"Creative Photography" or is it?

Think its about time someone had an opinion on the so called creative side of the photography on here at present. I know the site carries the name "creative aviation photography" but in my own personal opinion some of the photos are going away from that. Some of the photographers that upload creative photos and composite photos make a real good job of them an upload some stunning examples but theres a difference between creating a photo in photoshop or making a photo look more creative if you know how to do it, compared to someone who is just taking a photo, turning the contrast, highlights, or levels up to a stupid level and uploading it. In my honest opinion thats not creative. I cant see what joy someone gets out of viewing an over processed photo which has halos everywhere and has so much contrast you can hardly make it out. And to make it worse most seem to get 5 stars just to stay loyal to the photographer.

This is by no way an attack on the photographers who choose to upload photos like this but i think a level has to be set with this kind of photography before A-P gets to be a laughing stock, i mean you cant one minute reject a photo for being say over processed, noisy etc when in the next breath a so called creative photo is uploaded which has all the faults mentioned. If you want to upload a vastly photoshopped image then you have to be good at what you do and know how to edit them properly, if not i think they are best left well alone and the individuals should just concentrate on normal photography.

This post has been edited by Darryl Morrell on 27th June 2012 - 01:34

I have to agree with you there Darryl, I have tried to upload Photoshopped images and they have been rejected to those reasons you have stated above. Then other members do the EXACT SAME thing as what I did, it is basically saying a different rule for everybody.

Unfortunately, I too have to agree with you Darryl on this one ! Not only on the overprocessing part but as well on choice of subject whereby the aeronautical part is either fussy, out of focus or not recognizable at all, while screened images would get rejected for same faults !

I definitely agree with Darryl, I've seen many examples of images recently that have been processed beyond the point of ridiculous and it's utterly destroyed the image. Is this "creative"? I don't think so, I think it's tasteless processing done for the sake of it with no clear motive and no genuine benefit to the image. It seems these days any average quality image with outrageous processing seems to get shed loads of views and 5 star ratings, and I'd be lying if I claimed to understand why.

On the general subject of things going downhill, what's going on with some of the images appearing in the Glamour section? I'll make no attempt to hide the fact I think that section is hugely tacky and cheapens the entire website, but some of the images there have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with aviation. Or glamour for that matter. I by no means intend any disrespect to anyone's family or friends who may be featured in such images, but what on earth does a middle aged lady wearing a coat standing in front of an aircraft so far out of the depth of field that it's barely recognisable have to do with aviation or glamour? Again, I don't get it!

I agree with Paul, the glamour section is not really in keeping with the credibility that this site should be striving for. We should not turn into either a soft porn site or a website that looks to be so desperate as to publish Auntie Betty standing beside what appears to be some random part of an aircraft.

Personally i think unless a line is drawn and a set of rules drawn up, these sort of things will get out of control, a little like the sky shot thing a while back.

I have to agree;

As gorgeous as this lady is, I think it's one for the personal album, not an Aviation Photography website with thousands of view per day.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/220182/private-aviation-glamour-model/

How much of "creative" are we talking. Once I tried uploading a "creative" picture, but it got rejected for being so. Later I saw a similar (composition wise) picture and it was apparently accepted...

Ordinary members are at the mercy of whomever the 'screener' is who is 'screening' their picture(s). There are no guidelines or set of rules between screeners as to what is creative, what is acceptable photoshopped images, what is 'sharp' or digitally noisy, or otherwise. Often I get the impression that if your picture is not liked, it will be rejected.

And another thing, some members have strong points of view and show 'character' on this site which some screeners don't like, which probably accounts for many rejected images. I suspect ordinary members are often wary to express negative views of how screeners treat their pictures, because it leads to their pictures being constantly rejected.

Put simply, if your picture is not liked by whomever is screening it, a whole host of reasons is put forward as to its unacceptability. Nevermind whether the reasons for rejection can withstand any analytical scrutiny.

My opinion and my submission:-

It's a website of airplane pictures, nothing more and nothing less. It therefor does not stop my enjoyment of taking photos of all and any kind. Some you win and some you lose. Acceptance or rejection on A-P, don't let it get to you, there is a big wide world out there, go and enjoy it.

Complete and utter rubbish Marius. After reading your post I took a look at your rejection history and there wasn't one that was rejected because a screener didn't like it. They were all rejected for valid reasons, over-sharpened, soft, dark etc. You even took onboard any advice the screeners gave you, fixed your images, resubmitted them and some were accepted.

I find it offensive that you suggest that we make up reasons to reject images.

So I'm at a loss to see how you could come up with this statement. I'll agree there are times that I come across an image that I don't like, it may be technically correct i.e. exposure, sharpness etc but I don't like the angle or the crop. That's what 2nd screening and even 3rd screening (in the case of an appeal) is for, so one screeners personal views can't be a reason for rejecting an image.

This post has been edited by Michael Carbery on 1st July 2012 - 10:49

Great defense for the screeners from a screener ... I did not expect anything else. The question is still .. what do you and all other screeners consider 'creative photography' Michael ??

You didn't expect any of us to respond to such a stupid and ridiculous comment? Excuses aren't made up to reject photos. There are times when an image clashes with a personal view and as I said that's where 2nd and 3rd screeners come in.

The question still stands Michael ! What do you and all other screeners consider "Creative Photography" ??

I'm surprised noone involved in A-P has responded to this question, obviously not in agreement to our comments.

Well, then let me put it quite simple. i accept or reject an image only based upon technical issues like lack of sharpness, digital noise, blurry, over sharpened etc. On the other hand though, there are examples of images that will be even better (to my personal opinion that is) when cropped or composed slightly better. The only thing you can do at that point is giving some advice of how else the image can be approached. It´s up to the photographer then if he/she really wants to do something with that advise, cause that´s all about a matter of taste of course.....but simply say that screeners will randomly accept or reject images, because they don´t like, or do like the image, or like or don´t like the person in question, certainly is not the way i do screening here.....

Michael, screeners do and have sent comments with rejections like "not my cup of tea", which proves beyond any doubt there's a large element of personal opinion in how people screen. By the site's own admission there are no screening guidelines as such so how can you say Marius' observation is utter rubbish?

Incidentally, Marius' original post was infinitely more respectful than your following replies. It's extremely disappointing to see crew members responding in such a way.

As a moderator, I have been following this thread and so far have kept out of it, until now.

I would agree and have long argued for a set of standards or references be available to screeners to base their judgements upon.

There are not that many screeners around at the moment, it is being left to a few doing a lot of work and much to my shame I am not doing much screening myself as I seem to spend my time on database maintenance.

There are far too many instances of the Wow factor influencing our opinions, the knee-jerk five star ratings against banal images typify this. I too have suffered from this, it is far too easy to be seduced by what looks like a good picture, and it may be a strong visual picture that technically falls far short of site standards. We as photographers are all too easily influenced by the merits of our own work that we do not see the flaws. "I love it no matter what" kind of thing.

Glamour is extremely subjective, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder, we try to think as openly as possible about this, personally there are photos that are merely snaps taken at airports, some are genuine attempts to try something different. Try not to compare all the images in the Glamour section against Coyotaks. Everyone has to start somewhere!

AP is unique in this aspect of aviation photography. personally it never fails to amuse me that the members faithfully submit the minutest trivia about the aircraft in a Glamour photo and forget what the true subject of the photo was... and in case that point went over your head, girls don't come with registrations or serials!

I have never seen it, so far but just how does one screen a glamour photo of a male, again beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we do live in changing times...

As a screener and I and vouch for Michael on this as well, there is nothing more personally depressing then having to reject photo after photo from a member, we certainly gain no pleasure whatsoever from that.

The bottom line is Quality.

AP is not somewhere to host your photos, or somewhere to "card-dump" images, that's what Flickr and Photobucket and the like are for, AP is all about Quality images, pure and simple. That's what we want and that's what we encourage.

Sorry you feel that way Paul but I certainly don't make any apologies for my posts. If Marius has based his comment on anything other than his own rejected images then I will certainly apologise. I just think that accusing screeners of making up reasons to reject an image is out of line.

I have to agree with Darryl and Paul here 100%. I also have to state my feeling that the "Full Member" entitlement to non screening goes completely out the window when I see these uploaded....

The worst red colour cast ever seen !

A deleted sky and flood filled sky colour, massive contrast issues, huge image manipulation.

