The contradiction of aviation photography...

In all these graphics and photoshop classes I've been taken lately, there's been a heavy emphasis on the rule of thirds. I have to wonder...why does the rule of thirds seem to not apply to aviation photography, such as A.net and jet photos insisting the image be PERFECTLY centered, whilst non-aviation photographers say being centered is bad?

I've decided to challenge this 'centered' rule a bit...and if it really works, it may become more regular for me. I've already got one I consider myself very pleased with, even if screeners deem it bad due too 'too much blank space'. C and C is welcome!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2513/...e2af1c15_b.jpg

The rule of thirds is possible with aviation, it is just much more difficult. Most of the aviation shots are more to document the aircraft and your trying to fill the frame. Airliners and Jetphotos are more about documenting aviation. People are learning from them and they are for the most part lack some photography skill. I say this as they are not usually trying to compose an image but rather than fill the frame at a certain angle to get a shot accepted. When the aircraft is up against a blue sky it is not really possible to use the rule of thirds. I usually will try rule of thirds and make it possible about 1 of 100 shots. When I shoot non aviation, I shoot rule of thirds about 80 of 100 shots when shooting non aviaion.... BIG DIFFERENCE.

It is possible for rule of thirds if you try hard, but it would not be accepted on the major aviation picture sites...here are some examples
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...89_aua9Q-L.jpg
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/..._W3QZ7-L-1.jpg
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/..._HC9CF-L-1.jpg
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/.../IMG6094-L.jpg

There will be times where it is just not practical
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/.../IMG6867-L.jpg
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/..._84j2m-L-3.jpg

but when shooting non aviation I always try to apply rule of thirds
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...PccZA-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...sNC2R-Ti-5.jpg http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...emwX6-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...MqJMm-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...fdxGT-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...9pZLe-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...fdxGT-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...8zmSd-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...n6B3v-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...yGtG9-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...R9ZsK-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...XzsHT-Ti-5.jpghttp://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...faBs7-Ti-5.jpg


Here is a quick breakdown of rule of thirds...
http://www.megapixel.net/html/articles/composition.php

The blue sky I can definitely understand, though I was referring more as to things where there were other things visible. I keep thinking back to how creative some of the pictures of sports cars you see can be, and hoping to somehow apply that same creativity to aviation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perriwen

The blue sky I can definitely understand, though I was referring more as to things where there were other things visible. I keep thinking back to how creative some of the pictures of sports cars you see can be, and hoping to somehow apply that same creativity to aviation.

---

You can, it is just not done as often for the reasons mentioned
http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/..._9WgnX-L-3.jpg

http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...19_TXLc4-L.jpg

http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...72_7yb3z-L.jpg

http://www.longislandwallpapers.com/...50_NTWwm-L.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perriwen

The blue sky I can definitely understand, though I was referring more as to things where there were other things visible. I keep thinking back to how creative some of the pictures of sports cars you see can be, and hoping to somehow apply that same creativity to aviation.

---

To echo Fred's comments - most of what you see on A.net or JP.net are simply photographs to documents aircraft. They aren't "aviation photography" websites, they are "aviation websites with a database of photos". You can get very creative with your photos, they just may be rejected if you submit them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moose135

To echo Fred's comments - most of what you see on A.net or JP.net are simply photographs to documents aircraft. They aren't "aviation photography" websites, they are "aviation websites with a database of photos". You can get very creative with your photos, they just may be rejected if you submit them.

---

But that's what baffles me...why would a place that simply has a database of photos reject a photo that's not 'perfectly centered, etc, etc' and meeting their 'high quality standards' if they aren't going for photography in general.

It's a carry over from the "slide shooter" days of documenting aircraft - square, side-on, "perfect" light, filling the frame with the aircraft, so you can see the logos, registration, etc., not a place to "show off" your photography skills. They have started accepting more "artistic" shots, and I always found JP.net to be more willing to take something outside the standard. Of course, A.net lets some non-typical stuff get in now and then...

http://www.moose135photography.com/p...68_r74i8-L.jpg

regardless of what they call themselves, it's amazing they take so many shots of the same airliners, yet pass up aircraft painted up so uniquely as this:

http://i55.tinypic.com/34osxl3.jpg

If that wasn't back-lit, it could make it in. I have a ton of non-airliner stuff on both sites.

