D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2474 times:
In light of the recent thread on long exposures of aircraft trails (see After All That Work And Advice... (by Flyfisher1976 Jan 25 2006 in Aviation Photography)), I would like to ask if we can get a defined standard for what would be accepted and not. A.net has a lot of shots now that have very little airplane, but very much aesthetic beauty. For instance, if you have a great, sharp shot of the moon, it will get accepted if there's a plane in the middle, even if the plane isn't all that sharp. You have to use your imagination to find the plane in the Tim Samples shot of the CRJ at National. Even still, I LOVE these shots, and if the rules are being bent to get these excellent shots in, I say keep on bending them.
However, these shots are very time intensive to create. Lots of trial and error, and lots of post-processing. (And in the winter, lots of sitting out in the cold.) A rejection results in a lot of frustration, and in my opinion, that frustration is because we see similar shots that aren't only accepted, but are generally beloved by the people that visit this site (and presumably click on its advertisements).
Would it be possible to get some standards that photogs could see before we put in the effort required to meet those standards?
Thanks!
Damon
(As a photog that does it for the art, one of these days, I'd like to have an arty shot accepted.)
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2468 times:
Hey Damon,
I second your opinion, that these photos are great, and well-planned.
I think there's no way to define rules of what kind a long exposure shot has to be, because it's a case to case decision, as it is with nearly all artistic photos.
All usual guidelines - like motive, quality... - still apply to these shots. It's all about the overall look, which is different for every single one of them. Very hard to make guidelines I guess.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
Sorry, I was using a little legal jargon there. (The problem with law school - you forget how to speak English.)
I don't mean rules, as in if you do A, B, and C, you'll get X, Y, and Z.
I'm looking for standards, as in "we look for A B and C, and judge how much of it is there, and whether that's enough." That would be cool even if A B and C were all about aesthetic opinion. At least we would know. As it stands, (at least in my opinion), the Motive rejection is one of the most nebulous things I've seen, giving me little insight about whether the shot can be fixed, or if it's just a scene that A.net won't take. (But then, you go on a search and find plenty of recent uploads that have the same style as yours, and your frustration is renewed.)
I wouldn't think that would be so hard, simply for the fact that there are multiple screeners, that assume (perhaps wrongly) have been given some direction by the top management. I would hope that this isn't a case where your shot being accepted or not depends on which screener sees your shot first.
I guess I am really just saying that if A.net wants these arty shots, they should provide some sort of way of knowing their efforts are worthwhile. Otherwise, photogs are going to get frustrated and discouraged, and take their art somewhere else.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2356 times:
Quoting D L X (Thread starter): However, these shots are very time intensive to create. Lots of trial and error, and lots of post-processing. (And in the winter, lots of sitting out in the cold.)
This can be said about all shots taken for Anet purposes. The only difference is the long exposure takes about 15-30 seconds to produce vs. 1/250th of a second. Before I go shooting I do research on weather, airport ops, locations, sun, aircraft movement, traffic, etc. On top of that people are looking for new spots and motives. Long exposure or not, spotting is time consuming.
Quoting D L X (Reply 2): I guess I am really just saying that if A.net wants these arty shots, they should provide some sort of way of knowing their efforts are worthwhile. Otherwise, photogs are going to get frustrated and discouraged, and take their art somewhere else.
I disagree with this as well. Every day I am impressed with what I see on A.net. I can always find new and interesting shots, as well as very creative shots. One way of knowing your shots are worthwhile or not is if they are accepted. However that doesn't mean they aren't good, they might just be something that A.net doesn't accept.
I started a thread like this on long exposures a while back and I finally realized publishing rules would do more harm than good. People would still complain or question rejections, and there would still be borderline cases. Plus photography isn't about rules, if it isn't for Anet who cares, shoot for yourself not for some rules of a website. Sometimes I play it safe with my photos, sometimes I really risk rejection. It has worked out both ways for me and I still like uploading and sharing my photos.
