Can somebody give me more advise why this is motive-rejection? I don't want to complain, I just want to learn for the future and avoid similar uploads if I know exactly what is wrong on the motive (I thought that showing the cockpit/canopy in detail was allowed).
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, RR: 30 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3819 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 1): the crew are the subject of the shot, rather than the aircraft.
Thank you for your viewpoint! I had not looked at it this way, I saw the crew as part of the aircraft (and I thought it gave a better size reference when the pilots were in the cockpit). I 'll keep that in mind.
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, RR: 30 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3805 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 3): Looks like a T-33? Is it this one?
Yes, that's the one! Great picture you've got there! I had lots of other shots - of this aircraft - taken from the same spot in Koksijde AFB, but I will have to check my back-up files since I am just recovering from the third PC-crash this year and now the main hard-disk failed (and that's worse than a rejection!). As soon as I have my PC back in shape (and all the SW re-installed) I will have a look at it. I certainly liked the feeling of having a shot of this beautiful war bird under my name in the database, but since there are already so many (full airframe) shots in, I was just trying to do something different...
What could be the reason for this blurr at the tail section? Is it due to the heat haze blown over it from the main/tail rotor? Or is it an "out-of-focus" problem because of shallow DOF?
PS: I found it difficult to apply USM sharpening since the lines between the different camouflage colors is in reality also very soft. I will have another look at it if I can recover the original file from my back-up CD's (I am still busy with re-installing my PC after a third crash this year...).
Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 11): I do find this shot interesting however and the quality isn't an issue in my opinion.
This, to me, is a beautiful example of how contentious some motive issues are. I am not a screener but if I was I would have gone the opposite way and accepted it. Pilots are part of aircraft and that is a well composed image of the cockpit area that happens to have the pilots in it. When the motive rules were amended some time ago to exlude pilots waving etc, that was a step forward as all too often the pilots had become the subjects. In Walter's image they are not - it is a damned good photo. I can't help but get the impression that the one in the back is 'chimping' at a digital camera !
It must be difficult screening images like this and I hope there was some disagreement before it was rejected.
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, RR: 30 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3566 times:
Hi Mick & Glenn,
Thanks for your nice comments! Since I don't like to appeal without changing/improving on a shot (and hence wasting the valuable time of the screeners and just enlarging the queue), I am hesitating with this one since I cannot crop it larger - as Viv suggested - because this one was almost the frame I shot (I had something of this detailed composition in mind in order to be a bit different from all the other shots...).
Is there any chance that an appeal for this one - without changing the crop - could be accepted without offence to the original screener, or should I just leave it?
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 64 Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3554 times:
Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 14): Would this be rejected as "double upload" if I appeal for the first one and if it would be accepted?
I really don't know what to suggest about an appeal. I like the rejected shot a lot and to me it is not taking photos of the pilots for the sake of it.
I know that you have not been around on the site too long, but the history was that there were a lot of shots of pilots waving making it onto the site, shots where the subject was the pilot rather than the aircraft and these were, rightly IMHO, stopped.
My feeling is that the rejection of yours is a step too far towards that rejection reason. But you must bear in mind that I am not a screener and they may disagree, obviously did. As a photograph, I really like it but for the site, I guess the Headscreeners could decide. If you decide to appeal, put up a good argument and the information that you have been given is a good start.
As to the potential double rejection if it was accepted......
The double rule as I see it is to prevent a series of similar photos of an aircraft by one photographer of an aircraft on the same day, for instance a series of landing, taxying or take off shots with seconds between them. Here is where motive comes into play again and if the motive is very different there should not be a problem. The rule is not to prevent multiple photographs of the same aircraft on the same day, but to prevent multiple SIMILAR photographs, a subtle difference. Certainly I could not see yours breaking the double rule - they are very, very different.
If you decide to appeal, good luck.
Vive La Chouffe
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, RR: 30 Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3523 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 15): As a photograph, I really like it but for the site, I guess the Head-screeners could decide. If you decide to appeal, put up a good argument and the information that you have been given is a good start.
I decided to give it a try and have issued an appeal (with some reasoning), but it got rejected again so it's definitively one for my personal collection!
PS: Now I have this one in the queue (another close-up):
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 64 Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3517 times:
Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 16):
I decided to give it a try and have issued an appeal (with some reasoning), but it got rejected again
What a shame. I suspect that it must have been a close thing though.
The other one is another nice shot and I doubt it would get a bad motive. The quality is not so good to my eyes though, a problem with the depth of field. The tip of the nose is sharp but by the time you get back to the air intakes it is soft. I think the focus needed to be further back to use the depth of field forward of that point too, perhaps the cockpit.
Vive La Chouffe !
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, RR: 30 Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3460 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 15): The rule is not to prevent multiple photographs of the same aircraft on the same day, but to prevent multiple SIMILAR photographs, a subtle difference. Certainly I could not see yours breaking the double rule - they are very, very different.
I had more "luck" with the latter one, it was accepted today (and since the appeal was rejected, certainly no double). That 's my second by a screener-in-training, I am certainly not complaining !