AJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2404 posts, RR: 24 Posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Hi guys, I recently had this shot rejected for 'badmotiv':
Reading through the reasons I'm unable to identify which one applies to this shot.
It was taken from just left of centre with a 10mm lens, which is why the top and bottom of the shot aren't parallel, so I leveled it to the top of the MCP.
Any ideas as to what I can do to the shot to make it acceptable, or shall I bin it?
QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2397 times:
Awesome shot Anthony! The only thing I can see that could possibly have warranted the badmotiv is the captain's face, but it really should have been badpeople instead, then. Maybe try appealing, or determine whether it was indeed the captain's face in which case I dunno if there's anything that could save it.
Kereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2377 times:
And it could be that big back of seat that the Captain is sitting in?
Backs of seats kill shots and are too intrusive. With a 10mm lens you could stand right beside the seat and still get all the flight deck in with the result being no back of seat. Remember the aircraft has to be the prime subject not the Captain or the back of seat. It would also be better if the Captain was looking forward and a little further left so that he doesnt obscure the instruments. A close call really and not far off being acceptable.
PS See how you have the RH seat that is okay, and if you had stood closer the instruments would be bigger in the frame especially with your 10mm lens.
QANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5919 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2366 times:
if back of seats is that bad then how have so many shots from the flight deck with that obtrusive seat made it into the database? i understand what you mean but it's a bit hypocritical to say that when we can browse the database and find many examples of what you've mentioned not to do.
imho the seat in this shot is far more obtrusive than of the rejected shot, i still think it's due to the captains face.
Pepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2223 times:
The seats can't be all that intrusive, after all there's a whole section dedicated to them; it's called cabin views.
The seats are as much a part of the cockpit as they are a part of the cabin. The same goes to heads. On every flight there are people in both. Without the seats and the people, there wouldn't be an Airliners.net.
CaptainTim From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2111 times:
HAHA!! as the owner of the picture that was mentioned... id have to say that yes the seat is quite intruding (sorry when i took my pic, i had no choice but to use the jumpseat headrest as the tripod soo yes the capt.'s seat was in the way)
but i think in your case, the seat is not that intruding.. its a great pic!! and i think its mainly due to the Capt's face.. what a waste of a shot
Gulfstream Planeview Cockpit: "why have hundreds of buttons when a CCD does the same thing and more?"