Digby From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 175 posts, RR: 11 Posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2969 times:
Hi all,
I just wanted to share a recent rejection with you. The rejection of course was for "badmotiv", (a rejection I'm sure most of you have received) but I find it sad that there isn't much room for creativity on this site. Photography in it's essence is about creativity, and it seems (on here) stifled at times. Some creative images do get on from time to time, but I wish there was room for more.
WhyWhyZed From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2947 times:
Quoting Digby (Thread starter): Hi all,
I just wanted to share a recent rejection with you. The rejection of course was for "badmotiv", (a rejection I'm sure most of you have received) but I find it sad that there isn't much room for creativity on this site. Photography in it's essence is about creativity, and it seems (on here) stifled at times. Some creative images do get on from time to time, but I wish there was room for more.
Cool shot, some nice details too. But as we all know, a.net is a database, and not a personal photo album. 99% of the time, if there isn't a shot like it on a.net, it won't get accepted.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2943 times:
I am in agreement in wishing A.net accepted some more creative shots, but I will say, you can't blame them. They have a formula they like to stick to, and it works for them. I talked to a screener once about a photo he took of titles close like this and it was also rejected for motive, so you're not alone. If you guys aren't happy with A.net upload at another site. With regards to 'soft' shot, I would say it is a little soft. JP doesn't have as high of standards as A.net so that could be a reason it was rejected here an accepted there.
-Matt
Digby From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 175 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2938 times:
Matt,
I don't blame anyone, nor did I think I was alone. I just wish that A.net could accept more creative images. After all, look at the images which get the views. They are normally the more creative ones, where the photographer had to spend a lot of time perfecting the frame and waiting for the right moment.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2935 times:
David, I am in total agreement. It is hard to read into how someone writes a comment. I wasn't saying you were blaming them. I was using the collective "you". Sorry if you had a misunderstanding. I also agree that the more popular shots are the ones people try to capture as art vs. data. People, including myself like to look at beautiful photos. On a side note, I read that a photographer has less than 1/2 a second to catch the attention of a person looking through photos, before they scan it and move to the next. Good photos catch the eye of a looker and keep their attention.
-Matt
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2922 times:
Wow, that's a fantastic image! The only complaint I could see them having is the tiny jaggies around the window frames. But apart from that it's superb!
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1044 posts, RR: 38 Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2915 times:
Great shot David
It would look great in any book,calender or magazine.
Great composition and nice colors.
Few jaggies on the windows but thats easily fixed.
Darren
Photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, RR: 20 Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2904 times:
Well David, for damn sure that's the kind of shot A.net needs more of. You can shoot and endless succession of boring photos out a window of an aircraft and just have a piece of the wing, a winglet or the same type engine housing/pylon we've seen a thousand times and of course that shot is accepted. But show something creative like you've captured, with great graphic detail and compositon and you get bad motive.
We should start a new category for many of A.net's posted photos.
BadSame or BadBoring.
Keep up the good work and hopefully at some point the powers in charge will see the error of their ways.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2898 times:
David, I understand where you are coming from. The more creative shots I find are alot more intersting.
I know your work and realise its of a high standard. If A.net are willing to reject that then its their loss not yours.
Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 3): If you guys aren't happy with A.net upload at another site.
Some people upload to both. But while people upload here, surely we are allowed to discuss the criteria of acceptance. Doing this sheds light as to why a shot was rejected/accepted.
On that note, I have learn't that if I try anything that may fall into the "creative" catagory, then I do upload elsewhere. Anything that isn't a side on shot, goes to another site, or my own.
Quoting Digby (Thread starter): Some creative images do get on from time to time, but I wish there was room for more.
There was talk a while ago about having section like this but didn't go much further than a discussion that I was aware of.
Once again, David, I really enjoy looking at your photos and its a shame that it wasn't accepted. Keep up the good work.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2824 times:
David, your photo is absolutely stunning. The way the lines work with the fuselage, The way the colors interact with the eye, it doesn't even feel like I'm looking at an aircraft, the texture is impeccable. Amazing photo.
Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 3): I would say it is a little soft. JP doesn't have as high of standards as A.net so that could be a reason it was rejected here an accepted there.
