Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9823 posts, RR: 64
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3641 times:
Craig, what was the rejection reason? if its bad motive you prob dont have any recourse, but if its bad color I would try rerworking it in Photoshop. The canyon blue is a funny color, even allowing for the warm color of the late evening sun.
Its a cool shot, it makes me think of "Welcome to San Diego"
Mikec From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 247 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3636 times:
The tree bits are way too distracting in my opinion and covering a lot of the aircraft - I don't think there is anything you can do to get it accepted here. Unless you have another without the tree covering the aircraft.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3633 times:
Good pic, but it looks like Badscan, seems slightly out of focus. I don't think a.net goes for the artsy-fartsy, which is a real shame, because some very good photos get rejected, while everyday photos pass through.
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3534 times:
I don't mind arty shots personally. But taking note that this is a database collection of aviation shots (more or less, keeping images for the future), we try to keep this in mind when screening.
Rare shots will always get treated with a higher priority. The aircraft that crashed 10 years ago, will never be shots again, so we take what we can get.
The aircraft that we see everyday can be shot again, and again, and again. That does lead many to try more artistic shots...
But it's hard to know where to draw the line.
When it's a clear shot of plane with a bit of art, it might be accepted. But to drive the point, I would assume that at the other end of the spectrum is a non-aviation person, who loves arty shots and includes a bit of plane.
This shot is certainly more towards the aviation spectrum.... but to make the line clear, we tend to make it a little easier to know what we want for the database. Generally the aircraft should be clearly visible.
I was browsing through some aviation books last night. After laughing at artist impressions of what we know now as the F/A-22, and spy photos of the SU-27, I realised that the majority of shots were capturing history. A B-52 that was obviously in service back when the book was printed, we know is now sitting in a desert...
The reason I know that was because it wasn't an arty shot of a B-52, but simply in flight and I could easily read the reg. Likewise, I have seen shots of the same B-52 sadly sitting in the desert.
20 years from now, I want to see a great shot of a 737. I'm not necessarily looking for an arty shot.
By all of the above though, I'm not saying that art is not the way to go. My personal opinion is that you can certainly capture an aircraft in an artistic way. And if you hit the nail on the head, we certainly won't be rejecting your shot.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...