JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1706 posts, RR: 2 Posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2165 times:
I'm not particularly surprised by the reject in the link below, as it was a bit of a gamble in the first place. My inspiration for taking the picture was the excellent airport overview shots of Manchester, UK - if you do a search on Manchester with a category of "airport overview" you'll see what I mean. Very nice and very interesting shots. My image was rejected for both softness and motive. The softness I believe I can fix by using another shot from the series I took. Motive I'm not so sure about. I know that having an aircraft partially obscured by a boarding gate is not something that's generally acceptable here, but I figured by using the "airport overview" category I could possibly get around that issue. Is the boarding gate the motive problem with this shot or is it the fence at the bottom (or something else)?
TimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2155 times:
I see what you mean. However looking at the MAN shots there are like 20 planes in a row, here we have 5, nothing very spectacular. If you could just get the front aircraft without the gate in front we'd be happy to accept it.
Mhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2145 times:
I think the problem is the gates are in the way as well. at MAN, the airbridges are on the other side of the aircraft so they aren't so visible, especially when the terminal is made up mainly of widebodies!
No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced