How did this get on Jp.net?

[flyboy 28]

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6031946

Don't get me wrong, it's a fine shot and all, but it seems like it's very noisy and a bit overexposed. I know I really have no room to talk, but it's just how I see it. I just don't think it's worthy to be up on Jp.net.

[PhilDernerJr]

Keep in mind that it's air to air at like 36,000 ft. It's not easy getting shots from up there, and this is a decent job of it.

[mirrodie]

That was the same thought I had Phil. Though I personally would not upload it, I'd keep it for my portfolio.

[moose135]

At least it's an airplane, not a cow :wink:

[mirrodie]

I plan to upload a flying cow next week. So I don't take too kindly to that comment, mister ;)

[Derf]

I plan to upload a flying cow next week. So I don't take too kindly to that comment, mister ;)

I got it already...it landed last this morning at 2am in Farmingdale... Was talking to Betsy or Captain Betsy as she likes to be called, and she said that she was just on another milk run...... Pictures to follow in a day or so after I get done proccessing the HDR's. The HDR really brought out her utters nicley!

[T-Bird76]

How it got up on JP.net is very simple....two screeners screened it thought it was worthy and accpeted it. Its an interesting shot taken from a high allitude which you don't see to often. There done.

[pgengler]

How it got up on JP.net is very simple....two screeners screened it thought it was worthy and accpeted it. Its an interesting shot taken from a high allitude which you don't see to often. There done.

I don't know, I personally don't think it's that interesting a shot, especially if you take out the air-to-air aspect, which you can't really see anyway. That same shot taken from the ground* is a definite reject, and it's not like you can really tell it's air-to-air except for the "Inflight" location and note in the remarks. I know that air-to-air shots are difficult, but I don't see what makes this one special at all.

* And that's a very easy composition to duplicate from the ground. It doesn't show us any sort of unique angle on the airplane, nor does it provide anything else interesting visually.

[PhilDernerJr]

Phil's point about that perspective being attainable from the ground is an excellent point, I must say.

Maybe I'll take my blurry HoBe shots, level them out and SWEAR they are air to air.

Oh, wait, I've done that. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0794139/L/

However, it's generally out of etiquette to criticise already-accepted photos.

[Mellyrose]

I honestly didn't even realize it was air to air til it was pointed out. I was just baffled by the almost 9000 hits on that shot.

[lijk604]

Maybe if it had contrails it would be more interesting, and therefore more "acceptable" to the general public, but like Tommy said. It passed 2 screeners, so all you can do is appeal your own rejections in the future. ;)

[SP-LPB]

Shame things like this end up on the web. Point and shoot at x4 digital zoom quality.

[T-Bird76]

Shame things like this end up on the web. Point and shoot at x4 digital zoom quality.

You find it ashame that a picture ends up on the web? Who are you to say that? I'll take a hard and somewhat arrogant stance here but I've seen some of the shots from the people posting in this thread and some of what I've seen is pure crap...so I think the old saying applies well here that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You guys can say I'm biased because I'm a screener at JP.net and you'd be correct I am biased because I do support JP.net and its crew. The screeners on JP.net at all highly talented professional photographers who for the most part make very good decissions and don't simply accept a shot based on its quality. As I said the two screeners thought the shot to be of interest and apprantly over 7000 people agree. I think in the future negative opinions of other peoples shots should be kept to yourself.