Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4370 times:
I have said many times before in threads that I'm not a fan of screener bashing, and I believe we have to accept the decisions made on this site, whether we like them or not. So the following is not a whinge about this rejection, but an attempt to understand the process a bit more.
The following photo has just been rejected. The reasons given were two - bad motive and bad common. I would be very interested to know the opinions of others on this.
One of the reasons I chose this photo to upload is that I am a bit of a fan of these kind of zoomed perspective images. If you choose to look at my pictures you will see a number of examples of photos taken in such a way - cropped to have the compressed fuselage as the primary subject in the image. Of course I accept that this bias towards photos such as this may be a personal thing and I am happy for others not to feel so positive about them. But I like them and I have not had a rejection before for a similar composition on the grounds of motive.
Are there other members who do not approve of such images, are a bit fed up with them or agree that the general motive is poor?
On the second point, I do not travel around to take photos from many venues, and so am rather limited to the aircraft we see at Manchester. As such, and because I now am fortunate enough to have had a number of photos accepted on the database, I am increasingly looking to different ways of photographing aircraft that already appear a lot on the site. Prior to uploading I checked this aircraft and there are 89 photos on the database. However, there is not a single example of the aircraft photographed in this way - using this zoomed perspective on the airframe. To me that led me to feel I would have avoided the issue of bad common.
So, my second question is - do you think that when a particular aircraft has that kind of number of images already on the database we need the picture to stand out in some more obvious way that what was, in my opinion (but not the screener's), a new and different motive.
I am very interested in members' views on this, but I would like any discussion to be constructive, rather than an opportunity to complain about screening inconsistencies etc - we have all seen those arguments many a time.
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4242 times:
Psych
I like the zoomed in aspect also it really stands out and shows a lot of detail .
All i can say is poor lucky with that shot but hope you don't stop uploading those shots because i like them and also saw a lot of your images of this aspect and think they are very nice.
All the best for future uploads.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4231 times:
Kar-lok: thanks for your comment, but I have to say I am not persuaded that including the gear would improve the motive of a shot like this. I think it would cause an imbalance as, in order for the subject to then be centred, you'd have to include a lot more above the top of the fuselage. The I think you change the motive.
Alan: thanks very much for those supportive comments. It's good to receive positive feedback like that.
Whilst I am back on can I clarify that second point - I am trying to clarify in my own mind what motive would be necessary for this particular airframe to be acceptable on the database. With 89 pictures already accepted most motives have now been done and so does this imply that for an aircraft such as this there is no real point uploading unless your photo captures something really out of the ordinary, rather than what still remains, in my opinion, a different perspective.
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 962 posts, RR: 34 Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4220 times:
Hi Paul, good to see you last Sunday. The only thing that stands out to me is that your shot is weighted towards the bottom of the frame and there is too much dead space at the top. Something along these lines might of yielded success.
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4210 times:
Beautifully sharp photo. I don't agree with the badcommon rejection for the reasons you mention, but I have to say I do agree with the bad motive. I appreciate your point of view but the cropping out of the undercarriage doesn't work for me -- my eyes keep being drawn downward to where the wheels should be, so that rather than emphasising the fuselage the crop does the opposite. I would keep the undercarriage in the photo and I see no need to allow extra space above the fuselage to compensate. Such a composition would still create the close-in effect you're after.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4206 times:
This is really useful feedback guys - keep it coming. Thanks for taking the time.
Jid + Charles: I think I see what you are saying. I think here I have cropped at my usual 1200 x 800 and my focus has been getting the front and back of the fuselage right. But with hindsight maybe that has resulted in a crop that is not right for the bottom of the picture - i.e. not close enough to the bottom of the fuselage, but not wide enough to include the gear.
Maybe I should revisit the original and look at a crop closer to 4 x 3. But my fear is this would then spoil the effect I was looking for of the fuselage itself being the main subject - without tailplane, gear etc. I think you may be right Jid that it is the angle of the fuselage - compared to your shot being straighter on - that may be an important factor here.
I was looking to replicate the effect of this photo already accepted:
LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4199 times:
Real tough luck Paul. I would be rather miffed if i had that rejection to. And i sure can see why you are rather confused. How can your picture be rejected for "bad motive" when other pictures of a wheel for example are let in..... As for "Bad common" i cannot see how a very good picture should even be rejected just due to the fact there are alot of other pictures of that aircraft on the site. Just my view As you say not all of us are lucky to have the funds to fly all over the world , so we have to just get the best quality pictures we can of the limited aircraft available..... If it became a rule that only aircraft with 10 or less pictures on the sight were allowed in i think 99% of us would have to give up.
I would appeal on this one Paul as imho there nothing wrong with it.
Good luck
Simon C
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4141 times:
Simon and Eric - thanks for those comments. I have never appealed a photo since I began, and I suppose my instinct is to accept the screener's decision and move on. I guess the issue for me here is whether the photo is worthy enough to go through that process. I don't think it's a 2000 views shot, after all. Obviously I would not have submitted it if I felt there was something wrong with it, but I think I can see where Jid and Charles are coming from. Despite this, evidently if I was a screener I would have accepted it .
But my other question still stands - even if the screener had been happy with the motive it looks like s/he would still have rejected it for bad common. Any more thoughts on this issue - as I said before, there are no other equivalent shots of 'AA' in the database that look like this.
