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'.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1095 times:
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.
Syncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1056 times:
The titles on the front of the plane seem a tad soft as well. Nice shot though!
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1013 times:
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.
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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 1983 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