...yet this image of mine, currently under appeal was rejected as dark, despite unarguable histogram evidence to the contrary, and not in focus.

I thought we were having screening and quality inconsistencies over at www.jetphotos.net .... but they seem to be worse here ? Very disappointing as I had high hopes of this site when I first came here.

No need to be sorry for me, Michael, I can only speak from what I see and of the two people whose comments I've read yours are by far the least helpful and least constructive. Even if Marius was talking about his own rejections what do you expect people to base their opinions on beyond their own experience?

As a crew member and a representative of the site personally I'd like to see a less emotive and more respectful response.

In my post above I mentioned jetphotos.net and most people here are probably aware that I have been a screener there for some 3 years now. Over there we screen to a set of rules. Yes, they can be bent a little but if I see something that looks visually wrong then I can use inbuilt screening tools such as the histogram for contrast and exposure, a centreing grid, a magnifying glass for manipulation detection, an equalisation screen for spots and manipulation (equalise the Skycrane shot and you will see the massive manipulation used).

What we don't do is reject, in the absence of any obvious faults, because "it's not my cup of tea". That is totally unfair, unreasonable and insulting to the photographer.

Airplane-Pictures needs to develop a set of specific guidelines to work within, supply some screening tools if you don't already and remove personal taste from the screening process. The Air Malta shot of mine carried a comment, "yes, it looks dark on my screen" from a screener. Sorry sir, I would politely suggest that it looks like your screen needs some calibration and possibly a view angle check.

For anyone interested here is a link to a very good piece of free-to-use software that will assist in doing just that, among other things... http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/viewing_angle.php

I think once your a full member it's so easy to upload a so called creative shot regardless how tacky it looks and get away with it because there are no quality guidelines for manipulated photos in place like there is for normal photos.

And Wallace beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but if a website is promoting a section for peoples enjoyment, with the greatest respect people don't want to look at photos of someones granny , etc, they want skantily clad women, or classy models, I certainly would

.

This post has been edited by Lloyd H on 2nd July 2012 - 00:40

Brian, I also have personal reservations but I will comment on another Members output on a open forum and nor should anyone else.

There are two types of photographer, one that captures what is there, the other that captures what they would like to be there. Both are art, both are subjective and both are emotive

Ultimately if a Full Member has becomes out of control then something is be done about it. I know of two that have been demoted to the ranks because of a lack of a consistent quality. Until that point is reached a Full member is free to upload what they think is right.

The set of tools that JP possesses is impressive and worth having, my own screening workflow is to copy the image into Photoshop as an equalised image and then make a set of decisions depending on the image but as a minimum I open up Levels as the Histogram is a good indication of the presence of clipped tones and over sharpening, or not. Not all screeners do this, I like it because it slows me down, it is all too easy to make a snap decision, which may be a wrong one.

=====================================================================

It took me a while to realise this and I would like to explain something to readers of this thread. This is not my site, it's not your site, it's not our site, it's Martin's site. It is he that makes the rules, it is he that has the final say and it is he that funds the site. In every respect, it is he that pays the piper and he calls the tune.

So we can suggest items on how to make the site better but ultimately we operate to his rules. It is all too easy, especially as a Member to get personally involved, so until we get a specific set of instructions from the Boss then all a screener can do is operate within the existing rules, which are fairly loose. As someone who has been with AP since the beginning I can say that this loose structure was a deliberate attempt to be different from the existing on-line aviation photo databases..

"Airplane-Pictures needs to develop a set of specific guidelines to work within"

I have to agree with Brian on this one, the only rules on uploading were on the uploading page and were these three:

Only submit your best images.

Interesting shots (in terms of aesthetic quality, rare planes, newsworthy shots) are easier to get accepted. Common photos of common aircraft might not be accepted. Also standard "plane in blue sky" type of images may be rejected.

Think different photos are welcome!

They are good rules but they do seem loose. Over the few days I've noticed a lot more sky-shots entering the database, aren't these normally rejected for normal members but for full members they can upload them without rejection? I think that full members should follow the same rules as normal members just so its fair for all parties.

I have no intention to denigrate a particular individual, I am simply trying to identify a processing issue, but when it comes to the skycrane image check it against this one...

Both were taken about the same time, probably within a split second of each other. I can't be absolutely certain on that as P-P don't include a full EXIF but looking at the hose shape I don't think I'm far wrong.

Apart from being incredibly similar in angle of shot do the crew of P-P really believe that this is an acceptable use of Full Member status and an acceptable use of massive manipulation of an image ?

My opinion:

There are no strict guidlines so you can expect everything; over-processing, style processing, composite images, unsharp, grainy and even full members uploading crap. Set clear and specific rules to end what Darryl is noticeing and make sure only "real life" post-processing is accepted. That will trigger the creative side of photography on this site, which i think will lift it up to a higher level of quality because now it is looking more and more like a circus.

Also change the Full Member rule for not being screened. It will make sure only quality is uploaded and therefor no-one can point their finger in that direction. How an image could be cropped or taken is purely a personal decision of the maker and therefor can not be a reason to reject a picture.

Only setting clear rules will make that difference. But there is the problem, creative photography is a very loose defenition and can be interpreted in many ways.

To eliminate discussions you should keep it like i stated above, only real-life processing and no technical flaws (adjusting the screening proces is needed cause it is much too inconsitent at the moment) to make sure quality keeps a certain level.

Another way of dealing with that problem is making a "Photoshopped" section for those who want to upload their over-processed etc etc shots. Just my 2 cents.

Andreas Brandligt said... [QUOTE]Another way of dealing with that problem is making a "Photoshopped" section for those who want to upload their over-processed etc etc shots. Just my 2 cents.[/QUOTE]

Now that could be a good idea. A-P has the "Glamour" section, why not a specific section for.....ummmm......shall I say "Extended" processing ?

Perhaps ...Xtreme Processing ??

Surely what your all going on about is what sets this site apart from others such as Airliners?

Personally I'd like to see it stay the same, everyone has their own opinions on editing so not everyone is going to agree.

The lack of overly stringent guidelines is what sets this site apart from the likes of Airliners and jetphotos although I must admit that over recent times the push towards high quality over a technically good or unique shot is becoming more and more apparent, I regularly accept images that have been flagged up for appearing too soft or 0.5 deg out for level etc,minor faults that initially would not have been an issue. My personal bugbear is dust spots and side-on sky shots of airliners and I will reject outright a shot with a dust spot visible or a side-on of an airliner. We all have different monitors and differing calibration methods,even differing brightness settings which all affect the screening process, I for example have a 17in clearbrite screen on my laptop which I use for screening it has served me well with over 500 images accepted on Airliners. It is calibrated regularly and my brightness setting is set to 2 steps down from max,I am not aware of how other screeners have their monitors set up. Screeners are selected for consistency from images uploaded not from any qualifications in photography. This is why we have 1st,2nd screening and the appeal process. If you disagree with us use the appeal process,its not as if its going to take 7-10 days to get an answer!

Creative photography is in the eye of the beholder and no 2 people will have the same opinion on certain types of shot,I for example am not too keen on HDR manipulation although I can see its place and some examples can be stunning,for me it has to work and if it doesn't I will often use the comment 'not my cup of tea' and pass it on,if i am 2nd screening a shot like this that has already been passed on i will invariable accept it. We can sit here all day and ask what is a 'creative shot' but we would get differing responses from everybody but there are enough 'different' images in this database which the other sites wouldn't even contemplate for users to see what works for us and is acceptable.

I think that we all get het up with not having images accepted for one reason or another and it is even more annoying when we see an image from a FM uploaded that isn't consistent with the normal upload process. All i can say is that we do have regular checks and discussions within the screening team with regard to FM uploads and take action where necessary. maybe I am too laidback but it is very rare for a shot to be rejected on this site that would subsequently be accepted on A.net or Jp and even if it had been,really,what is the big deal! We do our best and always will do so to be consistent,fair and provide advice where necessary,it aint the end of the world to have an image rejected!

Sorry,would continue just now but gotta get back to work, i will check in later and respond to further posts.

Andy

Art is subjective! I loved Angelo's KLM but I must agree it is very overprocessed and a lot of people won't like it. I am not a fan of Vincent Van Gogh's paintings, but I must agree that he has great technique and an unique talent to say the least.

