JGR From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 541 times:
Hi,
Thx for your comments : For the first shot I crop like this to have the nice yellow sky colour on the top ... like this is less dark, I think A/C is well centered. On the other hand it's a shot taked in vertical, no 2/3 crop.
For the second if the only problem is the noise... I'm happy !
JGR From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 75 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 526 times:
Thanks for your comment Pablo but I prefer NEVER use the appeal tool. I'm a beginner in aviation photography... and I think is better use this great forum to learn a bit, sceener's comments are wellcome but I understand they have a lot of work with screenning.
I try to reduce noise and reupload the wing view,
Rgds,
Javier
Gmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2077 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 501 times:
Javier,
Thats really good for a novice... I don't even try those types of shots... well i don't get the opportunity to take them, but if i did, I would hope my results would be as good as yours. Quality of both are really good.... cropping is only a small piece of the puzzle!
Grant
ex screener
tdotphotography -- You know you are in tdot when all you do is photograph AC A320's!
Quoting JGR (Reply 4): I'm a beginner in aviation photography... and I think is better use this great forum to learn a bit, sceener's comments are wellcome but I understand they have a lot of work with screenning.
I'm a beginner too
Forum is of course helpful, although sometimes since a shot is being screened in public through it you might get dozens of different views that might be confusing. I posted a shot for pre screen and got several tips and views. At the end I just tried with the original, which I thought was good enough, and it got in
Appealing is of course a matter of choice, and only when you really think its worth it, but comment to screeners I think they are useful always. They have to screen the picture anyway, so a short comment on the bottom won't take much of their time and it can be useful to tell them stuff about a particular shot (why that crop, why the light, why the shot is special for whatever reason, etc.)
Quoting Gmonney (Reply 5): Thats really good for a novice... I don't even try those types of shots... well i don't get the opportunity to take them, but if i did, I would hope my results would be as good as yours. Quality of both are really good.... cr
I agree!!! with the difference that I'm not an ex-screener nor I will never be one, since my 17 pics in the db are not that much
Scotland1979 From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 502 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 472 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Second one - abit grainy however Nice shot!
First one - lovely shot! - need 2/3 unless you mention "creative" then we will send it to Head Screener to decide. Mind you, I can see 4 dirty spots in sky
Hope it help
Frank
Pride Comes From What You Do When No One Is Watching
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 3019 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 438 times:
Quoting Scotland1979 (Reply 6): First one - lovely shot! - need 2/3 unless you mention "creative" then we will send it to Head Screener to decide
Frank, all shots intended to be creative should have that stated in the comments and it will always be up to head screeners' to decide? I mean if "creative" is not written will shots get rejected for dark, blurry, etc.?
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 3019 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 429 times:
Quoting Scotland1979 (Reply 8): First, we reject for dark, blurry, etc otherwise, it is up to Head Screener to decide about "creative" issue.
Thanx for replying Frank, but I'm not sure I understand ... how can it be rejected for example, say dark if the purpose is creative? What I mean is that the nature of the creative rule kind of contradicts the standard rules, therefore I assumed that anything uploaded under a creative category will go directly to the Head screeners.
I'm just curious as to how this is going to work
Scotland1979 From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 502 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 421 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I recommend you to add "creative" on your comment for screeners to read so we will forward the photo to Head Screener. You may get more info from other screeners other than just me. They have better info since I am new.
Pride Comes From What You Do When No One Is Watching
EZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 3019 posts, RR: 19 Reply 11, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 419 times:
Quoting Scotland1979 (Reply 10): I recommend you to add "creative" on your comment for screeners to read so we will forward the photo to Head Screener. You may get more info from other screeners other than just me. They have better info since I am new.
Bubbles From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1102 posts, RR: 46 Reply 12, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 411 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi Javier
I just want to comment on your shots, as a photographer, not as a screener. I don't really think your photos linked here could be classified as "creative" shots. So, the normal screening acceptance criteria will apply to them.
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3270 posts, RR: 64 Reply 14, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 370 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Have to agree with Hongyin. Although they are different from the normal sideshots, these are not really out of the box and we would have accepted these type of images in the past. Therefore screened as normal
Sponsor Message: 
From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 75 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2077 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 3019 posts, 
Alberto
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3270 posts, 
From United States, joined Aug 2007, 83 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
