Are you kidding me?

So, I uploaded 5 photos of the A350 at the MAKS yesterday (the links are in the end of the posting).

There were two shots on the ground (one of them in 1600 px, one in 1200 px) and three in the air (all 1200 px) where the aircraft is seen performing its show. First of all, the "Editor" who doesn't want to be recognized for whatever reason said for all five pics that the "main object is not sharp", although the other screener didn't seem to have a problem with that. The photos in the air certainly aren't the sharpest because I took them with full 300 mm and still had to crop a bit, but the ground photos definitely don't lack anything. The problem of the other screener were the sky shots, so he linked me your sky shot guidance on all three sky shots (I know it btw, you don't have to link it for me after two and a half years here).

Let's take a closer look into the guidance:

"Acceptable

Sky shots will be rejected unless they have some added value, for example:

Dusk/Dawn, cloud formation, interesting atmospheric conditions

Airshow, newsworthy or rare

Air to air, aircraft in banking angle"

As everyone can see, my photos match not even one, but two criteria of acceptable skyshots. Maybe it's the screeners who need to "please check our skyshot guidance"?

As waiting for the appeal verdict took three weeks last time, I'd reupload them which I can do only tomorrow at 2 AM and other interesting photos will be uploaded to this site even later. Awesome.

Looking forward to your opinions.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2017-7/935115.jpg

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2017-7/935116.jpg

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2017-7/935119.jpg

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2017-7/935120.jpg

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2017-7/935121.jpg

It could be my tired old eyes but the second photo does seem to be unsharp at the nose end - looking at the number 002.

Good luck with the re-upload.

Hi spotteralex,

First of all, I think that you forgot to add the words "They must be of a complementary angle, good light and technically excellent" that appears in the Sky Shot guidance too.

All of your skyshots are flat, not sharp and with a low contrast, so you don't fulfill this important point, and after 2 years posting on this website, you should have noticed.

Second, as you know (after 2 years in this website), this page has a lot of pictures of this airplane (F-WWCF), so every time the requeriments will be higher, and this is stated in point # 1: "Quality requirements on photos of common or often photographed aircraft are much higher. Only photos exceptional in terms of light, composition and technical quality will be accepted."

In this case, I'm sorry but you can't complain because there is no reason to.

Have a nice day.

Javi.

Hi Alex,

The second it's a bit blurry in the far right end (nose).

Giving That Maks 2017 is scheduled from 19 to 22 July, you're under the 7 days deadline for submitting them as News/Airshow. Therefore the other 4 photos are good & should be accepted.

Regards

For me all photos are slightly blurry, but sharpness generally depends on resolution of the screen, so in this case for me they're acceptable in terms of sharpness. But I agree with Javi, that these 3 skyshots haven't got enough quality to be published.

I'll never understand why airplane on the ground is "better" than airplane in the sky.

More natural environment for airplanes is sky/air not ground. So "sky shot" rule is highly incomprehensible for me.

Andrzej, I totally agree with you. And I think - no wait - know for sure, that almost everyone (beside the screeners of course) agrees with you as well.

Then Javi, indeed you have a point there about the banking angle aspect. But still: it is newsworthy and therefore the pictures still are acceptable....!

I also agree with Alex about the skyshot guidance. I've tried to upload a LHR-like skyshot (from the front and a bit to the side), but it seems that LHR is holy? My picture was rejected just because of the "Skyshot guidance", but of course the LHR pictures should actually get this rejection "reason" as well... Would like an explanation! :)

Hey Lars,

i slightly disagree with the "skyshot" thing, you know if you want to publish skyshots in normal light and conditions, then you could upload them at JetPhotos.net or almost any other Aviation Photography webpage. The point of AP is "creative aviation photography" and a normal Airplane in normal conditions isn´t really creative, do you agree? Of course that doesn´t translate for Airshows, good Light conditions, weather conditions and all kind of stuff, and yes, not every shot that was taken with Landscape, Airports or Cities is appealing, but it definitely helps making a Image more interesting. And could you please show youre rejected Images for feedback on that? Thanks :)

Ya´ll have a pleasant Day!

first of all. Andrzej and Lars, you know the rules at this site. Nobody forces you to upload photos here, if you don't like these rules. Of course I think it can be discussed with Head Admins' Team if many users want to change photo-acceptance terms. But this is a topic for separate discussion, and for now rules are as laid down some time ago.

spotteralex, don't get me wrong, but I think you misunderstood sky-shots guidance. The text you quoted doesn't mean that sky shot from airshow will be accepted without a word, but just it won't be rejected at once because it has some added value. But, it has to meet fundamental requirements (colours, contrast, sharpness etc) as Javi wrote.

All of you, just remember, that uploading news or photos from airshow is not a way to bypass the requirements. I don't think this is a case here (with spotteralex's photos), but please remember about that in future.

"Nobody forces you to upload photos here, if you don't like these rules."

Thx for your advice, really helpful for long-standing users of AP.

I know it and that's why AP isn't my main gallery. Please, don't be so big-headed - its only hobby, should give us fun, not create problems or frustration.

About 5 photos of spotteralex from this topic - for me these are not enough sharp and this is bigger problem in this case than sky-shot rule in my opinion.

Hey Phillip, yes of course I understand that you have to have good light conditions with skyshots to have a little chance of acceptance already. But to be honest, there are quite some shots up there that have normal, okey light and a filled picture. (This doesn't take away the fact that these pictures are still very nice, don't get me wrong there ;) )

And Karol, I totally understand that you don't have to upload pictures, but that is not what I said either. I think it would be wise to just have a conversation with admins why skyshots are not so good as shots made on the ground. I also think if there are good and strong arguments, and they would be put in the skyshot guidance, that more photographers would understand the reasons why better. Next to that, you will not habe these misunderstandings. I don't want to come across angry, mad, irritated or anything alike by the way. These are just questions. But I think you can also understand the point of Andrzej and me.

Andrzej, it's not a big-headed issue here, but maybe I wrote something too distincly - I'm sorry. The thing is we all can discuss the rules, but I think the best way in this case is to send an e-mail to Admins, or maybe one of them will say something about it here.

Lars - I didn't create these rules for sky shots, but I think that it refers primarily to the shots with uniform background (both blue sky and gray clouds) because they are less interesting than shots taken on the ground, with trees, buildings, other planes behind the main object.

I hope we understand each other, as far as we don't want to make a mess here. ;)

PS. I took a look at your profiles here, you all have many great shots and you should be really proud of them. When your photo gets a rejection, it's okay, try next time with another shot. As Andrzej said, it's only a matter of fun, not a race for golden gloves ;)

Karol, no problem, everything is OK :)

Hahaha Karol I understand. Like said I don't want to make a total mess about not too much too. Thanks for the compliment though ;)