Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No Room For Creativity.  
User currently offlineDigby From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 175 posts, RR: 9
Posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4129 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.

Cheers

David.M.

My rejection


Friends don't let friends shoot Nikon!
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRyan h From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 1575 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

David that is a good shot.

I have not seen you around the airport much lately.

On the subject or rejects
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/9m-mrd-2.JPG
was rejected for soft.

However Jetphotos.net accepted it with no problems.



South Australian Spotter
User currently offlineWhyWhyZed From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4107 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.

Quoting Ryan h (Reply 1):
On the subject or rejects
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/9m-mrd-2.JPG
was rejected for soft.

That is definitely soft, especially the titles, and the surrounding areas. The rest is also soft, but not as bad.

Just my opinions,

- Jason DePodesta


User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1297 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4103 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



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineDigby From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 175 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4098 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.

Cheers

David.M.



Friends don't let friends shoot Nikon!
User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1297 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4095 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



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4082 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!

User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1071 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4075 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



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2826 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4064 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.

Thanks for posting a great image.

Steve


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4058 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.

Martin


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3984 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  Wink


User currently offlineAirsnaps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3975 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.


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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).

A really good debating issue.

Paul


User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3931 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.

Take care

Fergul  sun 



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5749 posts, RR: 44
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 10):
it doesn't even feel like I'm looking at an aircraft

And that just about sums up the rejection. Sad but true.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3913 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...
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3856 times:

Quoting WhyWhyZed (Reply 2):
99% of the time, if there isn't a shot like it on a.net, it won't get accepted.

And if there is it gets rejected as "baddouble"  Smile



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3849 times:

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 17):
And if there is it gets rejected as "baddouble"

LMFAO  laughing 

Fergul  sun 



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3758 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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
User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3755 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!

Greets,
Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3739 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.  Sad

User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3719 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

I hope we can take this further forward.

Paul


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3714 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  Wink

User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3690 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 Post contains images 9VSPO : If that were the case then this site would have no images.
26 Granite : Hi all Poppycock. Regards Gary
27 Post contains images 9VSPO : Blimey! Not heard that word in a long time... I don't disagree...always take pics for yourself Wise words sir!
28 Post contains images DLKAPA : Yes, but what gets displayed isn't nearly all of what is photographed even though I'd like it to be
29 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
39 Post contains links and images TZ : ... and there you go! View Large View MediumPhoto © David Morrell - Avid Creations Apologies if I misinterpreted you. The subject is entirely sub
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 Post contains images IngemarE : Almost forgot that expression!!  Glad you revived it!!    Anyway,...good to see that pic in the DB!    It's now in my   -album![Edited 2005-10
43 Dendrobatid : Precisely Glenn. It is far more difficult to assess a photo like this rather than the more formulaeic way most photos are screened, more a qualitativ
44 DLKAPA : Amen to that. Also, I have a suggestion to make, I know most of you here think I'm some smartass who only shoots Dash's in Podunk, Colorado, but I'm
45 Eadster : Yes I think this could be a good idea. Myaviation does need more exposure. This could be a great way to fix that.
46 Post contains images Digby : Hi all, Thank you to all the photographers out there who have recently voted my image as "Photographers Choice". It's hard to imagine that a rejected
47 EGGD : Congratulations! It truly deserved to be added to the site and well done to the crew for acknowledging that.
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...
Isn't There Room For "artistic"? posted Wed Nov 3 2004 19:46:57 by Sleekjet
No Explanation For Rejection posted Thu Sep 16 2004 17:25:54 by Bigphilnyc
Why No Listing For Independence Air Yet? posted Mon Jun 28 2004 20:09:44 by GSPSPOT
No Screening For The Top Photographers! posted Mon Dec 29 2003 20:27:02 by Work4bmi
Why No Teleconverters For Nikon? posted Wed Nov 5 2003 21:01:28 by Lindy
New Photos, No Results/Have I Got A Thread For 4U posted Tue Jan 31 2006 06:54:02 by Tappan
Oh NO! 500 Shots For Matt Smith posted Wed Oct 13 2004 23:24:44 by Futterman
No More Plastic Mounts For Kodak Slides posted Sun Sep 19 2004 01:30:25 by CcrlR
No Lens Hood For The EF 17-40L? posted Tue Jun 29 2004 21:24:00 by Brianhames
Justplanes.com - No Free Rides, Even For You. posted Sat Feb 14 2004 21:04:15 by UTA_flyinghigh