knowing it's not their cuppa, but thought it'd still be worth a punt. Rejected for motive and erm.. blurry!

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... iat103.jpg

[Ben Montgomery]

I uploaded this knowing it's not their cuppa, but thought it'd still be worth a punt. Rejected for motive and erm.. blurry!

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... iat103.jpg

Pin sharp that Dean, dunno what they are talking about

It is a VERY cool photo though!

[POL]

Pin sharp squiggles, great shot, not what A.net are after of course, but still a great shot!

[POL]

All,
Could I have your thoughts on this one please?

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/rej ... xx119c.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rejected for;

A comment from the screener regarding this upload:
"A bit less contrast needed."

Dark

Contrast

[SamP]

Its a tough one Chris, it does look a bit too dark at the back end but if you brighten it too much the nose will become too bright. Maybe there is a tad too much contrast too but its not really over done. You've got some really tough light in those hangars

[POL]

Cheers mate, will have a play with it in RAW, see what I can do!

[flyingslug_0]

Blimey I can't see anything wrong with any of them....thought pics like paintings were in the eye of the beholder...I obviously have a lot to learn.

[DeanW]

The motive rejection - darn hate it.

These 3 were all rejected for it..

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... 5dux10.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... gdux10.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... kdux10.jpg

The thing that frustrates me is that there are a ridiculous amount of images of airliner toilets and wings (which all look the same!) on the site and they said they were becoming more welcoming of creative images. And they allow some really abstract images on, like this. I'm obviously not saying images like the Victor one shouldn't be on there as it's an absolutely stunning image and should be shown off to as many as possible, but why can't they be consistent with the creative images.
I know the Pavehawk shot isn't a creative image, but the motive rejection still baffled me.

[Mike]

No problem at all with that Nige,I've lost track of how many photos of aircraft toilets and photos of seats-backs there are on A.net.

Years ago,when I first found their site I couldn't believe they had so many shots of military aircraft on it and because of that I still wonder about the title.

They seem to be a really mixed-up bunch of guys that just reject shots that are perfect and accept shots just because the photographer has had loads accepted before.I reckon the screeners look at the name instead of the photo and that has gone on for years.

Enough said.

[garethbrum]

They seem to be a really mixed-up bunch of guys that just reject shots that are perfect and accept shots just because the photographer has had loads accepted before.

I just had my first seven accepted, much to my amazement - lol

I'm told they are more flexible with the newbies these days and that you are more likely to get rejections if you already have plenty in the database.

[DeanW]

I've come into this thread, and have only read a few of the posts on here. So I apologise if this has been said before.

The way I look at is, if they are so picky with the shots they want then why try to upload your pics to the site. I have had some accepted and a few rejected over the years and have always wondered to myself why I bothered with them. Ive decided to stay away from the site. It will soon hit them hard if people decide to go elsewhere and get their fantastic shots accepted on other sites, and by the quality Ive seen thats been rejected then do yourself justice and stay away from this picky site. Just my opinion and Im sorry to the mods if this goes against the rules about opinions on other sites.

That really doesn seem to be an uncommon opinion any more, quite a few people have got bored of waiting a week to get an image rejected for something trivial!
However, I use the site to better my shooting and post-processing skills, the rejections make me more aware of where I can improve my images and I think it's helped me technically over the last few years. Also, A.net has the largest amount of users/visitors, giving the user's images potentially the biggest amount of hits possible from one upload.

[Mike]

This one has worried me for a while,not a bog on a A380 but a bog on a C-21A !

Compare this with some of the cracking shots that some of our members have had rejected.There's something seriously wrong somewhere.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Ai ... 9b6a4b189f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice to hear you've got your shots accepted Gareth.

[DeanW]

I can understand what you are saying and yes it does help you improve yourself, but if you don't get things accepted then you won't get the hits. There are plenty of other ways out there to get your pics shown and with good qritique which will help you out than these overated sites.

True point. But then some images with a few hundred/thousand views each on there are getting more hits than if there were no images on there! I never really know what other websites to go to for critique - any chance you could recommend a few?

This one has worried me for a while,not a bog on a A380 but a bog on a C-21A !

Compare this with some of the cracking shots that some of our members have had rejected.There's something seriously wrong somewhere.

And it's got 19,000+ views - mental!

[SteveS]

The problem I find with A.Net is there is absolutely zero consistency between different screeners - the most annoying thing is having a photo rejected for motive only to find a similar shot in the database. They also often seem to ignore their own rules, particularly in regards to doubles. Very frustrating!!!

[DeanW]

Depends what you want to do with them............if you just want to improve your photography then Flickr doesn't hurt. Again it depends where you post them on there, and to what groups. If you want to sell them then any of the stock agencies again will accept or reject them depending on subject, composition, manipulation and the like, and they will not neccessarily be so picky, but you still learn from the rejections. If you just want to show them off then why not just use an excellent forum like this, where most people who view A.net will also be members of a forum?

Oh yeah, do like Flickr and I usually post my airshow shots on here, UKAR and airshows.be. Always liked the sound of the stock agencies but could never really get the hang of the upsizing and all that you needed to do to upload the images

[alnewhaven]

This one has worried me for a while,not a bog on a A380 but a bog on a C-21A !

Compare this with some of the cracking shots that some of our members have had rejected.There's something seriously wrong somewhere.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Ai ... 9b6a4b189f" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice to hear you've got your shots accepted Gareth.

Especailly as according to a Billy Connolly sketch, Lear Jets dont have bogs!!