Every screener is different from the other and imcompatibilities will happen. Some screeners tend to be more harsh with some issues than others, causing what we have been calling "double standarts". Some will reject a lot for let's say a color cast and not look much into exposure (just an example) and other will be more harsh about exposure (another example) and not even look at color cast.

One suggestion: Photos should not be rejected at first screening, unless it is, let's say, a photo taken at night, with a compact camera, of a moving airplane.

APnet is very understaffed for sure, but nothing compares to JetPhotos where we must wait about 20 days. They also have much more work (The queue is usually between 15k and 20k photos).

The whole idea of APnet is to let loose on the "ART" part of the aviation photography. Some may exagerate with their powers, but in the end of the day the great majority of the photos are well into the spirit of the site. That is why I brought a lot of people to upload here their most creative shots.

I do not beleive screeners put KKK hats before screening, but it is a fact one will have more issues with certain screener(s) than with others. However, quite a few times I wanted to kill someone (hehehe) the screener liked the photo, knew how to improve it, even offered help and made suggestions that improved the photo a lot. And from that I learned and improved my skills. Others are more blunt and some will prefer that.

Each site has its advantages: Here we have the possibility of crazy creations and compositions, Airliners have way too many rules but generate views and exposure of the photo and JetPhotos is half way in between.

Some photos have no aviation to it (I recently rated 5 stars a photo that I loved but failed to find and airport or airplane on it, still I loved it) and that should also have a separate section, along with another separate section for composite images.

In the end of the day it is Martin's call and even though nobody is perfect, I beleive AP has done a great job so far.

One last question: For the love of God, how do I turn off automatic e-mails everytime some replies to this thread?

Cheers!

Renato

Subjectivity is the exact problem. With all due respect ....There is a huge difference between a van Gogh and a Picasso. By calling the site Airplane Pictures ... I would assume that at least the airplane part will play a significant role. I as photographer would like to know where I stand with the creativity.... as I would hate for anyone to judge my van Gogh based on Picasso rules or visa versa.

With the greatest respect to Fyodor Borisov, what exactly does this have to do with aviation?

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/222695/russia-air-force-kamov-ka-52-alligator/

Exactly Robert. Like I said, there should be a separate db for some great shots that airplanes or airports are hardly seen. And another one for composite and only maybe extreme processing , since that would be hard to judge and the ultimate subjectiveness of all...

Fyodor is for sure one of the best aviation photographers I have heard off. I admire a lot his work, but I think this photo (which is great, creative and perfectly edited) should be catalogued as Glamour and not main database. But that is just a humble opinion of a contributor to the site.

But what's glamourous about it? This is exactly where problems arise; I'm not trying to take anything away from Fyodor as a photographer but this simply isn't glamourous, nor is it a photo of a plane or airport so why is it on an aviation photography site?

Well, There is a pretty girl on it...

Which automatically qualifies it for inclusion? It's a snapshot of 2 people who are clearly knackered and probably didn't want their photo taken anyway, it's hardly a carefully considered and executed portrait.

If I go out into the street and take a random shot of a woman with a contrail vaguely in the back of the frame somewhere would that also qualify for inclusion in the database? Of course not, but I don't see a significant difference in principle between that and this image here.

Fact is, the photo is there in the main database and in my oppinion was wrongly catalogued. I am nowhere in a position to judge what should and should not be accepted as I am just a simple member and not an Editor or Full Member. If you ask me if that photo was mine I would have uploaded, my answer is no, but taste and art are subjective.

wheres the motive for this one, could be anywhere with a camera, not really creative

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/222020/airport-overview-airport-overview-photography-location/

Renato, with respect I'm not asking you, I'd like to see some opinions from the crew as to the direction A-P is moving in with regard to what is and isn't acceptable.

I'm asking because, while not a regular contributor to the site, I still don't really want my images displayed next to a random snapshot of random people with an out of focus plane vaguely in the background.

Darryl, exactly my point. This kind of shot belongs on Flickr and Facebook, not on a self-respecting aviation photography site with self-respecting photographers!

People are just jumping on the creative bandwagon because they think it suits their own personal taste but not because it fits in with the site

Exactly. You can't take a photo lacking in quality or a clear motive and just pass it off as creative, then say art is subjective, it doesn't work like that. We have a sarcastic saying in music -it's not a wrong note, it's just jazz- the implication being someone plays a note that's wrong and will never, ever, under any circumstances be right, then tries to basically say it was correct but no-one understands it. This is exactly the same idea.

The motive in the images in question by Darryl and myself isn't subjective, it's there for all to see and that motive clearly isn't the plane and it clearly isn't a glamourous lady. A snapshot of random people can't be called glamour, or art, or creative, or anything else other than a snapshot of random people. This isn't subjective because it isn't art!

This post has been edited by Paul Nichols on 2nd July 2012 - 21:18

@Paul - Oh ok, sorry. I thought you had asked me hehehehe

@ Darryl - When I first saw it, Darryl, I failed to recognize anything that looked like a runway or airplane, but then I saw that was taken on what seems to be a small airport in Belgium. I figured the grass behind them was the runway.

I loved the shot, even rated 5 stars, but I knew the momment I saw it that would be a polemic one. I would not have uploaded something like that and don't fully understand the motive of that being here (even though I guesses that was a runway), but, regarless, I enjoyed the shot instantly.

@Everybody - I don't mean to be polemic or anything. It was just my humble oppinion. =D

Screening FMs output would be an insult to the FM and a disincentive for anyone to attain FM status.

Renato, the short answer to your question is a message rule on you e-mail program ;)

PERSONALLY - I believe that between Airliners and JetPhotos (and others) they have ruined aviation photography in general.

Whether you realise it or not, they have imposed an unnatural set of standards upon the whole community of what is and is not acceptable. It has poisoned minds and killed a lot of creativity in so many photographers with their inane sets of rules and I believe that it is the influence of those sets of rules that has caused this whole debate on what is and is not an acceptable picture of an aeroplane on AP.

If you want to see conservative images then AP is probably not the place to see them. What AP offers you, the photographer, is the opportunity to let your creative juices flow - you are not forced to close crop and center an image here, you can compose a photograph the way you want to, you can clone an object out of a picture if you think it necessary, you can make composite images and if you think that we have lost touch with your idea of reality then you are certainly not forced to upload your pictures to AP!

What AP offers you is the opportunity to be a photographer and not merely someone that takes pictures of aircraft, that's what makes creative photography.

All that is asked of the photographer is that they should upload good quality images and try and expect a rejection if you submit a banal skyshot.

Wallace, we're not talking about A.Net or JP, we're talking about this site. Other sites can accept and reject whatever they wish, let's stick to discussing A-P rather than your *opinions* on how other sites have ruined aviation photography in general.

Admin please try and set a standard on your website as im afraid the way its going A-P is going to turn into a laughing stock. It used to be a good place to upload photos from where photos were a pleasure to view, but now some of them are just tastless and tacky and just dont fit in with the site. Some of the photos have no motive and are not even related to aviation, the aviation glamour is turning out to be a place where people post photos of women that have none or hardly any glamour and is fast losing its identity as an aviation glamour section.

As i said before people are just jumping on the creative bandwagon because they think it suits their own personal taste but not because it fits in with the site and uploading any old rubbish because they think it looks good but the problem is half the screeners are accepting these photos which doesnt help the cause.

I could carry on and mention a whole load more but i wont bore anybody anymore with it, but if it continues like this i am considering the future of my photos on here. Sorry to launch a scathing attack but things need addressing

This post has been edited by Darryl Morrell on 2nd July 2012 - 21:31

Darryl's pretty much summed up my thoughts. It seems as though people have gradually been uploading more and more borderline images with regard to motive and no-one on the site has really been keeping track of it, so now we're seeing many more images with somewhat vague motives than we did a couple of years ago.

I'll second Darryl's plea for some kind of standard to be set because as I mentioned earlier, and again, with respect to Fyodor, I don't really want my images displayed alongside random snapshots like this:

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/222728/50-russia-air-force-beriev-a-50/

What you suggest is a set of rules on how to take photographs for AP. There are enough of those as it is out there as it is real or implied, which was my point..

AP is supposed to be different, lets not try and make it the same.

No one is forced to look at any image they do not want to. Others may not think the same way as you do and may even find such pictures interesting.