That's the thing, though. The uniqueness of the paint scheme should overrule the backlightedness to have something like that in the database. I mean, it's a Piper....in camo, with a freaking shark mouth. How many of those have you seen?

I agree it's a unique scheme, but it's not a "once in a lifetime" shot - it would be possible (maybe not for you on that day...) to get a photo of the aircraft in better lighting conditions. If it was a newsworthy event, or if it were the last (or only) photo of an aircraft that was destroyed, I could see it being accepted.

Here's one I have on JP.net - it's back-lit, and there are nearly 400 other shots of the aircraft in the database, but it was the first A380 landing at JFK, so they accepted it. If I submitted the same shot, of a daily LH A380 flight, I would expect it to be rejected.

http://www.jetphotos.net/img/2/8/0/4...4359408_tb.jpg

I always find myself making a distinct decision about what "kind" of aviation photos I'm trying to make. Sitting in the Costco lot making snapshots of passing airliners that fill the frame and are as centered as possible, is very relaxing to me. However, it's like the difference between listening to Dylan and Z100. You don't really need to do much thinking about the pop songs on Z100(sorry to pick on them).

If I want to 'create' a shot that tells a story or moves a viewer, more thought goes into it, and the rule of thirds comes in more often than not. The art shots get people thinking, move them emotionally, etc. Fred shows some excellent examples of his, I need to work more on my own and make less Z100 shots.

I could care less what sites "accept" my interpretation of a moving depiction of elements interacting with one another, because I can't depend on them to get what I'm trying to do.

I've always wondered why they won't adapt to the rule of thirds. It can be done, it can look good...and you can show off your skills that way. Otherwise all its about is quality instead of composition.
Anyways, my needless two cents.

This is the never ending debate, it is up to them on what they get accepted. I have had pictures rejected that I was sure would make it in, I would get red in the face and want to shake my fists at the sky but it is no use. It is not a photography website, it is an aviation website. The owners are not photographers, they are aviation enthusiasts. I have see some of the best photographers leave and request all images pulled because they do not like that there great "artsy" shots were declined. I was upset, I made my own website. Now I upload what I want and not what someone will let me. My portfolio of the website is what I want to represent me, not what people think is good enough to represent me on their website. All the crying about it being a great paint job and cool teeth for a Piper is meaningless because they own the website and they make the rules. I know how you feel because I was there, I cried about my photos and I go nothing but pissed off. IT IS NOT WORTH YOUR TIME TO COMPLAIN about it. There are dozens of the same complaints on the site and Hundreds of posts. There will be hundreds more. It sucks and you will have to do what we do, get your own site and post what you want. Been there, done that and purchased the T-Shirt. Sorry your still at the Been there. P.S. I understand why it was rejected do to back-light and agree it is a cool scheme. I would be proud to have that shot in my portfolio.

If you continue to let it piss you off, you will eventually Anet and Jetphotos. Let it roll off your back and do something different, make your own site.

Sorry your upset, Like I said.... I HAVE BEEN THERE MYSELF. I do not upload much of anything because of how upset I normally get.... Learn from my mistake, it is not worth getting upset.

Like Fred said and rightfully so, you have to make your own or hope another better site comes along.

Anet is now what it was and I havent uploaded to either in ages. I know something better may come along one day.

Like Fred said, don't go nuts over it. We've all already done that for you previously!

Quote:

---

I know something better may come along one day.

---

That day may be closer than you think...

Fred, very nice summary of it.

Hmmm, a database of only interesting, powerful and creative aerospace images? Why boy, I think you might just have something there...

Heh. Tempting tempting.

I will say that the MAJOR problem with aviation photography these days is that so many of us have taken our art and allowed it to be influenced by the standards set forth by other photo database websites. We cannot let them dictate our own expression of what we want to create when we put our faces behind the camera and press the shutter.

And who knows? Maybe something better...a new solution to all of that...is just around the corner.

