Jakbar From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 442 posts, RR: 24 Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3535 times:
First, let me make clear up front...I have already appealed this rejected photo because I really like it, and that's what the appeal process is for. What I wanted to do is solicit some input about this photo because I (obviously) disagree with the fact that it should have been rejected in the first instance. Here's the photo:
It was rejected for badmotiv. I am upset because lately I have seen some really weird pictures get accepted (including a picture of a bird with a plane in the background), but yet my picture is rejected when I try to do something a little different. I was really excited about this photo when I saw it on my computer screen for the first time.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3504 times:
Nice concept, but it is too far for me as well. BADMOTIVE is probably right. The branch kills it for me also. It might have been more pleasing if the light was better, and if there were a little less tree/shrub in the frame.
Jakbar From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 442 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3458 times:
The weather was less than cooperative that day, so that was actually the only shot I could get with the sun hitting the plane at exactly the right moment. Look at Burke's link to the BMI A332 above and you'll see what I'm talking about.
And thank you for posting the link to that older picture...I was looking for that as an example of why I did not want the cherry blossoms in focus. I think it looks better that way, but we're all allowed to disagree. I also wanted to see it because I remembered that the plane in that picture was also at a considerable distance away from the camera (as in my picture).
And as for the branch...if that's the only reason why my pic got rejected, then so be it. It doesn't bother me, and I tried to make the best of the poor weather. And besides...my wife (the non-aviation-enthusiast) likes the picture enough to put it on her computer background...and that's enough for me!
MIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
Thanks futt that's the picture I was thinking of when i read this thread. I hadn't seen that one in years. The thing with Josh's pic is, the flowers don't envelop the plane all around, just on the edges, and yes truth is a blue sky was needed there. If you could crop it a little it might look better, I personally think the whitish cloud above the airplane, even more than the branch on the nose, detracts from the image.
That JAS 777 shot is just beauty of orgasmic proportions man.
Woody001 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3386 times:
Ok so it got rejected. I think it will get rejected at the appeal process also.
Personally I really like the shot, but I feel that it isn't the kind of shot that A.net is looking for at this present time.
I have loads of images that I feel are great, I would not upload them here, as sadly they wouldn't get a look in on A.net because they are to 'arty'
I think the most important thing to remember is that you think the shot is really nice and that should be why you take photos.
If you just go out to shoot for viewing figures on A.net then I'd sell the gear.
Cabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3381 times:
Something artistic is what's missing around here Josh.
Of course I'm talking about a small and realistic proportion. The standard side profile lamppost straight, hotel roof straight is just plane boring.
I like your ideas and keep having these ideas because that's what will make you a better photographer. The abilities to look at things from different perspectives. Unfortunately it was rejected, maybe in the past it would have passed.