As for the Glamour, Let's not even think of telling someone that their model, wife, girlfriend is not good enough to be considered glamorous, that's why such photos do not get rejected

That image is on my round to it list, Is it a photo of a Be50?

No, it will be changed soon.

No, Wallace, I'm not in any way suggesting a set of "rules on how to take photographs for AP". I didn't even vaguely imply that so I have no idea what drew you to that wildly inaccurate conclusion, and if people are taking photos specifically for A-P then I'd respectfully recommend a slight change of outlook. What I am suggesting is a clearer guideline on what does and doesn't constitute an aviation-related image because it's clear that a good few members aren't quite clear on it.

As for not telling people their model/wife/whatever isn't glamourous and that's the reason for not rejecting photos, what you're essentially saying is that you accept any image that has a person in it for reasons of political correctness. I've never read such a profoundly puzzling statement in all my time on aviation photography sites.

This post has been edited by Paul Nichols on 2nd July 2012 - 22:23

Wallace photos of peoples wives, girlfriends, models etc wouldnt get rejected if there was a standard set in the first place. The site can have what it likes uploaded to it as far as im concerned by all im commenting on and asking for is a standard to be set before it does get out of control. If it keeps going the way it is it will start to look like flickr where anything and everything can be uploaded and A-Ps identity will be gone

This post has been edited by Darryl Morrell on 2nd July 2012 - 22:29

Brian..........funny how an image that you flagged up for having a supposed inconsistency,ie red colour cast is now a screeners choice image on jetphotos!! I do believe that Angelo uses a Nikon 800 and processes using Nikon Capture.The second shot is creative,subjective in my opinion but again looks good to me,I screened neither btw.

Your image appears soft along the back of the aircraft and certainly around the registration and rear door. Did you use centre point autofocus? The centre titles look almost oversharp whereas the front title looks soft.

Andy

Define Creative Photography.

Why don't you and anyone else who believes that Creative Photography has become out of control on AP actually start by including some actual examples of what is and is not creative.

Lay down the rules for us all to follow.

Andy, every aviation photography site on the net that screens images has an inherent degree of inconsistency (and that includes the one I co-own and run). The fact that image is now on JP doesn't in any way invalidate Brian's point, all it proves is that more can be done to try improve consistency.

Again, we have a crew member straying from the point of discussing THIS site and moving onto discussing others. Forget JP, A.Net and the rest of them and stick to talking about Airplane-Pictures.

Wallace, you know as well as I do it's impossible to create rules in an analytical way and the fact you've said such a ridiculous thing is nothing more than a spectacular example of being evasive. If you're willing to constructively and realistically discuss what we're actually talking about then let's continue, but if you're going to evade the point by setting impossible tasks then we may as well end right now.

If you actually understood what creativity is then you'd be doing what any decent crew member on a website should do and you'd be leading by example.

I was using that image to prove a point!

We at A-P strive to accept images out of the ordinary,different,even composites or HDR that look or appear creative, whilst also accepting run of the mill images of good quality,examples of which would be Darryl's,technically perfect but not exactly creative!

The glamour section is under discussion and will hopefully result in some swift changes.

Creativity is very subjective and it is surprising what the photo agencies will use to depict a specific storyline and I will sometimes use this means of thining when screening a 'creative' image. The image of the 2 photographers at Florennes,I could quite easily see in some kind of publicity material for the event.

That's a standard stock crew reply that doesn't really contribute anything, Andy. My question is can creativity being subjective really be used in every situation? As a photographer of many different subjects (not just planes) I genuinely don't believe there's anything whatsoever creative about a snapshot of a random person standing next to a plane. Creativity has reason, it has expression, it has depth; where are these attributes in a random snap of someone?

Andy with the greatest respect towards your post, you said we strive to accept different types of photos, composite and HDR photos, as i said before i couldnt care less what was uploaded, but ill say it again because the question hasnt been dealt with is that a standard of quality has to be put on these photos. For such a long time A-P continuously complained about sky shots and in the end a standard was met and you hardly see them anymore, surely the same standard can be brought in to control the quality of the so called creative photos uploaded.

Interesting topic. Pitty I've missed start of it - I was on holidays in Finland. After I've read the thread I was a bit afraid to disturb Paul and Darryl in their mutual friendly talk. But Wallace has brought some disbalance :) to the almost done conclusions and 'with the respect to Fyodor' was said so many times that I decided it would be impolite no to correcpond this respect.

Briefly, point by point.

"what exactly does this have to do with aviation?"

These are two MAKS volunteers in front of Ka-52 at the last day of the airshow. Could you please tell me what is not-aviation in this shot?

Brief comment (I always forget do it under the picture). MAKS09 wasn't very successful one. Better to say it was awful (Su27 crash, no real effect, tough organization etc.). Having this picture in last day I've got an excellent photo to discribe the event. My foul I didn't made this comment under the shot. But I thought it is quite self-talking.

You guys say you see nothing in many 'boderline' photos. That happens we can not see something. But is doesn't mean that this is doesn't exist. It can be just a matter of our eyes. Darryl, you blame many shots as taste-less. Accepted. As your perosnal and respected point of view. But I'm afraid that we both could have different tastes. What shall we do then? Bolivar cannot carry double?

I'm aviation media photographer - I might have a bit different view on aviation photography as classic spotters do. But I do not remeber a case I'd say 'side-shots are not creative and they have nothing to do here' (as I don't remember any other photogs would say this here or somethere else). I like side shots, do it myself sometimes even if I think in frame of Paul's music comparison that it is a bit like play scales. And jazz... People like good jazz and don't like bad. How to separate them? Trust people - they will vote with their feets, views, votes etc.

"but if it continues like this i am considering the future of my photos on here."

Not a long time ago I was blamed in mis-honest approach when I openly asked Darryl on his judgement on one of the photos. I still see nothing terrible with open discussions in artisitic society on judjements, valuatiuons etc. But I can't agree with your current statement, Darryl, sorry for that. Each of us has a right to leave the site and it is clear that if surrounding is not satisfied you - you are going away. But it is not a reason to speculate on this and make conditions. Saying like this you seems point yourself higher then others. Many of local guys are good professional photogs and we are all equal and do not demand from each other what they don't like. This is example of respect btw, as we use this word often.

Sorry, Fyodor, I read to "mutually friendly talk" and totally lost interest in your post.

Your right...

That was a joke actually, I even made smiles there. But - up to you indeed.

This post has been edited by Fyodor Borisov on 3rd July 2012 - 01:34

"it is surprising what the photo agencies will use to depict a specific storyline"

This is exatly true and your approach is very right. And it is not surprising. :) I think AP could be more popular among photo buyers when Anet nowdays. ;)

This post has been edited by Fyodor Borisov on 3rd July 2012 - 01:49

Fyodor, the smiley was in a different sentence to the reference to myself and Darryl so my apologies if I took it wrongly, I just read it as it appeared.

I'll have a read through tomorrow, too knackered to think now and need sleep! :)

English is not my strong side I put smiley in the logic end of the joke ;) Might I need to use it twice. :)

Good morning from Russia and have a nice sleep :)

Gentlemen, I was intent to sit on the sidelines but if you (Brian Whitlegg) are going to post compare/contrast photos of MINE, it is only just that I weigh in on this debate, don't you think?

CREATIVE aviation PHOTOGRAPHY

Creative - Relating to or involving the IMAGINATION or original ideas, esp. in the PRODUCTION of an ARTISTIC work

Photography - The ART or PROCESS of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface.

My thanks to Merriam-Webster for the above to definitions

Brian and others....you may note that it does NOT say "The process of a balanced histogram". It also does not say "To align your subject perpendicular to the camera and take another boring shot".

I said it before and I will say it again, this site SEPARATES itself from airliners and jet photos in that it allows US to be creative. Obviously by many photos on here (including some of mine) Creativity is not mandatory. Also, we all know that creativity is subjective.

That being said, I EARNED the honor of a full membership because I met the standards set forth regarding eye-catchers. I did not vote, I did not screen, I simply shot, edited and submitted. I was granted with the honor of full membership and to this day I will stand behind all of my photos as meeting MY subjective standards for creativity and quality. If you Brian, or anybody else, disagrees...well...that is your right. If I am not meeting the standards on AP.NET I would fully expect to be notified by Tony, But to showcase my photos as some sort of litmus test for what YOU think is wrong is unacceptable. Quick question Brian, I noticed you did not respond to Renato pointing out that the KLM photo not only was accepted at JP.net where YOU are a screener, but is a screeners choice, people's choice, top photo getting nearly 15,000 views in 4 days. Care to explain that one?

