Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2020 times:
Thanks to Mick B. and ChrisH for their help with post processing and suggestions for editing this shot...
Someone please explain to me why this got rejected for motive? The screener apparently couldn't find the time to offer even one word of explanation for his rejection reason...
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5424 posts, RR: 49 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1978 times:
Hi,
Those that have read my posts over the last year or so will know that I often disagree with some of the decisions made by screeners and some of the criteria and policies of this site.
Having said that and I will admit to liking this photo very much as it stands on it's own merit. However this is an aviation(Airliners to be specific.) database and as such there is requirement either explicit or implied that there actually be an aircraft in the photo!
Like the photo would love it on my wall .. just NOA.
Cheers
Chris
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
Thanks for the input guys...
Please let me comment on your replies...
Quoting Rotate (Reply 1): too much black/dead space on the bottom ....
Great shot but...I see some trees, but not an airplane...and the airport is barely visible.
///////
I still don't understand how a cityscape with a full airport view in the foreground and aircraft activity could be considered an unacceptable motive on any aviation website.
//////
Thanks for the responses guys, but I still require enlightenment.
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1935 times:
Flyfisher,
I perfectly agree with you. Your image is STUNNING, believe me, stunning....
I do not spend too much time to undrestand the choice of the screeners anymore...becauase there are so many incongruences in the DB that a woman is much more easier to understand, than a screener of A.net is....
My best compliments for the shot. If you can, just appeal it.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5424 posts, RR: 49 Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1924 times:
Hi,
I agree, there are many photos of aircraft rejected for motive because this is a "database" not a "gallery" yet there are many photos that have no documentary value or indeed any aircraft content to speak of accepted.
I guess this is just another example of the subjective nature of the screening process.
Yevgenay's aurora shot has the wing and is a variation on the allowable wing shot criteria, Tim's time exposure.. like yours an outstanding photo but what value does it add to a "database"?.. I don't know.
As I said before I would gladly have your photo, along with Tim's and Yevgenay's on my wall. The question is .. What is A.net a gallery, a database or a stock photo agency.
IMHO the 3 photos in this thread do not belong in a database(perhaps Yevgenay's in one on Atmospheric phenonoma) but have great artistic merit.
regards
C
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1902 times:
I have ever only appealed once before. I really feel strongly about this one and will give it a go...I let you know how it works out.
Thanks, JD
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11350 posts, RR: 50 Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1876 times:
Quoting LIPH (Reply 4): becauase there are so many incongruences in the DB that a woman is much more easier to understand, than a screener of A.net is....
Airplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2725 posts, RR: 46 Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1868 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 8): What about a screener that's a woman?
Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts. Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1864 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW SITE ADMIN
Guys,
I agree it's a lovely photo! But I am still not so sure it is Airliners.net material. I cannot see any aircraft in that photo, not even any airport buildings!
This photo that was used as example is also a border-case:
Such photos can go either way and in this case the screener decided to reject. Again, it's a lovely photo but there's very little aviation related stuff there and we have to draw the line somewhere.
Regards,
Johan
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1858 times:
Johan,
Thanks for your personal response. I have appealed the photo and the decision now lies in your hands. Hopefully you can make an exception. I feel very strongly that the shot above (Tim Samples) is much more of a border-case then mine. The motive of my photo is clearly defined and will add much value to the database.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 32 Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1849 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12): feel very strongly that the shot above (Tim Samples) is much more of a border-case then mine. The motive of my photo is clearly defined and will add much value to the database.
I love your shot, but I disagree on both of the points mentioned above.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts. Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW SITE ADMIN
Joe,
Everyone feels that THEIR photo is better and that the photos already in the database are way inferior. It is very hard to be neutral when you are the photographer.
But the perceived quality of a photo is in the eye of the beholder, no values are objective. So a photo you might think is lovely might be considered not so good by someone else.
This is the very core of the problem we have here at Airliners.net with some photographers getting really upset about rejections. It is hard to justify any rejection, as I mentioned - the photographer might think his photo is the best there is and the screener might think otherwise. No one is right or wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. And it doesn't help that our standards increase every year. Photographers that does not know that can get really angry for a rejection when they see poor quality photos in the database that was uploaded years ago when standards were lower.
Claiming that a rejection was unjust because there's similar or worse photos already in the database is therefore never a good way to go.
It was a good choice appealing it though, it deserves a second look. The Head Screeners manage the appeals queue these days, my only screening job is the "Johan" queue where very difficult cases end up. The Head Screeners will surely have a hard time with this appeal as it is, as I mentioned, a border-case.
Good luck,
Johan
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
Can we lock this thread now? I think we have taken it as far as it needs to go...
Thanks!
JD
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5424 posts, 
From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1405 posts, 
From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
