APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 1): What other photo are you referring to?
Being a bit polite wouldn't hurt either.
I don't want to post other ones as all that does is bring out fanboys like you who dont address the topic but rather just say how it is frowned upon to post other peoples work.
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1640 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 2): I don't want to post other ones as all that does is bring out fanboys like you who dont address the topic but rather just say how it is frowned upon to post other peoples work.
While rejections are frustrating, I wouldn't get your balls in a knot and take it out on a fellow member whom provided adequate advice. The shot is not level. You are in an odd position. It's a doable shot but needs to be releveled and I suggest cropping closer.
While I do feel the whole screening system is very controversy and at many times I do not agree with screeners, I, at no time, think that taking your issues out on a fellow member, regardless of what they say/said, is appropriate conduct.
Here's a quick rework that I did for you, I have not shot anything like this before so the angle is new as is the edit.
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1632 times:
Quoting UA777222 (Reply 3): While rejections are frustrating, I wouldn't get your balls in a knot and take it out on a fellow member whom provided adequate advice. The shot is not level. You are in an odd position. It's a doable shot but needs to be releveled and I suggest cropping closer.
While I do feel the whole screening system is very controversy and at many times I do not agree with screeners, I, at no time, think that taking your issues out on a fellow member, regardless of what they say/said, is appropriate conduct.
What advice did florian provide exactly? And how is it not level.
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1632 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 2): I don't want to post other ones as all that does is bring out fanboys like you who dont address the topic but rather just say how it is frowned upon to post other peoples work.
With a thread title like yours you better should post that photo!!!
I'll tell you why yours got rejected if you post the other photo, so go and get it in here!
If I don't find a real reason why yours didn't make it... ok well ... then the screeners really are that baaaad.
Edoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1630 times:
APFPilot1985 I don't see why you seem so angry, I think objectively you could think of many reasons, such as, for example, the fact that the crop of this picture is cutting a light on the wing and a landing gear wheel in half. There is some stuff on the background as well.
Now whether this deserves badmotive can be debated about (but I'm not a screener, so my opinion is not really irrelevant), but all I can say is that there MAY be good reasons, so it might be better to look for those rather than bluntly say how ridiculous standards are being applied.
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1612 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 4): What advice did florian provide exactly? And how is it not level.
He originally stated that the shot was not level. For all I know it is level based on objects not in the picture but judging by the lines of the aircraft its not level and though the poles might be level I would think that's grounds for a badcameraangel rejection, no? That's what the angle is doing to you, IMO. With a crop like the one that I provided I feel it makes the viewer/screener focus on the engine and the engine alone. When I first looked at the picture I was wondering why the a/c was, or appeared, to be crooked. It was only after I cropped, and posted that I realized the cool reflection on the engine, which I feel is better represented with a tighter crop.
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1607 times:
Im not talking about double standards as in one person gets accepted because of name and another not (although that does exsist) but rather the objectivity that badmotiv requires and how it isnt applied consistantly.
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
Rejections are hard but they are also things we can learn from. Trust me I nearly blew a gasket last night when I got a bad info rejection as I was so carefull but it turns out I was wrong and so were the two photos in the DB that I used for reference. Although I wasn't rude I still apologized to the screeners.
I have to agree with Matt's version it's much better and I think I know the photo you are refering to in the DB but if you look at it again you will see that it is croped very tight similar to Matt's version
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
you want examples florian here:
Now mind you I am posting these because these are my favorite kind of shots on airliners. I love closeups on technical parts of a/c that we normally wouldnt get to see
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1585 times:
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 9): but rather the objectivity that badmotiv requires and how it isnt applied consistantly.
Badmotive can only be decided on case to case basis. The are rough guidelines, like a blocked gear, or clutter blocking other parts of the aircraft, but otherwise it's not a rejection like badjagged, which you can always apply in the same case.
Said in a thread before:
( Free quote )
Badmotive is likely to be applied when the screener(s) can't see the real motive of a photo or what the photographer wanted to point out.
So, we all know it is an engine close-up, probably it simply wasn't too close, like Matt suggested.
Now mind you I am posting these because these are my favorite kind of shots on airliners. I love closeups on technical parts of a/c that we normally wouldnt get to see
The photo you linked has more engine, less fuselage. This would be the main difference that makes the rejection reason, in my eyes.
The photo you linked is more wide angle, so it looks more impressive.
The photo you linked is taken from a lower point of view, again the impressive part.
UA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 13 Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1572 times:
I have to agree with to you a degree.
While they are both very similar photos I think that photographer gets away with it by covering up the aircraft so the angle is not confusing. I keep stating that the angle kills the shots as it's what was bugging me, for all I know someone might feel the complete opposite. If the rework that I provided isn't what you are looking for then try to acheve the same thing while still using your photo;
And I agree that badmotiv is a hard one just got a badmotiv rejection myself;
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
That's some cracking good light you got on that FR engine. If the cropping was the problem then maybe a badpersonal would've been good, but atm it seems the screeners are working at warp-speed so. I'll bet that shot goes in recropped, and will do very well.
regarding the Cook shot above, it's very overexposed
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1531 times:
Reid
Quoting APFPilot1985 (Reply 11): I love closeups on technical parts of a/c that we normally wouldnt get to see
You have just answered your own question. Look at the one you have posted and your own. Your shot is very good, well exposed and the blades are tack sharp. In fact the whole image is flippin sharp, by the way what equipment did you use, more so what lens.
APFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1501 times:
Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 16): You have just answered your own question. Look at the one you have posted and your own. Your shot is very good, well exposed and the blades are tack sharp. In fact the whole image is flippin sharp, by the way what equipment did you use, more so what lens.
Crop tighter and reload.
Take care
Nothing more than a 20d and the 18-55 that was in the kit.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1475 times:
Half of the starboard main gear, half of the cabin windows, and more then half of a maintenance stand = badmotive. Easy when you break it down. Maybe you just missed all of that before uploading?
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, 
Maybe you just missed all of that before uploading?
Printer friendly format 
