Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Badmotive?  
User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 23
Posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

I'm a bit lost why these are badmotive???

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=090404_voydh8c_cghqz_yz.jpg

And

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=090404_jgomd83_cfklz_yz.jpg

Badmotiv described as:
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. Finally, you might read this because your camera
displays the date in the lower right corner of the image. If so, please
disable that feature in the future.

If they have problems I would like to fix them and re-upload, at the moment though I don't get the problem from the rejection reason.

Thank you in advance

Garry


AirTeamImages
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1610 times:

For the first one, it could be the fact that there's a tiny part of the fence sticking out, but that didn't even catch my attention, I guess your picture has to be FLAWLESS nowadays.

The second pic, on the other hand, is awesome, like the first pic, and it has no fence, which would lead me to believe the screener looked at all the crud behind it which doesn't even bother me, or distract me from your main point.

Lovely photos, and the quality is great, my thought is that they both should've gotten in just fine, but 'other' people might disagree.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineEjazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 722 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Garry

I really don't know why for both. Beautiful light and quality.

Regards

Bailey



Etihad Girl, You're a great way to fly.
User currently offlineRaybolt From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

I noticed that you have your name and 'airteamimages' in the top left corners. if i remember correctly, a.net doesn't allow this on the photos. i don't know if this would be the reason for rejection, but it's an idea.


You can't join the MHC on the ground.
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1581 times:

Raybolt - As far as I know, if you cannot see the watermark on the small image, then it's alright.


I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

...distracting or obstructing objects in the foreground/background or similar ...

My only guess.



User currently offlineEmmett99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 1535 times:

I think the screener had a headache maybe. Nice shots.

User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

Garry,

I don't like to see fences in pictures but that's just me - you see pictures like this or much worse uploaded on Anet each day so I guess it can't be that?

As for the second I have no idea its perfect to me!

The Airteamimages logo well only adds a bit of extra class to the pictures  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


Derek


User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

Hi there,

They are both gorgeous pictures!  Smile

1st Shot:

I think it's superb, nothing says badmotive to me with this one.

2nd Shot:

Again, superb shot, but possibly the sign post in the bottom right corner is a little bit distracting.

Fantastic images none the less  Big thumbs up Just my thoughts.

Regards,

Justin  Smile


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

First shot - fence at bottom (OK for rare subjects but not OK for stuff we already have)

Second shot - not sure

Both shots - could be the watermark if its visible on the thumbnail, but seeing as I can't see the thumbnail right now I can't make a definitive judgement call on that aspect

Andy


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Garry

No URL should be incorporated onto an image. I think this may have been the reason for rejection and wrong category selected.

Regards

Gary Watt

[Edited 2004-04-17 14:11:28]

User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1464 times:

Gary (Granite),

This saves me starting a new topic really.  Laugh out loud

Are we allowed to insert a small logo as shown?

Regards,

Justin  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Well spotted Gary! As the man implies, a watermark is OK (as long as it isn't noticable on the thumbnail) but it can't include a URL. Whilst this may seem pedantic, a watermark including "Garry Lewis - airteamimages" may be OK but "Garry Lewis - www.airteamimages.com" definitely isn't.

Andy


User currently offlineAtco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

Thanks all,

I guess if I brush out the URL, I can re-upload these then?

Regarding the fence on the Dash 8 shot, personally I don't feel it detracts from the shot, and to crop it out would give the image a letterbox look.
If you feel however it would be rejected again because of the fence, I'll re-crop before re-uploading.

Thanks

Garry



AirTeamImages
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

The rules allow a copyright statement on your images ONLY if it is invisible on the thumbnail.

For a guide, all my stuff (except the older stuff) has a statement added. OK, it doesn't add much but it helped me screw hundreds of pounds out of the News of the World..........nicking gits that they are!

Garry, re-upload without the url and ensure that it is not visible on the thumbnail. The screeners would reject without hesitation if it is noticeable.

Cheers

Gary

[Edited 2004-04-17 15:42:21]

User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1413 times:

Cropping out the fence loses the runway which is key to the crosswind theme.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineLHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

It looks to me as though there may be some slight oversharpening. I can see jaggies in places, and they do distract slightly from the picture. I really like them, but if you sharpen a little less, I would like them even more  Big grin. Of course also as mentioned, the watermark/url issue.

Sebastian



I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
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...
Why Badmotive? posted Sat Apr 17 2004 05:07:51 by Atco
Badmotive- Why This And Not Others? posted Tue Aug 9 2005 21:49:59 by APFPilot1985
Why Did This Photo Get A Badmotive Rejection? posted Thu Feb 5 2004 01:59:15 by Q330
Why Only Four Delta 744 Photos In Database? posted Mon Jan 5 2009 11:07:22 by Rwy04LGA
SJU Aeroparque, Why Closed? posted Sat Nov 29 2008 10:13:28 by PRAirbus
Why Does Auto-fill Give This As Untitled? posted Thu Oct 30 2008 01:36:35 by JakTrax
Interesting Photo - Why No Explanation? posted Sat Oct 25 2008 23:32:29 by JetCrazy
Rejected?Can't Understand Why. posted Thu Aug 21 2008 01:29:59 by ErezS
Just A Question. Why Different Queue Treatment? posted Wed Jul 23 2008 01:24:42 by Bustin
Why Does Flash Make Cool White Bulbs Appear Yellow posted Tue Mar 11 2008 22:08:17 by BR715-A1-30