I’m sorry but if you don’t like what’s been said then don’t post blurry overexposed photos then whinge they were rejected.

Let’s get one thing straight here. You posted whinging in the hope someone would look at your sub-standard photos and agree with you that they were rejected for stupid reasons. The simple fact of the matter is they both have flaws and were both rightfully rejected. Now, take this as a lecture or not; I honestly couldn’t care less, but if you want to improve what you do then lose the attitude and start listening to people who are trying to help you. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s nonsense and pretending it is won’t get you anywhere. Just to reiterate, that photo is overexposed and yes, there is a loss of detail. You may not be able to see it but I can.

The wonderful thing about photography is you can take it as far as you like and spend as much or as little time learning as suits you. If you’re happy with the standard you produce then that’s perfectly fine, but don’t think for a second you’ll get away with telling people who are only trying to help that they’re ‘lecturing you on how to take basic photos’ when they point out faults. If they were so basic then you’d have nailed them in the first place.

I’m not asking anyone to say “yeah my photos are great”. I was questioning airliners.net rejection policy. I know the pics I submitted are not perfect. I am flummoxed by the fact that there are many inferior shots on there in composition an quality (forget the blooming histograms – that’s for anoraks).

Yeah you are obviously much smarter than me that’s clear to see.

Thanks for advice everyone but I’m not getting into this thread anymore. All I am trying to say is I think airliners.net is over-critical. Either a shot is good or it isn’t in my view. No I don’t want to change airliners – I just won’t post up there any more if they are examining every pixel on the shot and rejecting for, in my opinion, ridiculous reasons. Especially when there are many inferior shots on there both in quality and composition.

The Afriqiyah doesn’t look overexposed, it is overexposed! It’s a simple straightforward technical fact and this is why you need to understand the histogram. Overexposure will cause rejections so you need to learn how to avoid it.

Please tell me why you think this is overexposed. I don’t think it is. “Oh lets check the histogram – oh yes it says it’s overexposed”. Why don’t people just look at photos not start checking histograms. People are obsessed with histograms !!!

Is there any loss of detail due to overexposure here ?

I have no issues with people criticising photos on face value but checking histograms seems nonsense to me.

I welcome advice on aspects of photography but don’t really appreciate being lectured on how to take basic photos.

Longshot, it’s not quite as easy as that! 1600 pixel wide images are MUCH more difficult to sharpen and nail in terms of quality. Basically the original has to be almost perfect to get serious quality at 1600 pixels wide. If everyone uploaded to aviation photography sites that wide there’d probably only be a fraction of the images to look at because most would have been rejected!

This is my main problem. The original JPG from the camera looks fine but when reduced to 1600 wide (or 1024 wide on Jetphotos) the quality is degraged. Sharpening always gives a false look to the picture. Does anyone have any tips on what settings in the paint programs to do resizes ?

Here’s another “poor quality” effort that was rejected…

Ha ! There are loads of the green paisley ones but I’ve never seen a plain green one. I also have a photo of the 727 in the plain green scheme.