-Matt
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2271 times:
Appeal was rejected for "motive"....
Originally I said to myself "what a waste of time"...
Now I know better, this photo is much too spectacular for this internet "database"...Be sure to keep an eye out for it "elsewhere"
Thanks for all who t r i e d to help.
Sean377 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1225 posts, RR: 45 Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2254 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 2): I guess I am really just saying that if A.net wants these arty shots
At this point in time, I'm not sure they do want them, even though many do get accepted. All the more reason to have an artisic section, as it must be generally accepted that this site is much more than a mere database.
Flying is the second greatest thrill known to man... Landing is the first!
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2234 times:
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2231 times:
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2207 times:
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 9): Pretty tough to miss actually.
You mean that light trail? Is that light trail an airframe? Pretty funny looking one to me!
Apparently you have missed the point...
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 8): And the motive of this shot differs form my shot how?!
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2156 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 10): And the motive of this shot differs form my shot how?!
Your shot has a bright city in the immediate background, filling up a large portion of the photo and the skyline is very distracting. In fact, it's what my eyes focus on first, not the airplane. On top of that, the sky is too bright. To me, the aircraft in your photo is not the main subject of the photo, the Boston skyline is. In the photo you're questioning, the aircraft is pretty obvious and hard to miss.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 11): the skyline is very distracting.
Ha! That's a funny one!
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 11): In fact, it's what my eyes focus on first, not the airplane.
What airplane?! I refuse to believe that anyone can call a streak of lights an airplane! My motive was a clear airport overview with the city of Boston as a backdrop in the early morning light. The aircraft acitivity resulting in light trails exposed in the picture are really just an added bonus IMO.
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 11): To me, the aircraft in your photo is not the main subject of the photo, the Boston skyline is. In the photo you're questioning, the aircraft is pretty obvious and hard to miss.
To me, the main subject of the photo is Boston Logan Airport...how anyone can miss this is beyond me. It is in the foreground, you can see the ILS and other airport lights and tails of other aircraft clearly.
The bottom line:
Johan personally commented on this photo. At no time did he suggest that the motive rejection for the photo was the result of the composition of this particular shot. He commented on how "The Head Screeners will surely have a hard time with this appeal as it is, as I mentioned, a border-case".
Furthermore, this argument is not about comparing my photo to others in the database because I think mine is "better" or "just as good" as those other photos. It was merely a comparison of motive, not of quality, composition or any other feature. Never was there any mention by anyone who has screened this photo of any quality or composition issues. It was suggested by ChrisH and Mick B. that i darken the photo a little, which I did.
In fact through all the discussion regarding this matter there has been no reasonable explanation why some photos of this particular type are accepted and some are not. If this were a quiality issue, I would accept the rejection and move on...
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12): What airplane?! I refuse to believe that anyone can call a streak of lights an airplane! My motive was a clear airport overview with the city of Boston as a backdrop in the early morning light.
There's an airport in there?
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12): To me, the main subject of the photo is Boston Logan Airport...how anyone can miss this is beyond me.
You're looking at the airport flat-on, as if you'd be looking at the side of a pancake. The airport takes up very little actual space in the photo.
I'm not trying to argue with you that it's a poorly motivated photo. The motive is exceptional and it is a very nice shot, but to me the city is more the focus of the photo than the airport and activity. Nice photo, but not one for a.net.
Jay767 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 222 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2110 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12): In fact through all the discussion regarding this matter there has been no reasonable explanation why some photos of this particular type are accepted and some are not. If this were a quiality issue, I would accept the rejection and move on...
There is a fine line for these light trail shots,such as showing identifiable parts of the airport,runway lights ect.,your shot while its a nice shot is just too dominated by the skyline for a.net standards,but it's a shot worthy of keeping in your collection.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2093 times:
Quoting Jay767 (Reply 14): There is a fine line for these light trail shots,such as showing identifiable parts of the airport,runway lights ect.,
And recently accepted shots show identifiable parts of the airport?
Maybe someone can show me where...