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4129 times:
Paul
My impression is that a screener may frequently add a badcommon to a photo that has been rejected for other reasons as a way of showing that photos of a plane which already has many shots in the database are being judged to a higher standard. In other words, badcommon in your case may have been dependent on the badmotiv and in the absence of the latter the shot could have been accepted. But this is an impression -- perhaps one of the crew could kindly clarify.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4120 times:
Interesting - I am unable to use that fancy new url stuff to post a link when I tried to edit my last post.
Anyway, what I was trying to add was that I have just remembered that I have this photo waiting in the queue. Am I going to suffer the same fate with this one for its motive?
Thanks for that very interesting comment Charles - helpful.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 46 Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 4035 times:
Very good image Paul and a shame it is rejected really.
Especially for the reasons given, don't want to say to much about it as it seems i have said to much lately anyway.
Your image is less common the other 999 uploaded the last 24hours but technically a lot better, to bad it will disappear into obscurity.
Hope this will comfort you a bit..........
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4006 times:
For me this really does vindicate the use of this Forum. I have been very encouraged by the feedback from members - so thanks very much for that. I am also pleased that we have been able to discuss the issues without the thread descending into an unhealthy moan about standards/inconsistencies etc.
I have decided to appeal, as suggested by some. As I said, this is the first time I have done this. Whilst I will not be broken-hearted if the decision comes back negative, I am interested to follow this process through and I will, of course, post the result. I am not sure how long that will take.
Thanks once again to everyone for taking the time to comment - feel free to continue the discussion, as I still feel there may be more we can usefully discuss about the issue of how to get a photo accepted for an aircraft that already has many images in the database.
Patroni From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, RR: 15 Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3927 times:
Paul,
being a closeup fan myself I really like your Britannia pic! Wonderful lighting and lots of details to explore. This one definitely stayed longer on my screen than any standard shot of the same aircraft.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3898 times:
Well, Fellas, things have moved very fast.
I only appealed the photo last night, but it has already been examined and was successful - so thanks to Johan for that - and thanks again to everyone here who suggested that course of action.
Now interestingly this BA photo was rejected overnight - not, this time for bad motive, but for bad centred. I can accept that there is slightly more space above the fuselage than below, but my reasoning - interestingly - was that to crop any lower would bring in the gear to the photo. I had figured that having half a wheel in the photo may have attracted a bad motive rejection - so I consciously avoided that in this one, keeping them out. All very fascinating.
Of course, I would be very interested to read any further comments.
All the best.
Paul
P.S. Just as an aside - I see that the decision to accept the photo now has not altered the fact that the picture's initial rejection remains as a statistic in those figures that now appear in the updated upload page, underneath your name and email details. Is that the way it should be?
Willo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 13 Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3878 times:
Paul
re your aside.
I suppose it depends how slavishly you follow statistics. As I'm not in a race with anyone it doesn't bother me. I have several rejects in my statistics that were subsequently accepted after rework.
I assume the appeals process is effectively a re-screening and even though no remedial work has been done, the original rejection stands, unfair as this may seem
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3827 times:
Thanks for that message, Willo.
I agree with you that it's not a good thing to worry about these statistical things - I try hard not to even look at things like that (and number of views these days) as I find myself all too easily hooked in to thinking about them and how they could be better. Much more 'mature' not to worry .
However, I think a reworking of a rejected image is one thing - because clearly the image is going to be different in some way to the original - but if the rejection of an original upload is overturned (through the appeals process), it feels to me that that statistic should then not be represented as a rejection.
A very minor point, but it brings out the pedant in me.
Willo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 13 Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3819 times:
Paul
I get excited when a picture gets in to double figures (well they are all of G.A./Helicopters at minor UK airfields) and if I hit a 100 it's time to get the beer out
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, RR: 60 Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3815 times:
Andrew,
Well I am here to help out there. I'm a bit pushed for time now but later I am going to check out your photos in detail - watch those view counters rise as a result .
I see you have some good GA shots there, which will make a good change for me to examine closely.
Paul
25 Psych: I have had a look at the BA757 photo again that was rejected and the way the crop is constructed is almost identical to the Britannia 767 that was suc
26 FlyFloats: Why didn't they put your name beside the copyright on the bottom left?
27 Psych: Not sure what you mean there Ian. The copyright banner appears okay to me. Paul
28 TZ: There is an error in the script, which affects the medium version of accepted-appealed images. We're aware of it, and working on it. Tamsin (a.net scr
29 Psych: Aahh - that's why I didn't spot it. I never look at medium versions of photos - if the thumbnail attracts my attention I think the photo deserves a hi
30 Psych: Thanks once again for the encouragement from fellow A.net members - it goes along way. All the best. Paul[Edited 2005-02-25 20:40:47]
31 Clickhappy: Paul, I took what you wrote to mean that you click the "large" version of a photo, so that the photo gets a view, correct? It also gets a view if the
32 Psych: Now you've confused me, Royal. I thought that you had to click the 'large' version of a photo for the view counter to register that viewing. Paul
33 Jan Mogren: When it comes to hits, large means "bigger than thumbnail" /JM
34 JumboJim747: You currently have ? Photos in our database. The large version of all your photos have been viewed a total of ???? distinct times. On average, a photo
35 Psych: I'm definitely with you there Alan. As far as I was concerned, a click on a 'Medium' did not register on the viewing counter. Royal (or any other Crew
36 INNflight: Medium as well as Large does count as 1 hit! Florian
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2976 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 839 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 962 posts, 
From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, 
As you say not all of us are lucky to have the funds to fly all over the world , so we have to just get the best quality pictures we can of the limited aircraft available..... If it became a rule that only aircraft with 10 or less pictures on the sight were allowed in i think 99% of us would have to give up.
.
From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Aug 1999, 1403 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
