Fergulmcc From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2987 times:
Quoting Sulman (Reply 1): I don't think I've heard of a rejection for that before now, but I'm ambivalent about it. I've got a few examples in the DB myself, recently though I've made an effort to avoid it.
Like James I too have a few photos in the DB of still props but a lot of people hate them and I could see that it really created a fuss. So I now set my Tv Mode to 1/125 and when ever a prop plane comes along I switch over to Tv mode and shoot to get the nice prop blur. I have to admit I quit like it now.
TZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2805 times:
Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 3): Perhaps it was just some advice from the screener, and the badmotiv was for something else...
And I have to agree with that comment, frozen props are not nice
Tim is absolutely right. I rejected it for the other reason(s), and also attempted to provide a useful tip, suggesting that such an image would be improved in future if the props were not frozen. I agree my wording could have been better. In my head saying "frozen props not nice" sounded like a word of advice rather than an explanation for the rejection. In retrospect I was wrong and should have chosen different wording.
I can categorically 100% guarantee to you that the image was NOT rejected due to the frozen props.
I hope such complete honesty is regarded favourably by you, TFSPhoto. There is no room whatsoever at airliners.net for dishonesty or fabrication of facts, wouldn't you agree?
PS To everybody - while frozen props are certainly "not nice", they do not influence the screening decision.
PPS After posting the above I found the rejected image in the appeal queue. It was rejected for "badquality" for the quality (the primary problem), "badmotiv" for composition (which is borderline, agreed) and the "badpersonal" was an ill-fated attempt at advice. It was not rejected solely for badmotivbadpersonal.
TFSPhoto From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2774 times:
Quoting Tamsin (Reply 6): I hope such complete honesty is regarded favourably by you, TFSPhoto. There is no room whatsoever at airliners.net for dishonesty or fabrication of facts, wouldn't you agree?
Im sorry if we have got crossed here, this wasnt my intent.. I appologise, i must of mis-read the rejection e.mail, please accept my appologies.
I do however thankyou for the "bad personal", i may of sounded a bit "slanderish" and this was also not my intent of the post. I would praise any screener for badpersonal, as the screeners are actually trying to help the photographer..
Looking bad at it now (without the e.mail) i now realise that the "badpersonal" was actually a tip, and not the real reason for the rejection, which i did origonally think it was..
Once again Tamsin, please accept my appologies for this matter.
Dehowie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
I think one of the more challenging shots is to get a nice sharp shot of a turboprop with the props blurred through at least about 30 degrees.
Gives a great impression of motion as opposed to looking like its parked or had a double engine flameout.
Dash's are particularly hard because the props are spinng at only 1200RPM at T/O which means a shutter speed of around 1/200th will get you about 60 degrees of rotation and it looks great.
Only problem is as they are quite a bit smaller you are generally shooting at 400mm so its always a challenge to get a nice action shot with good prop blurr at lower shutter speeds.
Glad to hear that the screener team take a harsher look at shots with frozenprops.
After all its not that hard to turn your shutter speed down to 1/200th is it?
I already explained, and apologised for my poor use of English. It was intended as useful advice, not as a reason for rejection. But this has been well covered already.
Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 14): Its not a wonder why atleast one screener I know doesnt screen here anymore.
Several screeners are not screeners anymore at airliners.net. Some were not performing to the airliners.net standard, and some found the airliners.net standard was not to their liking. That's fine, we don't all agree on every subject in life and change is always good - it keeps us fresh and makes us challenge ourselves. Lack of change breeds complacency.
Lew's question has been answered and the matter of rejecting on the basis of frozen props has been clarified (we don't reject for that).