I dont have much experience with programming but couldnt the administrators create a database within NYCaviation for us members to show off our creative side to this hobby. I have a really great photo of westjets 757 with the control tower using the rules of thirds but know it would be rejected. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

And who knows? Maybe something better...a new solution to all of that...is just around the corner.

---

It very went might be Phil...it very well might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerslice

It very went might be Phil...it very well might be.

---

Unfortunately it's mostly wishful thinking. If JP and ATI couldn't do it nobody really can. I know Jeremy would sell his firstborn to see it happen but his first baby can rest easy. He won't be sold.

Quote:

---

We cannot let them dictate our own expression of what we want to create when we put our faces behind the camera and press the shutter.

---

Last I checked anet does not put a gun to your head to upload. People upload because they want to. Wasn't ATI supposed to be the answer to the "real photographers" pics?

Quote:

---

Hmmm, a database of only interesting, powerful and creative aerospace images? Why boy, I think you might just have something there...

---

They are there you just have to look. Or did you mean a site that accepts your photos?

Quote:

---

If JP and ATI couldn't do it nobody really can. I know Jeremy would sell his firstborn to see it happen but his first baby can rest easy. He won't be sold.

---

I wouldn't sell my firstborn...maybe my second.

Quote:

---

Last I checked anet does not put a gun to your head to upload.

---

You're absolutely right, which gets me confused as to why we let them get to us (myself included) - they are what they are.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately it's mostly wishful thinking.

---

Or is it?

Quote:

---

Wasn't ATI supposed to be the answer to the "real photographers" pics?

---

As in AirTeamImages?...if so than I'm under the impression that yes, that was the intent. At least the handful of times I've seen their pitch, that's what they say. Obviously that didn't really work out in the long run at all...considering by now they appear to own 50% of the a.net regulars.

ATI, I think, and this isn't a dig to them, HEIGHTENED the standards by choosign top notch shooters only. This removes the masses, though you're right, Nick, in that they did not influence composition motive. It is still a separate beast.

Quote:

---

Or is it?

---

Oh it is, your cryptic teases are nice but I doubt we are going to see any site ever come close, that boat sailed 5 years ago. Anet is simply too big, too well known and has way too much site traffic. JP can't even come close how is a new site going to get a DB and traffic?

Quote:

---

top notch shooters only.

---

They choose certain photogs in fact they look more for people that can supply original stuff since they don't want doubles of what their existing photogs supply. I wouldn't say they are all top notch. No offense but I have seen ATI photogs that are good but far from upper tier aviation shooters. The whole stigma attached to ATI that all are the cream of the crop is quite inaccurate and has only been propagated by people who feel they get special treatment on anet since a couple are screeners.

Quote:

---

though you're right, Nick, in that they did not influence composition motive. It is still a separate beast.

---

Of course but it all comes back to a site that has lower standards and takes everyone's shots which there are plenty out there. Anet never dictated how we express outselves behind the viewfinder. If a photographer wants to upload slides of 50mm side ons they are the ones that are dictating not anet. Did anet start out that way? Of course but it has evolved. Like I said if you did a search you will find thousands of creative shots. They are there. Are they harder to get accepted. Sure but I see plenty of guys that push the envelope with much success.

Quote:

---

No offense but I have seen ATI photogs that are good but far from upper tier aviation shooters. The whole stigma attached to ATI that all are the cream of the crop is quite inaccurate and has only been propagated by people who feel they get special treatment on anet since a couple are screeners.

---

I agree with you here Nick. They used to be significantly more exclusive but it now appears as though they take anyone and anything.

Quote:

---

Oh it is, your cryptic teases are nice

---

I'm not really being cryptic. There are already sites out there that play more toward the photographer than the database.
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/ is a great example. Do they have the market share that a.net does? Not even close. But they definitely appeal more to creative types.
ATI, problems aside as well, also harbor some extremely creative shots - and their home d/b is pretty much no restrictions Some real creative stuff there.

Quote:

---

Like I said if you did a search you will find thousands of creative shots. They are there. Are they harder to get accepted. Sure but I see plenty of guys that push the envelope with much success.

---

They do appear to be getting better about this, which is really great to see.