Perhaps you are unaware that Colorado skies are full of smoke as a result of the worst forest fires in our state's history. This smoke is white by the way. Did you also know that there is a several hundred pound piece of concrete at the end of the Sikorsky Skycrane's hose that holds the hose in that position when in flight? Here's a bit of trivia for you too...sunsets in New York can be really spectacular! When you get that orange/red ball of fire splashing horizontal light on gray concrete or the white underbellies of KLM airplanes it really brings out the red!!!

I suppose the fact that the 777 photo has drawn some ire on here and JP.NET, maybe I will petition the Louvre for a new "aviation" section so I can submit it since it's so famous now.

Submitted with a higher level of respect than you have afforded me,

Angelo Bufalino

(or should I call myself - Angelo the Abuser of Post Processing)

Angelo, you just found a great way to define what this is all about and it was just as simple as opening a dictionary and copying the definition.

I don't care if you overprocess the photo according to "normal standarts" or if the histogram does not seem to be balanced. They look great! It pleases me to see the result.

Brian said on the comments there on JP he would have rejected and that it had a red cast (I don't remember the rest and this is just a mere example). He has that right, but it did not fall into his eyes when screening and someone liked it and awarded you. Like I said up there, Art is very subjective. Brian has some amazing shots that I love as well, but each one has its own style and its own standarts.

Here in Brazil when among friends we say that a photo of classic heathrow angle skyshot is a "Darryl Morrell Shot"; When someone edits the photo like I did that TAM A321 cockpit its is called "Angelo Bufalino Style" and when we go take nightshots we say "It's time to be Ronald J Stella" and when someone manages a razor sharp photo we may say hmmm you are editing just as good as Danijel Jovanović. I just wish my photos looked just as good as the examples above hehehehehehe but still when someone has a very particular style, it stands out.

Brian, I don't think your photo in appeal is dark, but then again, I like darker photos and I liked it. And you are also a great guy that helped me a lot.

With the explanation Fyodor gave us here in the forum, I now think that was an amazing shot and it pictures perfectly the frustratiuon of the guy, an out of focus plane which tells a story... I remember a discussion about his eyecatcher of the people leaving the Luftanhsa plane. I like it but did not understand until he explained. My suggestion is that sometimes to make a photo great, the viewer needs a remark to fully understand it. Sometimes that is not necessary.

In a nutshell, I just love to see each and every one of the photos, I like to comment, to read the remarks, to give stars (I wish I had 50 a day) and to learn from each style and try to do better the next time. I have been spotting for less than one year, touched photoshop for the first tim ein my life 9 months ago and learned the basics on how to photograph and use a DSLR camera just a few months before that, so I still have a lot to learn and a lot of the guys here are inspirations. Each on its own style.

I suggest we leave each one to its own art and its own style.

Cheers!

Renato

But Angelo, don't you think some photographers are being a bit too creative? I'm just curious. Because I see some pictures that should have been rejected for being over-processed, but they get accepted, let alone top of the 24hours AND eye-catchers.

Brian..........funny how an image that you flagged up for having a supposed inconsistency,ie red colour cast is now a screeners choice image on jetphotos!! I do believe that Angelo uses a Nikon 800 and processes using Nikon Capture.The second shot is creative,subjective in my opinion but again looks good to me........Andy

I wondered when someone would pick up on the J P Screeners' choice. ;-)

That particular issue has created a crew forum posting that must be damn near as long as as this one, and is equally emotive. The screener concerned has looked back on his choice and now agrees that he was wrong.

The point being that JP is aimed at the aviation database market and not the "creative" market, one of the jreasons why JP accept sky shots and don't (normally) accept extreme manipulation.

Renato Serra Fonseca (can I just call you Renato please ? Your full name is an awfully big mouthful LOL) is one of the contributors here who has caught on to the above and uploads excellent shots to JP that meet their criteria......and uploads equally excellent shots here at A- P that meet their criteria.

To Angelo..... My apologies for seeming to attack YOU personally. That was not my intention. My intention was to point out the massive manipulation methods used and the fact that the no-screening granted to full members is often abused where non full members get entirely reasonable pictures rejected. If my appealed image doesn't get accepted then so be it, life goes on. I won't reprocess because to me it will look wrong. I have however reprocessed an Emirates 777 where actually I agreed with the screeners rejection in retrospect.

Angelo, my apologies if I have seemingly disrespected you personally. It was the style, not the person that I was commenting on.

Brian,

If the screener at JP.Net has rescinded their previous decision I request an email stating so. Remember more than one screener also awarded a screeners choice as well. If I receive confirmation that the photo was mistakingly approved, I will remove that photo from the site. I personally am not enamored with "views" and "badges". It is far more rewarding to produce a photo that "affects" somebody positively. Renato said that some of my photos inspired him to refer to the style as "Angelo Bufalino Style". To have impressed one person positively makes it personally gratifying.

Spirited discussion is great but what irked me is the discussion went from "some people upload..blah blah blah" and the only examples belonged to me.

Again, nearly 15,000 views in 4 days with screeners choice awards (more than one btw) and 10/15 folks left positive comments with peoples

Choice awards as well, the photo would appear to be pretty popular...maybe the question JP.net and its screeners need to ask themselves is if its perhaps time to evolve into the 21st century. I mean, if we are really going to be purists maybe we should go back to Nikon F1's and dark rooms.

My participation in this debate is being put to bed as far as I am concerned. Carry on gents.

Angelo, you may have earned the honour of being a full member but you're by no means the only person here to have done so. Both myself and Darryl are also full members but that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic we're discussing.

None of the images highlighted in this thread have been posted with any malice towards anyone personally, they're purely there as examples so those of us getting slightly puzzled about what the site wants can clarify things. Why do people *have* to take things so personally rather than simply discussing the topic at hand?

Fyodor,

Now I've slept I'll reply! :P

Please allow me to explain my point relating to your image of the volunteers in a little more depth. I used that as an example because, ostensibly, it's a shot of random people with the aircraft out of focus in the background and no direct clear aviation motive. There's no comment explaining they're volunteers; in fact the comment relates to the aircraft rather than the people so the actual motive isn't clear. Had there been a comment something along the lines of 'tired MAKS volunteers take a well earned break next to a Ka52 Alligator of the Russian Air Force' then your intent and motive would have been obvious, but in the absence of such an explanation my little brain found it a somewhat confusing. :)

Taking people's comments so far on board the issue seems to be motives being unclear and perhaps the way A-P classifies images could be refined. Maybe rather than an Airport Overview category where the subject is actually people another category like Aviation - People or Aviation - Miscellaneous might work better?

This has been, still is, an important discussion on issues pertaining to members' interests as regards their involvement with A-P. It is gratifying to see that the ideals of free speech and equality is understood and well exercised on this Forum. Some 'home truths' have been told and also what may have been some sacro-sanct comfort zones, have been breached. And high time too.

Yes, A-P is the property of Martin Krupka and that is fully accepted and respected. Thank you Martin for providing the facilities this site offers.

However, it must also be said that without members and their contributions, all and every kind of contribution, there will be no site. The one needs the other in order to function and flourish.

I can only hope that the central issue here, "creative photography" and the many views expressed as to its definition and application on A-P, will be listened to and accepted as the legitimate concerns and opinions of members.

Sweeping it under the carpet and/or ignoring the elephant in the room will not suffice. The A-P team would be well advised to address and act upon issues raised by its members. Ignorance is not the way forward.

Here's wishing you all an 'eye-catcher' - the snap shot takers, amateurs, professionals and extreme photoshoppers.

Good Day Gentlemen.

Paul, it was not a stock response from a crew member,it was my personal view and I responded accordingly, only Martin can give you a definitive response.Reading Fyodor's response has maybe answered your query in relation to the specific image,unfortunately a comment was not added to the image to make the subject clear. Yes,creativity in my opinion can be subjective on every occasion and again this thread has proved the point and the numbers game with regards to views, in the majority of occasions also proves the point.

