Foto's that Airliners.Net will not publish

[CH47D]

Submitted many (offcourse without the logo) , how has similar problems with Airliners.Net , we have just given up , its always something with them. To kick things off here one of our , we will post many more and please feel free to give us your opinion about the quality of the photo's.

[DJdeRidder]

You'd better try to upload some photos of aircraft seats or toilets. Acceptance guaranteed..

Not much wrong with your shot. (except it's civil..)

[CH47D]

You'd better try to upload some photos of aircraft seats or toilets. Acceptance guaranteed..

Not much wrong with your shot. (except it's civil..)

I did notice that as well , if that gets over 9,000 views than scramble should be getting 9,000,000 views the quality of people that post their work on this website is sometimes 100% better and more interesting.

[andel]

Maybe it,s usefull too give the rejection reason !.
But i see no reason too for rejection.
But i,m no screener (lucky me)

[Kleintje Pils]

Let me guess: Oversharped, jaggies or something like that...

[MikeLima]

From an a-net point of view I'd say the Gulf is soft/undersharpened, maybe even suffering a little bit from heat haze. The 737 is maybe a bit too sharp, hence the somewhat grainy sky. Some carefull denoising could do the trick.

From my personal point of view: who cares? Nice pictures, bring out some more!

[Redskin301]

Post them up here http://www.airlinerdb.com/ much better.
And the mulitairy stuff up here http://www.airfighters.com

[JK]

Let me guess: Oversharped, jaggies or something like that...

Juist.
De foto's hebben niet de kwaliteit waar Airliners.net bekend om is.

Blijf proberen zou ik zeggen.

Grrr Johan Knijn

[Key]

This issue is as old as A.net itself, and will not go away. It is the very nature of that site, and a policy to which you agree before uploading. As said a dozen times before on Scramble, pointing out the above does not mean I or other 'Scramblers' fully support the A.net policy - nor does it mean the opposite.

What we do not want, is the Scramble photo forums to become a place to complain about A.net rejections. Please, do share your photos with us, but not solely to discuss their rejection by A.net. Asking advice on improvement up to acceptance by A.net is OK of course, although this forum is probably a better place to do so.


Thanks,
Erik

... Agree with MikeLima, for A.net the Gulf is soft, and oversharpened locally trying to compensate; the 73 is a bit oversharpened overall. Don't worry, A.net does not determine if you like your photos. It can be a nice challenge if you want to practice post-processing aspects, though.

Edit: link - thx to ruudb

[CH47D]

This issue is as old as A.net itself, and will not go away. It is the very nature of that site, and a policy to which you agree before uploading. As said a dozen times before on Scramble, pointing out the above does not mean I or other 'Scramblers' fully support the A.net policy - nor does it mean the opposite.

What we do not want, is the Scramble photo forums to become a place to complain about A.net rejections. Please, do share your photos with us, but not solely to discuss their rejection by A.net. Asking advice on improvement up to acceptance by A.net is OK of course, although this forum is probably a better place to do so.

You are quite right , we just wanted to see what other fellow enthusiasts think about the quality of our pictures because to me they are fine and one can't argue with a persons taste. If you think that our post in this matter is not right for this forum than please delete it completely , we understand. We just want to see what other fellow photographers think about our pictures and not about Airliners.Net (quite frankly about A.net could care less about it).

[Key]

(quite frankly about A.net could care less about it).

OK, the title seemed to suggest otherwise.
Nothing wrong here, and certainly nothing to delete. It's just that we have seen ongoing pointless discussions on this matter in the past, and we'd like to keep that from happening again. So far, so good!


Thx,
Erik

[Boudewijn van Oirschot]

Post them up here http://www.airlinerdb.com/ much better.
And the mulitairy stuff up here http://www.airfighters.com

Unfortunately AirlinerDB went down as they had only 100 visitors a day

[CH47D]

Post them up here http://www.airlinerdb.com/ much better.
And the mulitairy stuff up here http://www.airfighters.com

Unfortunately AirlinerDB went down as they had only 100 visitors a day

Noticed this as well as i was trying to see what airlinerdb.com was all about , what a pitty.

[Ger]

Why want everyone to have there photos published on A.net? We "the protographer" don't get paid for publication on the internet and only the owners of this site earns money...(!)
Why screeners judge our photos, even when they don't know the circumstances under which these photos are taken, is a riddle to me. It seems they only look at the digital quality of the picture.
And when you argue with a screener about the quality, they block you out for 2 months.
Why support A.net with our pictures?

Another problem when publishing older subjects (70's) on A.net, what i have done in the past, i get a lot of requests for publication of my pictures for articles in magazines or on internet pages, but when asking about a publication fee, nobody want to pay a cent. Always get the answer, it is just a hobby....(?)
Some exceptions are made by myself.

Enjoy your hobby!
Ger

[Key]

Ger, you don't have to. It's a choice, and certainly not 'everybody' wants it. If you are looking for a profit, be sure you have images that sell, or stay away. If you find matching the conditions a challenge and enjoy a large audience, go for it.
Indeed, in any case, enjoy your hobby.

Erik