Are terminal views no longer being accepted? I have an ORD terminal shot from last year with tons of people in it. Was this one just not interesting enough? It is a very nice terminal that the city of Green Bay should be proud of.
BmiBaby737 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1784 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1173 times:
I'm not expert for sure! But I agree with the rejection of Motive for your shot, purely because I don't see a point behind the photo, with the photo you have already got accepted there is something to look at, with the one you recently got rejected, it's just an empty part of the building,
Some A.netters will be able to help with that more I'm sure,
Fiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1012 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
I don't see why that would be. I think the motive is clear, as its in the comment. Which you can't see. I was showing the new concourse at GRB. I would point out quite a few empty terminal shots but we know how that goes. Any suggestions as to whether or not I should have included the reg. of the NWA DC9 in the 1st shot?
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1293 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1109 times:
Ya, the info could be from that. I don't know what you included for the airport field, but I assume that is correct. As far as motive, I personally think the first is ok. I have seen shots like this and they have been accepted. But the pic is blurry at the bottom of the frame, see the taxiway lighting. I don't know if boring = motive, but that is what the 2nd shot is saying. It could also be the fat red exit sign at the top. Who knows, motvie is sometimes a hard one to pin down. I like the accepted shot, it shows the life of an airport. The rejected shot definitely has that lacking.