Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should I Appeal?  
User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 439 posts, RR: 4
Posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2419 times:

Hey guys, just had this one rejected for bad motiv. Thinking about appealing but not sure so I figure I would put it to a vote. I have had several others with the same motiv accepted so I am curious as to why this one was deemed a bad motive. Anyway, here is the photo"

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...o.main?filename=DSCN0743N822RA.JPG

Only rejection reason given was the motiv so the quality is not an issue here.

So should I just leave it in the private collection or appeal?

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

Good shot, but i can see the motive as it is a pic of a mall.. looks cool, if you dont mind, im gonna save this on the hd for wallpapers. But i think this is one for the private collection


Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2402 times:

Hi there,
nice aerial view, but just not enough airplane-related content, in my opinion. The difference between this and other out-of-the-window views might be that you just don't have enough "airplane parts" on it.
The other aspect is that if the mall had been an airfield, it would have been fine as well.
So I don't think you have a chance on appeal. That's one no vote I guess.
Once again, nice shot though...
All the best!


User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2338 times:

Alright, thanks for the input guys... Photo is dead on arrival, darn.

User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1488 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Atomother (Thread starter):
Should I Appeal?

No , as stated above - to less a/c ...

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2306 times:

What is the subject of the picture?

Not obvious to me.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

Well, the subject is obviously "flying while over a mall".

In terms of there not being enough airplane in the shot, I don't buy that as there are thousands of other photos on here that have just as much airplane in the shot. If it because there is a urban shopping area in the photo instead of a nice mountain view or a nice sunset/cloud formation kind of thing, I can easily understand that.

The "not enough airplane" reason is not a good enough reason for me though.


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2277 times:

The 'not enough airplane' argument is disingenuous; It's been stated before that this is not a travel site, and therefore one cannot justify wing views where something on the ground is clearly the subject.

Of course, that's rubbish. The main reason people take these things is because of what you can see out the window; there's plenty of examples in the DB where similar amounts of aircraft structure are visible and yet the subject is a landmark or well-known building.

The rejection was because it featured a shopping mall - not enough appeal for the unfamiliar viewer.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3043 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would like to weigh in here in support of Tim and James. The reality is that views out of the cabin - much though I often really like them - are questionable on a site that claims to be a database for aircraft. I can't really see how a portion of wing/engine adds to a database, or can always be construed as having a primarily aviation-related motive (when it is apparent to all that the actual motive for the photographer - and the reason the viewer opens the photo - is the landmark/landscape on the ground, the lighting, the cloud formations etc).

This boils down to motive - and once again this is an area where there is so much subjectivity. I won't post examples, but I am sure the majority of readers will have come across many examples where there is a similar amount of 'aeroplane' in shot to Tim's photo. As I say, I don't have a problem personally with interesting shots from the aircraft being accepted to the site, other than the fact that it clouds issues of internal consistency regarding acceptance criteria. I guess it boils down to whether you can argue that the subject matter is aviation-related or geography/meteorology/tourism etc related. This screener clearly felt there wasn't enough aviation-related motive. But the same could equally be said for loads more examples.

But this is an interesting debating issue.

Paul


User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Yeah, that I can agree with. I think it is an interesting photo for pilots familiar with that particular airport since it is a huge landmark in the pattern (not that I teach people to use landmarks for pattern work). If you takeoff from that runway though, that is your view and I thought it was pretty neat. If you have never been to this airport/area then it is simply a view of a mall. I wasn't looking at it through the eyes of a person who does not fly and who has never been in that area though, perhaps I should from now on?

To me the photo is very interesting as it shows landmarks just at the end of a runway. I guess you have to draw a line somewhere though and since the majority of people who look at this site probably have never flown a plane before, they don't see it from my point of view.

For me, I will never understand why cabin photos are so popular here. I have taken 3 or 4 and they were very popular but I mean come on, its a seat, the pilot in me could care less, the pilot in me is more interested in views from a plane than view from 6C. I suppose the business traveler that looks at the site though could care less about my view and wants to see the view from 6C.

Different strokes for different folks... I have more photos in the queue that hopefully will be creative enough to get in. I guess I can just use this as a learning tool.


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...
In The Should I Appeal Series posted Sun Sep 3 2006 00:08:37 by DC9
Should I Appeal This "landmark" Shot At Jeffco? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 06:39:37 by Atomother
Should I Appeal?, Quality Rejection. posted Mon Jul 17 2006 22:44:19 by Yanqui67
Badinfo... --> Should I Appeal? posted Mon May 15 2006 22:44:14 by AirKas1
Should I Appeal¿? posted Tue Apr 4 2006 09:43:41 by Glapira
Should I Appeal? (Angle) posted Tue Apr 4 2006 00:41:13 by PipoA380
Should I Appeal? posted Wed Feb 8 2006 12:15:19 by Tom3
Should I Appeal This Snowy Take-off? posted Tue Jan 17 2006 14:26:17 by Pitchul
Should I Appeal posted Fri Nov 25 2005 14:06:23 by Work4bmi
Should I Appeal? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 02:40:06 by Atomother