My shots clearly pictures an airport with actual aircraft visible...The ILS approach lights and various runway and taxi lights.
Does this shot have any of the afformentioned? No, just a light streaks across the sky...
Jay767 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 222 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2082 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 15): Does this shot have any of the afformentioned? No, just a light streaks across the sky...
But the light streak which is an aircraft clearly dominates the scene,notice the bridge and lights below don't dominate the picture,the aircraft(light streak) does,as said your shot is beautiful but dominated by the skyline,also keep in mind different screeners view things differently(interpretation).But it really is not the end of the world,I have many night shots that were either rejected or didn't bother to upload,I have these two below that made it and both were borderline,I would have just went on if they did not get accepted.
To me this is a hobby,hobby to me means something to pass time and enjoy yourself doing it,when it becomes frustrating it doesn't feel like a hobby anymore,then it nots worth it anymore.Hit seeking motivated photos can be frustrating and a killer as far as being enthused anymore,my advice just be glad you get what you get accepted and enjoy yourself,thats what I do,I no longer get mad or frustrated because of rejections,but rejections have made me better over time due to correcting how I shoot,and to be honest bigtime hits on my photos won't pay my bills,make my back pain go away,or sleep better at night,just enjoy your hobby.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2072 times:
Quoting Jay767 (Reply 16): To me this is a hobby,hobby to me means something to pass time and enjoy yourself doing it,when it becomes frustrating it doesn't feel like a hobby anymore,then it nots worth it anymore.Hit seeking motivated photos can be frustrating and a killer as far as being enthused anymore,my advice just be glad you get what you get accepted and enjoy yourself,thats what I do,I no longer get mad or frustrated because of rejections,but rejections have made me better over time due to correcting how I shoot,and to be honest bigtime hits on my photos won't pay my bills,make my back pain go away,or sleep better at night,just enjoy your hobby.
I totaly agree, except that I hardly lose sleep over any of this. What kind of bothers me is the terrible inconsistency with which the "motive" rejection is generally applied. I have always had issues with this. Does it really make me "a better photographer" to have a shot rejected for such a subjective reason...no, not really. There is nothing about this shot that needs to be "fixed" or done better IMO. And using shots like this one as an example to prove your point only furthers mine:
A beutiful shot, but the lower 50% of the frame is almost completely black. So if my "badmotive" rejection was really due to some composure issues, then this shot should have been rejected too. Obviously, all screeners are going to have different opinions, but some technical standards should also apply.
Getting back to the original thread starting question...
Quoting D L X (Thread starter): I would like to ask if we can get a defined standard for what would be accepted and not. A.net has a lot of shots now that have very little airplane, but very much aesthetic beauty.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2058 times:
Hey all,
This question has been asked many times and to this day there has been no proper answer from any of the crew so I doubt that we'll get one now.
But my take on this subject is as follows:
The pic must have an airport visible. There must be an aircraft in it (whether it be light streaks or not). From what I can find, the photos that usually get accepted are never totally black ie the sky is lighter than usual like taken with a full moon or on dusk.
Its basically a lottery. If you get your night shot accepted, then you're lucky. Airliners.Net don't care at all if you have to stand out in the cold for hours waiting for the right shot. As said its a hobby and we choose to stand out and take the pics. We all realise the time and effort it takes to get a brilliant night shot.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 4): Now I know better, this photo is much too spectacular for this internet "database"...Be sure to keep an eye out for it "elsewhere" Wink
Thanks for all who t r i e d to help.
This is the best statement out of all. It's A.nets loss, not ours. It was a super shot and "elsewhere" deserve it more.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 18): Does it really make me "a better photographer" to have a shot rejected for such a subjective reason...no, not really
No not at all, just says that we have not stuck to the "rules". Photography basically has no rules and its all up to YOU, not rules to abide by.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2057 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 19): Its basically a lottery. If you get your night shot accepted, then you're lucky.
Thank you!
Quoting Eadster (Reply 19): Airliners.Net don't care at all if you have to stand out in the cold for hours waiting for the right shot.
