QANTAS077 From China, joined Jan 2004, 5745 posts, RR: 49 Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1190 times:
the 2nd shot Kaz is bloody awesome! the first one you have all that crap in front of the 737 and the the last i am not so sure about either. i'd appeal the 2nd shot!
a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1179 times:
I second QANTAS007 remark that 2nd shot is a lovely one.
Im not too sure about the 3rd was it also rejected for badmotiv or might be some other reason.
Good luck with them KAZ
CV63 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 106 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
Kaz,
I agree with QANTAS077, the first one has too much ramp lice and tarmac.
I like the 2nd shot too. IMO If you crop out the wing and just leave more of the engine and seascape, it may pass the standard.
The third shot has a lot of reflection which would make it bad motive.
CallMeCapt From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 496 posts, RR: 8 Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1176 times:
2nd photo, bad motiv because of all the background stuff. Truck, telegraph wires. To me, it looks too distracting. Similar to a bad motive rejection I got a few weeks ago. Nothing in front of the plane but too much fence in the foreground, even though it wasn't blocking the plane. I'll 3rd that opinion on the 2nd photo. Definitely appeal it.
Just had another look at the american airways. There's an odd look to it. The color doesn't match between the front half and the back half. Also, the metal "seam" doesn't line up.
What's the go there?
[Edited 2005-06-06 07:16:12]
[Edited 2005-06-06 07:19:41]
Without struggle, there is no progress. (Frederick Douglass)
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1154 times:
Sorry Kaz, but I would have to agree with the screeners that all three are indeed badmotive.
First shot has already been explained. Just not airliners.net material.
Second one is kinda nice because of the engine and the turquoise water, but the impression is "so what". Maybe a little more light like a fill flash may of highlighted the engine/rivets a bit more increasing the chances.
Third shot is mundane at best. Again better light could helped but its nothing special just some closeup of a plane lining up.
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 46 Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1119 times:
All the pictures need some more sharpening aswell.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5424 posts, RR: 49 Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1088 times:
Quote: Third shot is mundane at best. Again better light could helped but its nothing special just some closeup of a plane lining up.
I disagree, while perhaps not high art! The photo does illustrate things that have been discussed in this and other forums, eg the angle of the nose gear has been discussed but not illustrated well, the section join, Goran referred to. that is not easy to see most the time. I had to search many hundreds of my own photos to find something similar...(but not as clear)
IMHO, there is a place here for these "illustrative" type shots
Regards
Chris
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
FlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1052 times:
Like others have said already, I think on the first should you wanna crop that 737 way tighter, unless your motivation was to get that hangar plus the 737, but then again the 737 is way too small in that picture. For that second shot I have to agree with Qantas332 since it is pretty awesome indeed. Great shot. And then for the third shot, I don't see why it would get badmotiv. It is clearly a noseshot, and what's bad about that motiv, I mean? I think for that one there must be a different reason for rejection. I think it's rather soft in some parts of the picture but you can probably fix that in Photoshop.
Cheers,
Sebastian
Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
AirbusfanYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2002, 1406 posts, RR: 29 Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1020 times:
Thanks for the responses everyone... The first and third ones I'm sorta indifferent about now because I will probably get similar angles in the future. The Cayman 732 engine shot I am still stunned about, I will appeal.
Quoting BO__einG (Reply 5): Second one is kinda nice because of the engine and the turquoise water, but the impression is "so what"
Yeah I guess it's just not quite as exciting as a 50mm side-on.
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2759 posts, RR: 20 Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 975 times:
Hey man, You got some great pictures (YYZ/SXM) and I am sure that you'll get plenty more plane picts added this year including similar shots like your third one.
Those three I felt were not your usual high quality shots. Plus like the third one it was all coudy and dull weather.
YOu can appeal them I guess but it will take like weeks before Johan sees them.
Expanding my global domination one spotter at a time..
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Oct 2002, 1406 posts, 
From China, joined Jan 2004, 5745 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 106 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
