Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Badmotiv - Worth Appealing?  
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5489 posts, RR: 51
Posted (10 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 2039 times:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=WNseaworld.jpg

I really thought this would have made it....maybe I am wrong? I don't see why it was badmotiv.....I have part of an aircraft, and I was flying over an interesting landmark. Opinions? Thanks.

Justin


The following photos were rejected:
(Please read more below)

- WNseaworld.jpg (Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-7H4)

The photos were of low esthetic qualities - bad angle, included
window reflections (for shots taken through glass such as terminal windows),
pictured just a part of an aircraft (with no motivation, like a special
sticker, damage etc., for doing so), out of focus, distracting or
obstructing objects in the foreground or similar (this is especially true
for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common
nature and the large amount of ancilliary equipment which usually surrounds
the aircraft) or did not picture an aircraft or anything sufficiently
related to aviation at all.

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 2024 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

I am sorry but that "did not picture an aircraft". These over-the-wing shots are becoming quite common and we only accept them if they are highly interesting for some reason.

Regards,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 23 hours ago) and read 2016 times:

The engine isn't part of an aircraft? One of the worlds best known theme parks isn't motivation enough?

I'm sure we'll be seeing plenty of photos just like this appear in the database in the days, weeks and months to come.  Wink/being sarcastic

Brian - SPOT THIS!


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

Brian, nice picture!

One of the worlds best known theme parks isn't motivation enough?

Maybe better uploaded to www.themeparksfromtheair.net  Wink/being sarcastic

Andy


User currently offlineN509JB From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 1961 times:

I am sorry but that "did not picture an aircraft". These over-the-wing shots are becoming quite common and we only accept them if they are highly interesting for some reason.

Regards,
Johan


This must be something new. These were added w/in the past 24-48:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/412792/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/411800/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/412241/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/411988/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/411802/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/412064/L/


User currently offlineBoieng747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

What I think is meant from previous experience is that to get a window picture accepted you need to really have the aircraft filling the screen and not the background. That's a major difference between a.net and other databases, here you absolutely need to see the aircraft whilst on other databases you sometimes just see pictures from the sky which don't feature any aircraft part. On your rejected picture the engine is more the background than the centre of attention...

My 2 cents,
Tim


User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 1952 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Those photos you linked to N509JB are all, in our view, better than the one rejected. That is why it was rejected. Are you suggesting that it was rejected for some other reason?

There's no "hidden motive" and we are not sent here by the evil one to give hell to photographers.

This has been repeated over and over the last few days, have you been away N509JB?

Thanks,
Johan





Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineN509JB From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Haha yeah I have.  Big grin

Fair enough. I'll let it go.


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5489 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 11 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Well I appealed before Johan responded.....so I'll just wait for another month for it to get shot down (that's already a given). Thanks!

Justin


User currently offlineEbos From Belgium, joined Jul 2001, 520 posts, RR: 49
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

You ask if you should appeal... but you appealed already  Nuts

Talking about consistency Big grin

Sven



An-225 stalker: 1 x LUX, 1 x EIN, 1 x DXB, 2 x SHJ, 3 x CGN
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Motive, Worth Appealing? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 10:59:26 by JRadier
Worth Appealing posted Mon May 29 2006 10:07:45 by QANTAS077
Worth Appealing? posted Wed Sep 21 2005 16:43:13 by Ltena
Baddistance - Worth Appealing? posted Sun Mar 27 2005 05:57:47 by TransIsland
Worth Appealing Or Better Work With It.... posted Sat Nov 6 2004 08:15:03 by Ghost77
Worth Appealing? posted Wed Sep 22 2004 00:21:36 by Qantas077
Worth Appealing/reuploading? posted Tue Nov 11 2003 21:02:33 by An-225
Is This Shot Worth Appealing? (size Rejection) posted Mon Jun 16 2003 19:38:06 by Clickhappy
Worth Appealing? posted Wed Mar 19 2003 07:45:30 by Clickhappy
Newbie Advice - Worth Working On? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 18:24:26 by Holl3411