QantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 35 Posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
G'day,
Just wondering if anyone - preferably a screener - could please shed some light on this NOA_motiv rejection. To me this is night long exposure stuff at its best, so I'm not sure where I went wrong.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
Cheers,
Gabriel
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1879 times:
Great question. So far Anet is pretty unclear about the rules of these types of shots. Some get in, and some don't. Why some are motive rejections is a great question. This shot below is a great night shot, and from the same location (I am assuming).
What makes these shots different? The only big difference to me is the 747 in the shot above, but not having it does not change my opinion on your overall motive. Good luck with it, I like these shots a lot, maybe you should try to appeal, look what happened to Tim Samples great night shot.
-Matt
So far all I can guess is that maybe, and this is just a maybe, that nightshots require "some" light. Like the one in the DB (mentioned a post above) has the light of the moon, mine was taken with the last light of dusk, etc. Most of the night shots are similar in this way. I don't how how right or wrong I am, but thats just what I've noticed over time.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 2 days ago) and read 1756 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 4): To me, that light on the building in the lower left corner gives it the questionable motive.
Jeff I thought the same until I saw the accepted photo compared to the rejected one. There are a lot of similarities between the 2. Maybe times have changed since Jan of 05, but no one has really come out and given rules for these types of shots.
-Matt
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
Am I the only one that notices the moon in the accepted shot? To me it looks like it's put in just the right place so that it gives a nice glow to the photo but doesn't steal too much focus away from the aircraft.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1721 times:
I don't like it! That's one of my points about long exposures and motive. If we can dig up some info on what the screeners think, it would probably help some photogs who are trying to get this 'different' type of shot. I really don't feel like plugging long exposure shots from 2005 with aircraft, without aircraft, with the sky lit well or not, with runway lights or without etc, suffice it to say they are in the DB. Writing this off as motive without any explanation as to why makes me even more curious though.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 7): These are very subjective calls by the screeners using their judgement.
I will agree fully with that, but I have always wondered 'why'? And maybe it isn't even my place to know, but I still like to ask anyway.
Also, "Rules" isn't the right word from my post above, as photography really has no rules, plus rules are just going to be bent and broken. Just my thoughts.
-Matt
QANTAS077 From China, joined Jan 2004, 5745 posts, RR: 49 Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1710 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 7): The accepted photo actually has an airplane visible in it.
that plane is not the focus of the accepted shot, the long exposure of the 767 is so i'm not sure what your getting at, if your suggesting that it got accepted because of the 747 and not the actual long exposure in view then i'd say it should have got bad motive, the 747 is clearly to far, obstructed and cluttered.
a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
QANTAS077 From China, joined Jan 2004, 5745 posts, RR: 49 Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 11): Of course it's not, but combined with the moon as Eric mentioned, there is no comparison between the accepted and the rejected image.
personally and no offence to the photographers, but i don't like these kind of shots, bit like the contrail shots for me, don't like them and never will so i tend not to look at them. just my personal preference...
a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, 
That's one of my points about long exposures and motive. If we can dig up some info on what the screeners think, it would probably help some photogs who are trying to get this 'different' type of shot. I really don't feel like plugging long exposure shots from 2005 with aircraft, without aircraft, with the sky lit well or not, with runway lights or without etc, suffice it to say they are in the DB. Writing this off as motive without any explanation as to why makes me even more curious though. 
From China, joined Jan 2004, 5745 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
