Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Badmotive Advice Please  
User currently offlinePhilthy From Australia, joined May 2005, 123 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2029 times:

I wonder if someone from the screeners could please explain why this shot was rejected for badmotive?


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Phil Vabre



After all, it is one of the most important aviation-related buildings in Australia and there is no other shot of it on a.net.

I'm thinking of appealing, but would like to understand the reason for the badmotive before I make a decision.

Thanks,

Philthy

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

Philthy
Although a nice shot and the building has every relevance to aviation to the average viewer he would not know this unless he was told so.
Im thinking the reason for the rejection is it lacks aviation material/
Just my opinion.
Good luck with it
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlinePhilthy From Australia, joined May 2005, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2018 times:

Thanks JumboJim,

The caption I wrote for it explains what it is and what it does. Apart from that, it is clearly located at the airport (the shot was taken from the Tower balcony by the way). I don't know what else I could have done to make it more relevant.

Cheers,

Philthy


User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5855 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2000 times:

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 1):
Philthy
Although a nice shot and the building has every relevance to aviation to the average viewer he would not know this unless he was told so.
Im thinking the reason for the rejection is it lacks aviation material/
Just my opinion.
Good luck with it
Cheers

he actually explains perfectly what the building is, it's as relevant as a control tower, it's i think the center that covers more area than any other in the world.

great shot, appeal it because it's definately aviation related and relevant to this site!



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1979 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Badmotiv is justified here, we don't accept these kind of atc buildings.

Cheers
Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1961 times:

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 3):
he actually explains perfectly what the building is, it's as relevant as a control tower, it's i think the center that covers more area than any other in the world

I respect that and i did state that to someone looking at the picture simply wont know the story behind it until he reads the remark.



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1955 times:

it is an Air Traffic Services Centre ..... , where does the line stop, if we start accepting those? then what about fire patrol on airports or trucks that do push a/cs or airport jails , etc, etc ....

Robin



ABC
User currently offlinePhilthy From Australia, joined May 2005, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

So:

Control Tower = OK

Control Centre = not OK

Have I got it right?

What about Airport Fire Stations? Not OK? I ask because I have a shot of one in the wings.

Terminals are OK though? Inside and/or outside?

I'd appreciate an authoritative ruling so we all know where we stand. Just where exactly is the line?

Thanks,

Philthy


User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Quoting Philthy (Reply 7):
Control Tower = OK

yes - OKAY

Quoting Philthy (Reply 7):
Control Centre = not OK

yes - NOT OKAY

Quoting Philthy (Reply 7):
What about Airport Fire Stations? Not OK?

yes - NOT OKAY

Quoting Philthy (Reply 7):
Terminals are OK though? Inside and/or outside?

yes - both okay

edit: there may be exceptions, depending on how much the NOs fill the frame. 1/5 of the picture shows an airport firestation, 4/5 of the picture shows an terminal, rwy, a/c, etc .... might be OKAY

[Edited 2005-08-12 15:38:59]


ABC
User currently offlinePhilthy From Australia, joined May 2005, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1911 times:

Thanks, I'm starting to wrap my head around the rules now! At least it explains why this shot was also rejected for badmotiv:


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Phil Vabre



But if terminals are OK, could someone please explain why this was rejected for badmotiv?


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Phil Vabre



Not just any old terminal shot, but something quite topical. It even has an aeroplane in it!

Still groping for understanding.

Philthy


User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5855 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1902 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 4):
Badmotiv is justified here, we don't accept these kind of atc buildings.

then this is just as equal a bad motive as is Suresh' shot of the NASA hangar, since when have hangar photos been admitted?!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/898621/L/

the work site no longer resembles the old Kai Tak, to anyone who is looking at this for the first time and didn't have the benefit of the info provided it would just be another pile of dirt somewhere, which is what it clearly is now! how long can you keep uploading the same pile of dirt and call it Kai Tak when it resembles nothing of it's former self? atleast the building uploaded is currently relevant to aviation unlike the pile of dirt which was Kai Tak.

anybody wish to clarify?

[Edited 2005-08-12 16:46:09]


a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1890 times:

how about shots of gym's? No more aviation related than this rejected shot. Come on guys don't just bury your heads in the ground and pretend like that shot doesn't exist.

User currently offlinePhilthy From Australia, joined May 2005, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

Firstly, I want to thank Tim and Robin for providing some answers to my posts above.

Secondly, I want to make it clear that I'm not interested in re-opening the debate about what should or shouldn't be badmotiv: I'm only interested in what is and isn't considered badmotiv today, especially when it comes to less 'conventional' subjects. This also shouldn't be interpreted as a poke at the screeners: that isn't my intention.

As you can probably tell, I have had a few shots rejected for badmotiv, many of which have left me scratching my head. All I want to do is understand the rules so that I can stop wasting my time and the screeners'.

I would therefore much appreciate some advice in relation to my terminal shot above, and after that I have a few more to ask about.

Thanks,

Philthy

PS: If someone thinks I should start a new thread for each question, please let me know. I did, however, think it better to keep it all in one thread.


