Soft???

Discuss equipment and methods or ask for advice
Post Reply
User avatar
G-CVIX
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:39 pm
Location: SW/UK
Contact:

Soft???

Post by G-CVIX »

Hello, just had this rejected from Airliners.net for being "soft". Don't really understand that as I thought that, if anything, it was slightly over-sharpened. What do you think?

http://www.airfighters.com/photo_25434.details.large

User avatar
AlexC
Posts: 6040
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 6:40 pm
Location: New Forest

Re: Soft???

Post by AlexC »

Looks sharp enough to me. I've had several of Shorham on the Saturday rejected for 'soft' by A.net recently, and I don't think they were. They look just as sharp as recent uploads at least on my monitor. I've since printed some of them off, and they look far sharper then prints off negatives used to. Some A.net decisions still baffle me.
Pte. Aubrey Gerald Harmer, R. Suss. R. (att. to the Sherwood Foresters) KIA 26/9/1917 Polygon Wood, aged 19, NKG. RIP

User avatar
FOTO4
Posts: 2476
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 9:34 am
Location: UK

Re: Soft???

Post by FOTO4 »

A.net should have gone to Specsavers comes to mind

User avatar
tom tiger
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 2:11 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Soft???

Post by tom tiger »

Same here, sharp shot, pretty dang good shot :clap: No idea why they would call this soft.....
"You Live by the Code, You Die by the Code."
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomtiger/albums

Rob Leigh
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:09 pm
Location: The Peoples' Replublic of Croydonia
Contact:

Re: Soft???

Post by Rob Leigh »

The front end looks soft to me, particularly the cockpit area.

Post Reply