Darryl, as you already know or at least should be aware only Martin can give a definitive response and in my opinion the whole situation has arisen with the increased popularity of the site,new screeners and the strive to reach screening goals, I did express my concern with regard to this in another thread and unfortunately it appears that I and others had reason for concern.

Paul, it absolutely is relevant when more than one person is calling me out and insinuating that we change the "full member" privileges because they don't happen to like the photo, as evidenced by the quote below.

"I have to agree with Darryl and Paul here 100%. I also have to state my feeling that the "Full Member" entitlement to non screening goes completely out the window when I see these uploaded."

Just wanted to be sure you understand what I wrote. Nowhere did I insinuate I was the only Full Member. You made that one up.

Angelo, my comment you quote above refers to the fact the Air Malta shot that I had rejected would not even have been commented on had I uploaded it as a Full Member yet I and others see full members uploading similar and indeed worse images quite freely. Might I also point out that at no time have I suggested that full member status should be changed. That comment came along after I made mine.

I have to admit that personally I don't care for the Full Member ethos of this site in allowing unscreened uploads.....but it is part of the site and I happily accept that, just the same as I accept the rules of other sites. I also accept that I will never get the required "EyeCatchers" in the time frame required to gain Full Member status, mostly because I don't have the time or finances to travel around fervently taking pictures chasing a goal that frankly doesn't really matter a whole lot to me.

One thing that I flatly refuse to do is grotesquely overprocess an image to attain that goal. To my mind that is like deliberately overcooking a 4 foot wide pizza till it curls at the edges and then get the Tate Gallery to display it as a work of art.....when all is said and done....it's still just an overcooked pizza !!

Thanks, Brian. It means a lot to me what you said.

Thanks, Angelo. Your angles, your eye as a photographer and your art is a huge inspiration for me, but I extend that to most of the photographers on this site. Everyone has its strong point and I like to learn from those strong points and be inspired by them.

Wallace said...."PERSONALLY - I believe that between Airliners and JetPhotos (and others) they have ruined aviation photography in general.

Whether you realise it or not, they have imposed an unnatural set of standards upon the whole community of what is and is not acceptable. It has poisoned minds and killed a lot of creativity in so many photographers with their inane sets of rules and I believe that it is the influence of those sets of rules that has caused this whole debate on what is and is not an acceptable picture of an aeroplane on AP. "

..................................................

Unnatural !!! What the hell is "unnatural" about properly exposed, properly framed images ? What is "unnatural" about a pic of an aircraft set against a sky background. After all, the name "Aircraft" does tend to give a clue as to where they are found i.e. up in the sky.

What I do find unnatural is that A-P doesn't accept sky images, after all that is where our hobby subject spends at least half of its life !

..................................................

You later asked us to "Define Creative".

My idea of creative is finding a different view angle, using existing light and extreme weather conditions....maybe with a polarising filter to enhance skies and colours but not to change them to something different. Blurring backgrounds to bring an image into the eye, adjusting existing colours in a balanced manner, maybe using monochrome or sepia toning for historical interest. Using wideangle and fisheye lenses to create an impact image (but preferably no "banana bent" fuselages !!), Even solarising or posterising the content of an existing image. I even quite like some HDR images but they MUST be done sensibly and VERY few people can do that properly.....and last but not least, a nicely processed Infra Red image can work well on a monochrome military aircraft.

But what I DON'T consider to be creative is removing chunks of an image, flood filling skies with an unnatural and incorrect colour, adding colour casts that bear no relationship to the original, visually distorting an image until it becomes more like something from a futuristic movie.

Here's an example of my idea of creative. 5 or 6 different exposure levels, enhanced contrast in places, reduced in others. Quite a lot of the work came down to individual pixel level to ensure smooth transitions. All in all, about 3 hours work....and God knows how much experimentation leading up to the final image.......

Well ? ...... you did ask :-)

Angelo, I've tried to be respectful in my comments but sadly you seem to lack the ability to reciprocate that respect. Therefore I have no interest in conversing with you further.

Brian it took you 3 hours to edit that image?

I have followed with great interest this discussion, are not FM, I never will be but very humbly I believe that for some time, many screeners do not have very clear ideas. I think even I forsake this database, very sorry for my achievements to date.

Now who has refused a picture of me told me that it is a shame that I have frozen the wheel of a Mustang. This is rudeness and disrespect towards me.

I must not be ashamed of the shots that I do. If you do not like and do not want to publish the photograph are the most absurd excuses. Okay, no problem, I hope that your group of screeners have all the professional and fully calibrated monitor.

Think about this when you say it's dark or yellow or green.

Regards.

PS I never changed my way of working out the photos at 1024 px, I always have the same lens and the same camera but lately my pictures are suffering does not always sharp.

Maybe tastes have changed ......

Surely it is I'm wrong, but then why these photos are accepted in other DB (JP-A.Net)??

This post has been edited by Davide Olivati on 3rd July 2012 - 22:21

Attached photos:

I just read through the very interesting discussion above. Too many points have been raised, I will not be able to answer all of them, but I will try to touch at least the main ones.

Starting at the beginning, I believe that stating the creativity rules would kill the creativity. Creativity is about going beyond boundaries, it is about seeing things that others do not see. If you draw borders around some defined AP creativity box then the site will lose anything beyond that border. I believe losing creativity is worse than being inconsistent or than some laughing stock slipping into the DB.

I also think that the Full Membership concept is worth retaining without screening. Although it carries some negatives, they are outweighted by the freedom the FM's have. If you were an AP owner, would you want for example Steve Morris' photos to be screened and impose the site's point of view on his work or would you want him to show his personal view? There is no middle way, you either give FM's freedom or not.

Regarding inconsistencies in screening - from the photographer's point of view it is sometimes difficult to understand screener's point when dealing with rejected photos, but it is important to realize that AP screeners do not make an objective judgement on the photo, but they only decide whether they would publish it at AP - based on some quality guidelines for standard 'spotters' photos or based on their experience for any photo that is somehow 'different'. Some pictures may well be good in some respect, but we still may not accept them because they do not fit AP (I can think of skyshots being a good example of this). If you feel we have made a mistake (and we sometimes do), please appeal the photo. There are quite a lot of photos being appealed and approximately one third of these makes it back into the DB.

You also mentioned the screening tools (histogram for contrast and exposure, a centreing grid, a magnifying glass for manipulation detection, an equalisation screen for spots and manipulation). I am responsible for these not being available to the screeners, although there is a demand both from the photographers as well as from the screeners. Screeners would really like these to be included because it would make their work much easier, but... Is it really important whether the photo is 0.1 degrees off? Is it really important that the photo is a bit darker, when the mood is perfect? I would like to prevent the situation of not seeing the forest for the trees.

I may not be right in all my points, but I just wanted to explain the logic behind the AP approach. I hope at least some of it makes sense.

Martin

This post has been edited by Martin Krupka on 4th July 2012 - 00:23

Martin,

With all due respect !

Unfortunately for me also freedom does have it's limitations as it does not and should not allow any discrimination neither positive or negative. According to me also creativity has it's limitation based on the context it is being used in. As long as we are in any organized system box the out of the box thinking

will not be possible.....

Martin

Thank you for your objective and reasoned response on this issue.

It is a very welcome change to the one I received from Michael Carbery where he tells me in four words in his opening sentence that my point of view is "complete and utter rubbish". Straight talk I don't mind, but to brand a fellow member's opinion as "complete and utter rubbish" leaves the impression that this is also the way he screens photos.

I am happy to say that the content of your response has gone a long way in restoring my faith in the ethos of AP.

Kind regards and thank you again.

Marius

Marius, you complain about the four words I use about your post yet you used four paragraphs to ridicule every screen here. Double standards I think.

As for how I screen? I screen to accept all images not reject them. I don't look at an image and wonder 'now how can I reject this'. I very rarely reject an image on first screening, in most cases electing to ask for a second opinion because I feel every member is entitled to one. So I would say my screening is open and fair.

Brian it took you 3 hours to edit that image?

Yes. That includes starting over again several times as I wasn't getting what I wanted. The original was somewhat underexposed and at first I discarded any idea of using it. What made me try it was the sky colours which I thought could be processed to give the portent of the thunder to come ( it didn't come though in the end) and to darken the aircraft to silhouette ti give a thought of peaceful repose at the end of the day.

