What DOES Airplane-Pictures want from it's contributors ?

WHAM..... That's the sound of hackles going up !

Not mine though. Betchya' all thought this was going to be whinge posting ? I've been around here now for a few weeks and have had some nice successes and some failures that sometimes surprised me and didn't agree with, mostly because they had been accepted on other sites.

And that's the difference......"other sites".

Other sites have their own standards and requirements which overlap with A-P but the one thing I am now finding here is that you have an attitude to processing in Photoshop that would be frowned on on one site I use and thrown out unceremoniously with a probable ban on another. That's not designed to denigrate those sites, both are extraordinarily successful, one of them being the world leader in terms of database size.

So....it's off to Photoshop I go ....... With eyes slightly wider open than before.

......and there's still a couple of rejects here that I don't agree with !! But that's life.

This post has been edited by Brian Whitelegg on 6th May 2012 - 22:00

AP has always set out to be different from the rest Brian.

Photoshop is a tool, which is here to stay:

We do not mind composite shots, so long as it is clearly stated that it is a composite,

We do not mind cloning (I positively encourage its use) however, if you can see where the cloning has been then so can others and your shot will be rejected.

We don't mind HDR, so long as it is done within reason, personally I do not like the grunge look but others do.

We encourage photographers to try different crops within the sites size parameters.

We do tend to discourage filter-art, there is no real craft to that,

We even allow airport vehicles in the shot and up to a point clutter.

All we ask is that the photos are up to some basic standards and we do try to be nice about our rejections as well but some really try our patience...

Oooooh Wallace...believe me when I say I can sympathise with having your patience tried as a screener !!

I presume that by composite you mean an image that has had different areas processed differently, such as a sky darkened and a foreground lightened......rather than a composite of more than one different image ?

Basically, we work on a single frame but do different things to it ?

HDR obviously uses different frames but the difference being that the framing/camera position does not change, we simply (simply !!!!) overlay the same essential image but use different exposures and sometimes different lighting. Not actually a favourite process of mine as it is VERY difficult to get right and looks a right abortion when done wrongly.

Composite means thy there is something added to to original, be it small adjustments or simply complete photos. I make composite images with my own material which I try to blend in a way so te viewer has some difficulty seeing the process. I always state if it is a composite. The thing here is that images that are database material are found on very site like you mentioned, and here the more creative side is also allowed. But al within the image boundary, so heavy noise, unsharpness or bad crops/missing key elements will get a rejection in my opinion. Almost every image has gone through a certain photoshop process here so some tend to explore the possibilities. It's a key element of digital photography. :) Enjoy!

Out of interest, what tools do AP screeners have at their disposal when screening ?

On the large site that I screen for we can check the histogram (grey scale and RGB), horizon grid overlay, centre grid, equalisation for spots and visible manipulation (note visible !), a magnification tool and EXIF reader (provided it has been included and the screener has downloaded something such as Opanda EXIF reader.

This post has been edited by Brian Whitelegg on 10th May 2012 - 02:28