Effort gets you no points here
Quoting Eadster (Reply 19): It's A.nets loss, not ours. It was a super shot and "elsewhere" deserve it more.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1992 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 21): Effort means nothing if you can't put it out when it counts.
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 18 Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
LOL a weak attempt at being the new JeffM, ignore the troll flyfisher, its a beauty of a shot. Like stated above, a.nets loss.
what seems to be the officer, problem?
25 INNflight: Oh yes.... at least you got my point Chris. He already told us in reply 4 he'll upload elsewhere if not accepted here, but yet it takes 20 more repli
26 Flyfisher1976: Already did awhile ago...just trying to see how we can fix this irregularity to hinder future waste of time and effort ...and by the way notice the a
27 Martin21: got this one rejected for bad motive. http://www.xs4all.nl/~mhamelnk/temp/nachtfoto.jpg too bad martin21
28 DLKAPA: I figured it'd go over you. If you've already gotten over it, why has this thread run the way it has. No, I don't believe for a second you're "Just t
29 D L X: Florian, your point is well taken, but it does lead back to the original question, which put more simply is: why are some images accepted and others
30 Flyfisher1976: Not really...it's just that it's pretentious comments like this that are often the source of very little useful information. You & JeffM are notoriou
32 DLKAPA: Sorry if it comes off that way but think about it. The entire thread has been your nagging about a shot that has been rejected. You've been told seve
33 D L X: At this point, a comment from a screener would be extremely helpful. Would any screeners like to comment? Perhaps in light of reply 31?
34 QantasA332: And, yet again, we see the pervading double standard that seems to exist on A.net. There's no excuse for the photo in reply 31. No, not even the usual
35 Flyfisher1976: There has not been one reasonable argument as to why my shot was badmotive and photos like the examples posted above are not. There has not been one
36 DLKAPA: Yes, there have been. If you can't see that then I'm amazed that you can look through a viewfinder.
37 Flyfisher1976: Here we go again... DLKAPA, I'm not the only person who feels this question has not been sufficiently answered: even you seem confused DLKAPA: And pl
38 Jay767: Why keep beating this dead horse,not to mention after looking at your rejected photo it is a bit out of focus and is also bad level,everything is lea
39 D L X: Hi Jay, I started this thread not to discuss Flyfisher's pic in particular (there was another thread for that), but rather to find out what the scree
40 Flyfisher1976: Try to learn from what mistakes? I'm not saying that I don't make any...The shot was rejected for "motive" not quality, or blurry. But it wasn't...so
41 Jay767: My point is that its in fact all those things,bad level,, out of focus,and bad distance and I'm not trying to upset you by saying it,but its the trut
42 Flyfisher1976: Your opinion..but hardly the truth. Keep your unsolicited photo critiques to yourself. How about you read the entire thread before posting, because o
43 Jay767: You mean just like you do,posting thumbs of photos of others and saying why you think they should not have been accepted,not to mention starting anot
44 Scbriml: Unless I'm mistaken, Peter's shot is an airport view, which is acceptable motive on a.net. It just happens to be taken at night.
46 FUAirliner: " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0...52/M/ Why should Peter's shot be an inacceptable motive? It's an airport overview during the ni
47 Flyfisher1976: I started the thread to ask if anyone knew what the green dot was, not to criticize the photo...nice try though. At what? Getting photos accepted her
48 FUAirliner: Not really, you have photographed the airport from the side and not from an angle above, so it's not really an overview, but more a side-on view. And
49 Flyfisher1976: Yeah, okay...I give up trying to prove my point to any of you who are incapable of understanding. I'm sure we'll see one or all of you in this forum
51 APFPilot1985: Some of Florians responses in this thread and other recent quality threads are rather amusing in light of this thread "Bad" ...Selfscreening
53 Morvious: IMO you should try a different angle (More to the right), so you would only have the runway visible with the light trails of the aircraft landing. You
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1225 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