The most time consuming part was preventing the silhouette looking like a "glued on patch" as if from another frame so I worked with the clone tool, amongst others, set to two or three pixels to give a smooth but not soft edge transformation. It was important to me to end up with a visually believable, balanced overall exposure which I think I managed to achieve although there is actually probably a good five stop difference across the image. The layers facility was used several times during the processing.

This by the way is all from a single frame exposure.

Hi Martin,

Nice reply. I think you hit the nail on the head regarding creativity with your words "it is about seeing things that others do not see".

The point I have been trying to get across is that this does not to my mind include removing parts of images (i.e. sky removal and replace with flood fill colour), introducing inappropriate colour which does not visually blend into the theme and using these and other manipulations to disguise basic errors such as over sharpening which one of the images discussed in this thread suffers from.

Let me be quite clear about one thing here. I fully accept the workings of Airplane-Pictures and it's upload requirements and intend to work within them. In order to qualify for FM I fully accept that I have to meet certain criteria. That may or may not happen, either way life goes on !

All I (and a lot of others) ask in return is that thought be given to structuring the screening process because at the moment acceptance seems to be at the whim of an individual's opinion. It has been said here that one particular screener likes a darker image but others don't, so basically this means that the final decision is all down to which screener you get. When it comes to exposure and contrast the histogram 99% of the time gives the definitive answer. A dark, moody image if properly processed will still "pass the histogram test" if blacks are black and whites are white. If you only introduce just one screening tool then the Luminosity Histogram is the one to go for. Note that I quote the luminosity graph and not the RGB graph. Luminosity graph gives a much more accurate rendition of exposure and contrast.

Thanks for your time.

Martin said ....Starting at the beginning, I believe that stating the creativity rules would kill the creativity. Creativity is about going beyond boundaries, it is about seeing things that others do not see. If you draw borders around some defined AP creativity box then the site will lose anything beyond that border. I believe losing creativity is worse than being inconsistent or than some laughing stock slipping into the DB.

.................................................................................................................................................

Martin with the greatest of respect do you think by putting some sort of quality control as to what standard these sort of images can look like it would kill the creativity?...........wouldnt you like to have a site with creativity and quality?

I`m sorry but some of the grossly manipulated radioactive looking images uploaded spoil it for the genuine people who upload a a half decent creative photo and the quote you made about losing creativity above consistency will be the down fall of A-P if the quality continues to drop off as it is, because people are just going to see A-P as a site with no quality and one that accepts anything.

Darryl's absolutely right, creativity and quality should go hand in hand. Being creative and not having a clue about technical quality doesn't make you a great photographer.

I agree with Darryl, or simply change the name into "Creative Aviation Images".

@Brian....3 hours does seem a bit long...if you want, I could share my secret NIK software recipe with you to make that photo "pop"! Ha!

In all seriousness I think we ALL agree that it is our passion for creative aviation photography (and that includes post-processing) that has brought us here. It would be unrealistic to think we will all share one another's interpretation of what creative is. It would be a very realistic expectation that we respect one another's work and effort put forth in delivering what each of us deems "worthy".

Whether it be Darryl's patented sunset LHR shot from his favorite spot (technically magnificent), Renato's South American vibe, or Fred's Caribbean blue arrivals, we are all out there, camera in hand trying to capture what we think is "worthy". If we move toward narrowing our creative juices this website will morph into just another airplane photo site. Creativity is what sets this place apart from the rest.

I feel for the folks that are trying to become full members and agree, it's a challenge to win the label in the timeframe allowed but that should motivate you to push your limits.

Respect to all,

Angelo

IMO, and that's all it is, if A-P.net had stuck to its guns from its birth, ie to be the definitive website hosting artful/different thinking photographs, then the rules would've been set out a long time ago. People wouldn't have been able to upload half of the stuff seen here today of which everyone here is guilty of. I have chosen to take a break from uploading to ALL sites lately (I'll be back though), it's just a shame the one I really had my money on (this one!) turned out to be basically the same as the others.

Spence

First of all, Just because theres a few "over processed shots" doesnt mean it ruins the website. Yes there has been quite a few lately, but to be honest the site would be boring without people getting a little creative. I have no interest in going to airliners.net and just looking at side-on shots, because theres was no effort in making the shot at all intersting.  So if you go and limit a couple people's creativity, your putting a damper on the whole site. Secondly, people shouldnt be picking on a couple over processed photos when the site has totaly lost value with avaition glamour. I mean what has this come to! And further more it sucks! I know you guys in Europe have different veiws on "attractive" women, but most of them are on the other side of the scale for American standards. So if your gonna keep this hideuos aviation glamour section, at least put some restrictions to get some decent photos in there and stop picking on a couple creative shots. Creativness is in the eyes of the beholder. Dont limit that. 

Paul,

"Maybe rather than an Airport Overview category where the subject is actually people another category like Aviation - People or Aviation - Miscellaneous might work better? "

That is very technical issue and yes it could help. I also agree with quality requirements (but it has not to include somebody's understanding of quality like comments 'depth of field is wrong' - depth of field is the instrument of photog). But if I correctly understand you and Darryl - you are principally against of some of motives and want to limit photogs in their arts. Again - if so - I can't agree with you. Why me, you or Darryl should decide what people can make in aviation photography and what they don't, what they are allowed to see and what is impropriety? And why it is a problem at all? You don't like image? Don't watch it! If this image is poor - everybody will join you and photo will dissapiar among hunders of others.

I see no reason to aware of images you don't like and I see reason to be aware of comments to restrict photos for motives coming from very personal priorities. That were the times when there were discussions on A.Net and I remember well a lot of messages like your or Darryl's. Now we have no discussions there but almost no creative shots as well. Thats their choice. AP is CREATIVE photography site. Thats why many photogs are here. Lets walk on that way as others are quite busy already.

"I'm just curious. Because I see some pictures that should have been rejected for being over-processed, but they get accepted, let alone top of the 24hours AND eye-catchers. "

Marseno, I'm also not a big fan of over-processed photos. Rarely they are better than the live image I think. But don't you feel contradiction in yor words? These photos are popular. People like them, see them, vote for them. So again - even if we are not agree - why should we restrict people to see what they like?

Fyodor, I'm not talking about limiting "photogs in their art". People are free to shoot whatever they wish however they wish to do it, I'm talking purely in the context of this site and this site alone. Please don't confuse these two points, they're hugely different.

I do not confuse. I also talking exactly about this site. All that I said above is about it.

I can't say I share your opinion, Fyodor, but I do respect it.

I think perhaps the time has come to agree to disagree here, it's fairly evident the disagreements that exist will remain so we may as well move on. :)

Sure :)

Zach and Fyodor would you prefer a site with a degree of quality or some over processed garbage just because someone thinks it looks good. Zach there are more than just a few over processed images as you put them in the DB, and until someone screening can tell the difference between a nice creative photo and one that looks radioactive and is glowing round the edges then things will continue to spiral downwards on the quality front. The same goes for FM`s. I know every screener is different in what they see but there has to be a minimum on the quality accepted regardless

This post has been edited by Darryl Morrell on 6th July 2012 - 22:37

Darryl, I'd prefer first of all the site there nobody propose me ultimate selections between non controversial things and restrictions what is 'aviation photography' and what is not. I'm adult boy with some knowledge in the subject. I beleive it can be good quality with processed images. I already told (if you read it) that I do not like that kind of images, but I see NO PROBLEM with it. I do my own photoraphy for people but I not care too much on how other people getting their success if I don't believe the way (even if this success bigger than mine). If I like photos I learning from them, if don't - just leave them with no interest.

"someone thinks"

Thats our colleagues and audience, Darryl. People we do our best for.

As a non full member,it is very dissapointing for me, to see pics of some members, that would not get through any screening.It don't care about the motive of these pics, but of the technical quallity.

I can accept a lower quality, if the shot was made in a very exceptional or the motive is such a rare situation, but there are a lot of pics which never would meet the simplest criteria to be a well processed image.

Beside I still have problems with pictures, which are photoschoped in a matter , just for getting a "wow" affect,like changing the color in a non natural way or something like this.

Personally for me,to get screened is still a process of learning, of making things better, to learn from mistakes. I think i will never be a full member, because of the lack of equipment,which sometimes restrict me in processing my pics,and to get eyecatchers whithin the asked time, but to see and to learn how it could work gives me a lot of motivation to try to put everything out of my photographers experience.