User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

Bad Motive? Let's not go there.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TZ Aviation


This shot pretty much destroyed the credibility of the "BADMOTIVE" reject, and changed the opinion of every photographer on this site. None of us look at "BADMOTIVE" seriously anymore. It's rediculous.   

Drew

[Edited 2005-08-13 18:59:12]


I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlinePhilthy From Australia, joined May 2005, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1805 times:

Actually, I quite like the shot of the former Hatfield Tower and I think it does have relevance. Nevertheless, as I made clear above, I don't want to re-open that particular debate.

I would like to focus on what the rules are, not what they should or might be. I firmly believe that if we all had a better idea of what the screeners are working to, then there would be less angst among the photographers.

Would someone from the screeners care to provide some information?

Thanks,

Philthy


User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1794 times:

Quoting Philthy (Reply 14):
Actually, I quite like the shot of the former Hatfield Tower and I think it does have relevance. Nevertheless, as I made clear above, I don't want to re-open that particular debate.

Not trying to re-kindle that debate, but let me just say why I posted my comment. I agree with you - the Hatfield Tower does have some relevance, but it's waaaay out in the gray area.

What is irritating to us photographers is NOT that the ex-Tower now Gym shot made it into the database, but that it made it in when some of our AIRCRAFT shots (which are perfectly composed, tack sharp, interesting, colorful and uploaded with all the correct info) get rejected because one pixel is too bright or too dark, or when a matter of opinion - not fact - goes into rejecting a shot that has more relevance than a building shot.

This is airliners.net, not buildings.net.

That being said, you're right - we should focus on the rules, and I believe that creating a more consistant screening system should be a priority.  bigthumbsup 

Drew



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5855 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1791 times:

i think the gym shot is much more relevant than say the recent Kai Tak shot that i linked before, atleast the gym shows the original building and tower but Kai Tak has nothing in it that resembles a former airport, question is this...how long can a.net keep accepting photos of the former Kai Tak in it's current state and still call it relevant?


a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offline9V-SVC From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 1797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1789 times:

O come on , is it so that important for your beautiful shot of the atc building to be uploaded to airliners.net ? Just chill it and move on ...


Have a nice one.



Airliners is the wings of my life.
User currently offlinePhilthy From Australia, joined May 2005, 123 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

Thanks 9V-SVC, I guess that comment is aimed at me.

No, it's not at all important that I get my ATC Centre shot on a.net. In fact, if you read my posts above carefully you will see that now I understand what the rules are concerning such buildings I'm quite happy to go along with them.

The problem arises when people like me don't (or can't) understand the rules. Given recent comments in this forum, it seems that there are at least a few others like me who find some of the badmotive rules, in particular, baffling at times.

That's why I think it would be worthwhile for the screeners, who administer these rules, to give us all some further guidance. Especially, as I have said above, where less 'conventional' subjects are concerned.

That's all I'm after.

Philthy


User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1771 times:

Quoting Philthy (Reply 18):
there are at least a few others like me who find some of the badmotive rules, in particular, baffling at times.

I agree with you Phil, it's just a matter of inconsistant screening. As Royal is quick to point out - it's done by humans. Some are more tolerant than others. Some are black and white while some exist in the gray area. It's becoming more like luck of the draw when it comes to getting great photos accepted.

I've completely abandoned my 1200 wide shots. After over a dozen rejections lately, including bad motive (because nose gear wasn't visible - and there are HUNDREDS of shots like it in the d/b), my acceptance rate has fallen to an insane level. I'll go 1024 from now on, no matter how tiny it looks on my 1600 wide screen. Maybe the rules will slack off a bit at that size.

I'm still glad to be here, and I hope that someday the screeners can clarify some of these rules, and band together to start screening a bit more consistantly.

Drew



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineSyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2028 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1760 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 19):
I'm still glad to be here, and I hope that someday the screeners can clarify some of these rules, and band together to start screening a bit more consistantly.

I think that hit it right on the dot, the photographers for the most part have done their end of the work, now it's time for the screeners to do their work.

-Charlie


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Tripod & Sekonic Light Meter Advice Please posted Sun Nov 19 2006 21:33:17 by INNflight
Crop Advice Please posted Mon Nov 6 2006 16:24:17 by Cosec59
A Little Advice Please? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 15:22:20 by Chachu201
Blurry Rejection Advice Please posted Sun Oct 22 2006 19:58:16 by INNflight
Leveling Advice Please posted Wed Oct 18 2006 20:39:23 by Stu1978
Monitor Advice Please posted Sun Oct 1 2006 23:30:30 by McG1967
Quality Rejection - Advice Please posted Mon Sep 11 2006 21:24:14 by UA935
Contrast And Dark Rejection - Advice Please posted Wed Aug 30 2006 22:15:45 by Lanas
Quality Rejection Advice Please posted Sun Aug 13 2006 10:44:40 by Kukkudrill
Found Some Old Photos-Prescreening Advice Please posted Sat Jul 29 2006 22:19:01 by COEXpilot