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.
Vafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1645 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.
Raybolt From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 255 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1623 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.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1485 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.
Atco From Canada, joined Jul 2001, 277 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1478 times:
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.
Granite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5600 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1457 times:
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.
LHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1400 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 . Of course also as mentioned, the watermark/url issue.
I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.