At the same time more than half of Eyecatchers are doctored photos.

So after should not complain;-).

An example:

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/224272/ph-wxc-klm-cityhopper-fokker-70/

Samuel, in what way is that image "doctored"?

Samuel, that is a shot straight out of the camera with normal post processing in photoshop. Nothing doctored with this image. You need to know what weather circumstances can look like before you accuse a photo to be "fake" or as you say doctored. This is just an example of how certain shadows (sun is doing its best) can fall on clouds that just pass by the subject very closely.

As a sidenote, maybe the term Eye-catcher should be changed into "Editors choice" because it seems to be a personal choice rather than an "Eye catcher", with many good shots i do not understand why just 1 picture every 24 or 36 hours gets the EC status. Also boring airborn shots seem to get the EC status just because they are air-air shots?! That totally undermines the eyecatcher defenition. I often see a lot more images which are far more "Eyecatcher"... So for me it just doesn't compute and therefor I don't care...:)

This discussion seems to be going on endlessly so I choose to stop here, it's getting a bit annoying :)

Samuel, one will never agree with all Eyecatchers, I myself do not agree with some and am quite mad that some were not (I do not judge my own photos, by that I mean other people's), but this one was one of the most amazing and creative shots I ever seen. Lucky? Maybe! Took him years of trial attempts? Maybe as well! Anyhow, an amazing capture and well deserved EC.

Did you guys noticed that in the last hours we could have had like a dozen of EC!! It is becomming hard to get one and the level of the site is growing a lot. No to mention some other amazing shots.

Check these out:

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/224455/86001-sweden-air-force-north-american-t-39a-sabreliner/

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/224295/fa-87-belgium-air-force-general-dynamics-f-16a-fighting-falcon/

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/224263/russia-air-force-russian-knights-sukhoi-su-27/

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/224106/n125az-private-north-american-b-25j-mitchell/

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/224068/1001-poland-navy-mil-mi-14pl/

I guess this thread produced some amazing uploads!! Keep the great work, guys!!!

You have the right to believe that this photo is not retouched;-) but I believe not at all asked the original and you will be surprised after I did not say that this picture is not pretty I just said that half the pictures are very Eyecatchers retouchés.Mais yes we should rather say editor's choice for me because most photos are not at all but rather photoshopcatchers eyecatcher;-).

Samuel, how many of your images go onto the site with no adjustment whatsoever? At a guess, none.

Please define "retouched". With Menno's image I see nothing more than a very well seen, very well executed image that's had no more "retouching" than any other DSLR shot requires. I'm utterly puzzled by you picking that particular image out as an example of what you ostensibly seem to be saying is excessive manipulation.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/220981/r226-france-air-force-transall-c-160r/

I rest my case!

This post has been edited by Paul Nichols on 11th July 2012 - 22:30

it no editing http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/102545/9v-skf-singapore-airlines-airbus-a380/, but increasingly I'm the big post-processing to try an eyecatcher as original photos are not rewarded;-).

But what I meant is why this post when most Eyecatchers photos are not originals;-)

I understand that but I'm at a loss as to why you pointed Menno's shot out which clearly isn't the result of excessive post-processing, it's just a very well executed image.

I board nothing against Menno;-), I just took a picture at random among many others;-).

Well, you used a wrong example in this case. Period. The fact that a lot of EC are excessively edited images doesn't matter, that is a good thing because it catches the "eyes". But a lot of images catch the eyes, and those are not "rewarded" so the "EC" feature doesn't work and misses the definition in my opinion... Apparently the last 24 hours 6 EC got rewarded, that is a lot better (seems someone has read the forum) than before...:)

This thread is getting ridiculous now!

Samuel, both your photos exampled here look great!!

Andras, There were six, but if you look, could be 15!! The site was simply amazing this past few days!!

I agree Loyd, and yes, you are correct Renato :)

Its been a few weeks since a reply on this post and its obvious nothing has been said on the other side of this site, some of the so called creative photos uploaded recently have been nothing short of a joke. the quality behind some of these photos is just shocking, some have vertical banding, halos, are soft, the list is endless, its obvious that the accept button takes a battering as discussed before there is no criteria for these type of shots so anything is good enough it seems

I have deliberately refrained from posting on this topic, until now. I am not an FM, nor do I want to be. I have been guilty in the past of uploading "overly manipulated" photos. Indeed, some of them have been quite popular! I have also been guilty (most of the time, indeed) of uploading "boring" side on shots!

It is my personal opinion that this post has degenerated into a slagging match between "traditionalists" and "progressives", and that it should be put to sleep.

Martin runs a fantastic site with very few constraints on what photographers can have accepted, and I applaud that. AP brings a breath of fresh air to aviation photography, and a good thing it is!

My view is that if I don't like a photo I don't have to look at it, and neither do I have to run the photographer down. If a photo of poor quality gets through, it is usually found and removed, from what I have seen. Over manipulation is not a sign of poor quality, just of "thinking differently". As I have said, if you don't like it, don't look at it! But, PLEASE, do not try and bring down the entire raison d'etre of this site, which is "THINK DIFFERENT!!"

The "traditionalists" out there have plenty of sites to choose from. Please, allow the "progressives" a place at which to show off their work!

I say again, one last time IF YOU DON'T LIKE, DON'T LOOK!!!

I agree Martin does run a great site, its just a shame its being spoilt with a bunch of sub standard images.

Tony with the greatest of respect some of the quotes you came out with a just ridiculous,

(Over manipulation is not a sign of poor quality, just of "thinking differently"),

sorry but to take a standard looking side shot of an aircraft and just blatantly manipulate it is not creative photography, far from it.

Creative is surely a different perspective to the normal taken with the camera to start with and as i said not a normal side shot which ends up glowing in the dark.

A lot of people who have posted on this thread are just missing the point completely, I simply said originally that with every photo there is a need for quality. The are a lot of good creative photos on A-P but there are also some awful ones. No-one in the screeners side of thing seems to know the

balance between creativity and over manipulation and thats why a lot of the dross uploaded gets by.

Because there has been no screening guidelines towards these photos everyone just jumps on the bandwagon and uploads anything.

Think different is as i said before and should be a photo where the photographer takes something from a different angle, something up close, or simply anything away from the normal, but not a photo where the basis of the photo simply gets destroyed in photoshop.

The if you dont like it dont look at it quote is simply a way of brushing issues like this under the carpet and not dealing with the basic problem.

Darren, again with all due respect, you should maybe take a look at your own portfolio. Every picture is of undoubtedly high quality, some of the best on AP but are they creative? Not really, in my opinion. Most are the same old, same old, just like most photographers who are limited by the nature of their local airports! That is why use can and should be made of all the tools available, including photo manipulation software! That is the beauty of digital photography! And that, I believe is why Martin leaves the rules so broad! As I said in my previous post, there are many sites for traditionalist photographers. Manipulation is here to stay, so let it be used to the imagination of each individual photographer! If the quality is good enough, anything goes!

And, another point is that this post was originally about creative photography, and was hijacked by the quality argument! They are separate, if connected, subjects, not to be confused!

As, an aside to this, I have been beset by quality problems recently, and have stopped uploading to any sites!

Let me make my last point, the site says "Creative Photography"............does this involve taking 4-5 photos, cutting the best bits out of them and making one photo, thats blatant manipulation and nothing to do with what the title says, if people feel the need to cheat by doing this to get and EC or qualify for full membership then they need to question their photography motives. How can they look at the photo and say, yep i took a real nice photo there that deserves credit, they cant.

I would love to be creative and upload a nice shot that deserves a true creative title but i choose my own type of photography because i can control the quality with what i upload.

Its a real shame that the true creative photographers on here are getting mentioned in the same breath as the person who just takes a photo and turns everything up to maximum in photoshop uploads it then think it looks good.

I could quite easily take one of my photos and over manipulate it but then the photo loses the quality it started out with so thats why i choose not to do it.

The difficulty is that 'creative' means something different to everyone. That's what makes it what it is.

A lot of my 'creative' photos are standard photos which I have edited greatly - or as some people think 'over-manipulated'. I don't see any wrong in a great amount of manipulation. As long as the image looks good, has a clear motive and is still technically good - sharp, well exposed etc;.

It's such a marmite subject that creating a definitive set of rules seems audacious to me.

Regards.

Good point Chris, agree!