Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1791 times:
For me the hardest rejection to cope with is "bad motive".
It's always very vague to me like someone is asking "why did you make that shot" or "how dear you uploading this" and sometimes it feels like uhhhh can't find any reason to reject but i don't like it so it is bad motive. haha
Please don't think i am to serious about it. hehe
But then again what motive do you need when you see this outside your window ? http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/Raincloud_IMG_1964.jpg
Anyway i like it and i was wondering if somebody out there could give me a hint so i can turn it into "good motive".
T.i.a.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
LeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
In this case, I think it means:
"Nice shot, but in order for airliners.net to appreciate a photo like this, it needs:
1) More of the airplane visible, or:
2) An airport prominently visible in the frame."
Just because a.net doesn't want it doesn't mean it's a bad picture, and just because it got badmotiv doesn't mean it's totally unmotivated. It just means, in this case, that airliners.net is not big on photos that have as their subject almost exclusively a relatively common weather phenomenon (St. Elmo's fire or Aurora Borealis might have had a shot in an otherwise similar shot, but for a raincloud, no matter how spectacular, it likely needs either more airplane or an airport to hold interest for this particular website).
Do note, I am not a screener and have no say on what gets on or doesn't. This is just how I see it.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1749 times:
Thanks for your response LeanOfPeak.
Although i do understand your explanation i am troubled with it because this image i took was accepted and it really shows nothing.
Also thousands of these can be found in the database.
I received a personal message from a screener telling me the same thing. I hope none of the screeners is taking this personally as my goal is to improve it and not to cry about it.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
DRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1731 times:
Willem
the reason (i think) the pic is rejected is because the wing of the plane is not very big in the picture.The Wing view the wing is in 1/4th of the picture but yours it like roughyl 1/8th of the pic.
It sure is a nice pic and if you turned the camera to the left to show more wing it would of gotten oN!
Corey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2519 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1713 times:
I would say it's because the small portion of the wing is covering all the cool action going on in the background... meanwhile, at least 50% of the shot is of, what appears to be, a disgusting construction zone or industrial area.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1696 times:
It sure is a nice pic and if you turned the camera to the left to show more wing it would of gotten oN!
Thanks Nick but it is going to be rather difficult to find more wing on a Cessna 172, dude.
I will ask the Aviodrome CEO to make the BUK ready for flight and to let me use it for my aerial work, guess that would give me just enough wing.
Anyway i got the message and currently working on a new version for a last try.
Thanks to all for your input and consider this case closed.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, RR: 35 Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
I like it. Badmotive is particularly tough to work with, because it's the only rejection reason that is - in most cases - impossible to rectify.
The screeners are usually very articulate in expressing their particular dislike with images; I'd really like it if some of the less obvious badmotive rejections contained a critique, so at least the photographer is spared the frustration and confusion.
Before one chips in with a "when the f**k would we get time to do that" response, I appreciate this is probably an ideal-world scenario.
Cheers
James
Edit: Sorry Willem I started this before your previous post.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1674 times:
No need for sorry James, your description of the problem is quite accurate.
I got some info to work with for which i am happy and making me think i might get it just right.
Made a new crop tight as possible with all the wing(still a 172 wing) available in the frame.
Bit of the drama is gone but we'll see what the outcome is going to be: database or wastebin.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1570 times:
Sure Nick no problem.
It will look like this: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/small/Cessna172_PH-OTK_IMG_1964.jpg
Kept it as wide as the wing and don't want to crop it any smaller.
Most of the industrial area is gone although the town(Mijdrecht) is still visible.
The shape of the cloud can still be seen although the enormous base is gone, which is a pitty in my view.
Anyway we'll see what happens with it.
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2028 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}