The reason was 'badcameraangle'. I'm assuming this really means 'badlevel' due to the lamp pole on the left. Clearly this is on a massive slant when compared to the others.
I just wondered what people's thoughts were and if there's anything I've not picked up on, as I might consider appealing depending on what you all think.
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1981 times:
Badcameraangle. I hate that rejection. Had one rejected for it too recently;
Still debating what to do with that one. Oh well. I like your shot. I do think that it is appeal quality seeing as its more than just a 'slant'
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1980 times:
I agree that you should appeal, just make it crystal clear in your appeal explanation that the one pole is not a very good reference to the overall level of the photo.
EDIT: In regards to Matt's photo, I haven't measured anything, but the photo seems to be tilted a bit CCW. It might be level according to the vertical structures, but it just looks off.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1965 times:
I've seen other "badcamerangle" rejections due to a less then an optimum angle that the shot was taken from. In other words it is an un-flattering position, you could have taken a more side on shot versus this oblique angle, or waited for the aircraft to pass by all of those distracting light poles.
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1961 times:
Quoting Newark777 (Reply 3): EDIT: In regards to Matt's photo, I haven't measured anything, but the photo seems to be tilted a bit CCW. It might be level according to the vertical structures, but it just looks off.
I think its a no go due to the fact that it's level based off of the things around it but that it was cranking pretty fast around that turn and in my opinion the actual aircraft is tilting due to the turn + speed.
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1949 times:
I think its a no go due to the fact that it's level based off of the things around it but that it was cranking pretty fast around that turn and in my opinion the actual aircraft is tilting due to the turn + speed.
Exactly why I hate leveling, it's such a pain in the ass.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1944 times:
Thanks guys,
Here is one from that morning with the pole on the left levelled. This is wrong and the other poles would be leaning to the right, but they are obscured by the plane, so aren't noticable. This one has passed the first round.
Jeff, you're a bit damned at that spot, as you're beyond the fence at the end of the runway, looking at them as they are turning, so the poles are inevitable.
Vbonina From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 11 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1928 times:
Hi Tim
I would apeal the rejection, although the shot does look a little too sharp to me.
I like the camera angle
Vince
Vbonina From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 11 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
I take that back, Not too sharp, the shot looks great... sorry
Vince
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1910 times:
Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 8): Jeff, you're a bit damned at that spot, as you're beyond the fence at the end of the runway, looking at them as they are turning, so the poles are inevitable.
I agree, not every location is a good one. Some you just have to pass up due to the problems they present.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 65 Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 12): BadCameraAngle and BadInfo are rejections I don't mind. Reason: Very easy to fix.
I'm exactly the opposite as a bad level looks like slapdash work, which it is not. The levels are very subjective and Tim has encountered the problem in a big way on this one. A glance at his photo shows what is out of level, the red and white pole, rather than the photo.
Tim, the shot is a good one and I would appeal it as I think a screener has made a mistake, an easy one to make.
When verticals are all over the place as in this photo I have taken to telling the screener which reference I have used as I think this helps them to help us.
Mick Bajcar
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 46 Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1864 times:
Tim,
Your MNG picture, needs 0.5 CW rotation. See the screenshot below:
I rotated the middle light pole, you could also use the light pole on the far left as a referernce point.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
Thanks again guys,
I'll have a closer look at this one when I get home this evening. I think the centre lamp pole is probably the best reference, so if it needs some CW rotation it will be one to rework.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 207 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
