Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bad Motive Feedback  
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1879 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I recently had this photo rejected for bad motive:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/APBGK1311.jpg

I am happy to accept the verdict of the screener. But I am interested to know what others think. With hindsight I can accept that the image of the plane is rather 'cluttered' by buildings etc in the background, which I can see may be seen to detract from the image of the 777. Do you think this is the main reason for the rejection? However, my motivation for the photo was, in part, to illustrate the notable increase in power that such heavies need to cross the active landing runway at Manchester. There is a famous 'hump' and I felt the half submerged Dash 8 under the 777's fuselage illustrated this rather well and might be of some interest.

If I'm clutching at straws, so be it. At least the rejection has given me the opportunity to try with another image of this aircraft taken then without fear of being 'baddoubled'.

All the best.

Paul

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

Signs covering the nosewheel.

Cheers,

Justin  Smile


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

Signs obscuring the wheels, and that aerial over the horizontal stabs, are killers.

A


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1859 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Justin/Andy,

Thanks - that's helpful. I was conscious of the aerial, though wasn't really aware that this would be a killer blow. But, if I'm honest, I don't think I'd even noticed the loss of the nose gear. All good experience. I need to get better with my precision about these things as I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets caught up with one aspect of an image and so fails to see another.

Ta.

Paul


User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1852 times:

Paul,

I never noticed the aerial until the second look at the image! It's all a steady learning curve, keep at it! (I know I am!!)  Smile

Cheers,

Justin  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Ha, the thing that stood out to me immediately was the aerial over the stabs rather than the nose wheel - screeners eye maybe?  Big grin

Andy


User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1847 times:

Exactly, thats why you have the position!  Big grin

Cheers,

Justin  Smile


User currently offlineSyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2037 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1820 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The titles on the front of the plane seem a tad soft as well. Nice shot though!  Big thumbs up

-Charlie


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Good spot Charlie - I recall that I used layers with this one because when I initially did my usual sharpening I felt the PIA titles appeared too jagged for my liking, so I erased some of the sharpness from them to remove that. Looks like I may have given that a bit too much. It's funny - that was one issue that I thought a screener's eye would be drawn to (because I had noticed it), and so I made an attempt to rectify that, whilst missing the nosewheel issue totally.

But, as Justin, says, all good learning experience.

Paul


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The rejection above enabled me to submit the photo below that was successful in being added to the database today.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Markman



Out of interest, had the rejected photo not had those problems with that sign covering the nosegear and that aerial, would it have been possible to upload both of these photos (taken on the same day) or do you think that would have fallen foul of the 'bad double' rejection?

I know this has been debated recently, so my apologies if you consider this going over old ground, but I am interested to know from this 'live' example whether the 2 views would have been considered different enough to justify 2 photos being uploaded.

I would be interested in any comments.

Ta.

Paul


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1676 times:

Paul,

Lovely shot you had accepted there. However, for me it would be 'badmanipulation'. You've obviously faked it - everybody knows there's no sun at MAN  Wink/being sarcastic


Cheers


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1685 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

James,

And I thought my Photoshop technique was foolproof Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Paul


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...
Bad Motive? posted Wed Dec 6 2006 19:15:19 by Acontador
Another Bad Motive? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 13:51:53 by JetJock22
Bad Motive? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 20:23:29 by JetJock22
Is This Bad Motive? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 04:42:12 by NicolasRubio
Bad Motive Or Centered posted Thu Sep 14 2006 00:14:14 by Bottie
Why Bad Motive? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 18:49:45 by Olympus69
Stairs = Bad Motive posted Thu Jun 29 2006 23:26:02 by AndrewUber
Bad Motive posted Sun Jun 18 2006 13:10:58 by Cruiser
Help - Landing Aircraft = Bad Motive? posted Wed May 24 2006 19:58:12 by Frippe
Would This Get Bad Motive? posted Sun May 21 2006 18:41:03 by Jetmatt777