Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 54 Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
I didnt understand either but like i said for the most part theres never a problem except sometimes i put in some real off the wall stuff (like the photo in question) and last month i uploaded an interesting shot of an AF A321 tail section with the Daimler Chrysler sign on the Airbus plant in Hamburg (a tough shot to get as you have to be in the production ramp) and it was rejected- so you never know.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3361 times:
It really is a shame that this kind of shot can't get in - done well an "artsy" shot can tell us more about an aircraft and its environment than the perfect profile shot. Futhermore, it is what many people (esp. commercial orgs.) are looking for - something "special" that will leap off the page.
Personally I'm beginning to get much more interested in capturing something "different" - standard shots are becoming a tad boring ... and when the photographer's bored, the audience won't be long behind. Do I have to abandon A.net to venture into new creative pastures? I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.
I see today's slogan is "a breath of fresh jet blast" - a bit ironic really!
Now I see that this opens up a potential nightmare for Johan - what is acceptable as an "artsy shot"? We've all seen crap hanging on the walls of art galleries!
But frankly, I think A.net is gonna have to face this one - there are some great pics around which will never get onto A.net as things stand, and that seems to be a pity.
Now we have screeners perhaps this can be addressed ... we could for instance, allow for a shot to be labelled as "artsy". It would then have to be voted on by a majority of screeners - if all or most agree it belongs on A.net, it gets in, otherwise not. By selecting the artsy option, the submitter would be accepting a) a longer waiting period and b) no discussion on acceptance/rejection! Most will choose to use the normal route and stick to the conventions ... which in fact could even be tightened up with the advent of an "artsy" option.
DSMav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3351 times:
I agree with you also, Colin. The problem with a.net is, there is an abundance of truly talented photographers, but the majority still shoots the ramp-profile, approach, and action subjects. This is great, it has been my preferred style for many years now, but I too get a bit bored of the repitition that happens from time to time. Every once and awhile a little artistry needs to be thrown into the mix as well.
To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3336 times:
I think LGW highlights the problem - artsy shots provoke extreme reactions, hence some form of concensus view is the only way to approach this. Key question - how would screeners feel about taking on this sort of role?
I would envision that for any given "artsy" pic, at least 5 of 8 screeners would need to view it and approve/disapprove. For any shot to get passed would need 50% or greater approval (ie. a minimum of 3 out of 5 votes or at least 4 votes form all 8. I wouldn't think the concenus should be higher as arguably a really strong shot could generate very polarised views (this is a GOOD thing).