I disagree. While Jetphotos.net does tend to have a lower standard for novice uploaders, they don't for seasoned photographers. Their screeners know what to expect out of the experienced crowd and hold them to that standard. I like it because it gives the novice room for improvement while ensuring top quality photos from the big names.
And for some reason, I like looking at Chui's shots on Jetphotos
Airsnaps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2815 times:
David,
A fantastic photo but yet again one which we have been denied of the deserved viewing pleasure.
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 10): The way the lines work with the fuselage, The way the colors interact with the eye, it doesn't even feel like I'm looking at an aircraft, the texture is impeccable. Amazing photo.
Couldn't agree more! Thanks for sharing this one here.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2795 times:
Firstly, I really hope this thread continues to produce some interesting, constructive debate. This is the kind of thing this Forum needs at the moment, as it feels too many are currently disenchanted.
Quoting WhyWhyZed (Reply 2): But as we all know, a.net is a database
I agree with Jason that this is what is often said of A.net. But then I am left confused on what basis photos such as those of the outside scenery from the cabin; sunset silhouette shots; close up's of wheel bogies touching down (just to name a few, all of which I greatly enjoying viewing myself) are acceptable. I don't see how such photos enhance a 'database' for that registration particularly. My view is they enhance the variety of high quality photographic imagery offered to the viewer by the site, and I'm all in favour of that.
I know in the end we have no say in what is in and what is not, but it is the struggle to understand the internal consistency of the acceptance criteria which comes up again and again.
I approve of these more 'artistic' aviation images and I am one of those who think it would be good for the site (without detracting at all from its database role), as I also agree that it is often these kind of more 'atypical' shots that attract viewers' attention (and thus get them viewing more adverts too).
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 54 Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2771 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 12): I agree with Jason that this is what is often said of A.net. But then I am left confused on what basis photos such as those of the outside scenery from the cabin; sunset silhouette shots; close up's of wheel bogies touching down (just to name a few, all of which I greatly enjoying viewing myself) are acceptable. I don't see how such photos enhance a 'database' for that registration particularly. My view is they enhance the variety of high quality photographic imagery offered to the viewer by the site, and I'm all in favour of that.
Paul has nailed this on the head, well said Paul.
Dam good shot David and for once a nice perspective than your usual boring side-on's. It's a pity it was rejected.
Quoting Psych (Reply 12): I approve of these more 'artistic' aviation images and I am one of those who think it would be good for the site (without detracting at all from its database role), as I also agree that it is often these kind of more 'atypical' shots that attract viewers' attention (and thus get them viewing more adverts too).
Me too, keep them up David, it will give others more ideas.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5434 posts, RR: 49 Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2764 times:
David, that is a great shot that in addition to it's "art" value shows close up detail few of us get a chance to see.
I agree totally with what Paul, Fergul and others have said about this subject.
The subject of creativity at A.net, no room for that... only safe side on shots because those are Johan's rules right??
The screeners are only enforcing what Johan wants for the db right??
Anyone taken the time to look up Johan's profile? Like many other members he has taken the time to set up a personal album, in his case he called it "Editors Choice", go take a look, not a lot of safe side ons in that gallery of creativity!!
Regards
Chris
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 56 Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
Hi David,
Long time!
Love your shot! I can't explain why.
That's the problem....My feelings about your photo are as per any work of art. More of personal, subjective opinion.
You already know we stay within boundaries for a reason. Put simply, any further expansion of the guidelines to which we screen, will only lead to less objectivity.... a can of worms in anyone's book.
I have to leave as much of my personal opinions out of screening as possible. I must have reasons for every rejection, and most of the screening rules allow for black and white decisions. Some require experience for a decision. Some require knowledge about types. Some require knowing the content of the database.
We try to be as clear as possible about motiv, so you know in uploading this shot.... while nice to look at, doesn't really meet the criteria.
If I were to accept a close-up like this, then my bias, my human feelings about your shot would only lead to treating others unfairly.
How could such close-ups be defined? Is there an objective way of including such shots fairly? Maybe? Don't think we've come up with a way though.
So for the moment, unfortunately... it can't be accepted.
Nevertheless, your feedback to the forum is worthwhile. You never know. In the future we might expand guidelines to allow artistic shots... and as in the past, views of the members of this site are taken into account in order to improve the site.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 54 Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2598 times:
The screeners, head screeners and Johan have reviewed the image and spent some time discussing it.
The good news is that we agree with almost all of what has been said, and to expand on Glenn's comments (Reply 16), we all love the shot. Unquestionably outside the conventional bounds of airliners.net material, but we don't care because we all enjoy the shot and its obvious artistic merit.
Please don't forget that ANY shot is welcome here if it stands out on its own as a stunning image. David's image does just that, and that's why we welcome it, and other images which combine an observant eye with outstanding technical merit.
David - Please appeal the shot and we'll ensure it is accepted under appeal.
Tamsin
a.net Head Screener
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
Apuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3026 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2595 times:
That is one amazing image indeed. I can already see it in another book on special liveries...on the cover that is. Absolute stunning photo, and amazing colours!
9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2579 times:
If I may could I just add my 2c. For me the image just doesn't say anything. Yes it is sharp and clear and close-up but I agree that there is bad motiv there. It is a great attempt to capture a fantastic colour scheme but IMHO it just doesn't look right, sorry.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2559 times:
Good to see this thread moving forward.
Quoting Tamsin (Reply 19): Please don't forget that ANY shot is welcome here if it stands out on its own as a stunning image
Tamsin - I know these things are ultimately subjective, but is it at all possible to expand on this statement? I think part of the problem facing the site at present is precisely that people wouldn't expect you to say this - there is a view out there that A.net will simply not accept certain kinds of motives - even stunning ones.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
Yeah seriously the idea of "Stunning" and "artistic" needs to be elaborated on. I'd really like to see a.net go in that direction because really, it'd give me something to shoot for
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2530 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 23): I'd really like to see a.net go in that direction because really, it'd give me something to shoot for
Did someone say "Spot on the nose" to this statement: "Photograph for YOU and not for the viewer" some threads ago? http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/204079/4/
[Note the smiley
[Edited 2005-10-24 20:43:39]
-
25 9VSPO: If that were the case then this site would have no images.
27 9VSPO: Blimey! Not heard that word in a long time... I don't disagree...always take pics for yourself Wise words sir!
28 DLKAPA: Yes, but what gets displayed isn't nearly all of what is photographed even though I'd like it to be
29 Eadster: Glenn - that is the most clarification I've heard on upload criteria and I thank you for that. Although still a little vauge. What worries me is that
30 TZ: Given that the shot was not appealed nor sent to Johan, nor emailed to Screeners and not emailed to Head Screeners, what grounds are there for you to
31 Javibi: @Tamsin You did right, period. j P.S: Nice shot
32 Psych: Tamsin - I know I am not alone in being very grateful for the interventions of screeners here, so please don't feel downhearted. Can I go back to my p
33 Ander: Glenn, Thank you for your post. Must admit it all makes sense. I'll try to keep it in mind in the future. Tamsin, admitting and correcting a mistake w
34 Norfolkjohn: Tamsin, Your willingness to go public on this matter is a VERY positive gesture and I'm sure it is appreciated by many. I don't think anyone can or sh
35 Eadster: Tamsin, I was not having a go at you nor was I saying that it was a bad thing accepting the shot. I really used the wrong words and Im sorry if you sa
36 Silver1SWA: I agree with the original post 100% and it has been a complaint of mine for a while. This site needs more room for creativity IMO. Further expansion?
37 Digby: Hi all, I firstly would like to thank the screening crew and Johan of course for reconsidering the image for addition to the database. It's great to s
38 Key: YEZ! And fully agree with the rest of this reply and similar entries. David, fabulous shot, congrats! Erik
40 JumboJim747: Tamsin this might be hard to do as some would want to show the pic but do not want to register a rejection so that road doesn't look to rosy. If i ma
41 TZ: I am not diagreeing, but am saying that the choice is available to all. You can play it safe, or upload some stuff which tests the boundaries. The ch
42 IngemarE: Almost forgot that expression!! Glad you revived it!! Anyway,...good to see that pic in the DB! It's now in my -album
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 175 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, 
From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3026 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
