Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is The Meaning Of "motive" Rejection?  
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 28
Posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6577 times:

Hi there,

I just had a "motive" rejection for this one:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...BRD_EBFN_20050902_IMG_2398_WVB.jpg

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).

Thanks for your explanation/advise.

Best regards,

Walter


canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6573 times:

Well, looks to me like the crew are the subject of the shot, rather than the aircraft.


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6562 times:

Hi Viv,

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.

Thanks again for the advise!

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6559 times:

Can you crop a bit larger, to include more of the aircraft?

Looks like a T-33? Is it this one?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivion Mulcahy



[Edited 2006-04-05 10:48:21]


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6548 times:

Hi Viv,

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...

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6544 times:

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 4):
now the main hard-disk failed

I feel your pain! That's why I have a separate external hard disk as backup. They do not cost much.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6534 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 5):
I have a separate external hard disk as backup. They do not cost much

I have now bought one (320 Gigabytes) too! I had most of my pictures (originals) already on CD as a back-up (it's just the last batch of about 100 I am not sure of).

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineBrettdespain From United States of America, joined May 2005, 178 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6527 times:

Hi Walter,

Sorry your photo got rejected. I think it's a great shot!

"Motive" rejections are the most madening for me. I wish a.net would loosen up a little in this area, but hey it's their site.

Like Viv says, try a wider shot with more of the plane. Keep up the good work.

Brett



V1...Rotate.
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6479 times:

I just had another accept and a reject (so 50%, that should be OK  Smile ...), but the reject is for "blurry":
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...0Sm_EBBL_20050720_IMG_1744_WVB.jpg

Do others also see this as blurry (sorry it's already past 3 in the morning and I should go to bed, and my eyes are getting tired  Smile as well)?

I had this one accepted
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel

- somewhat similar, other registration and bad weather conditions - some weeks ago and personnaly I was of the impression that the rejected one was better...  confused 

I go to bed now and will continue reading tomorrow...

Regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6446 times:

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 8):
Do others also see this as blurry

I am sorry to say yes, particularly the tail.

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6392 times:

Quoting Javibi (Reply 9):
particularly the tail.

Thanks for your reply, J!

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...).

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6350 times:

Quoting Walter2222 (Thread starter):
Can somebody give me more advise why this is motive-rejection?

This is a borderline motive. To be honest, it could have gone either way. I'd probably side with the rejection as being motive.

Typically close ups of cockpits (e.g. pilots waving) are really not considered to be motivational enough to accept given their content is really not focused heavily on the aircraft.

I do find this shot interesting however and the quality isn't an issue in my opinion.



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1691 posts, RR: 61
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6333 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 11):
This is a borderline motive.



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.
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6324 times:

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 12):
It must be difficult screening images like this and I hope there was some disagreement before it was rejected.

Mike, I'm sure there was. Shots like this don't get rejected lightly. I haven't checked, but I would think that this shot was a fence sitter that raised much discussion.



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6309 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?

PS: I have another one (a more staightforward shot) in the queue right now:
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...BRD_EBFN_20050902_IMG_2178_WVB.jpg

Would this be rejected as "double upload" if I appeal for the first one and if it would be accepted?


Thanks and regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1691 posts, RR: 61
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6297 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6266 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.

Hi Mick,

I decided to give it a try and have issued an appeal (with some reasoning), but it got rejected again  Sad so it's definitively one for my personal collection!

PS: Now I have this one in the queue (another close-up):

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...-up_EBBL_20050720_IMG_1784_WVB.jpg

Would this also be a "motive" breaker and should I pull it?


Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1691 posts, RR: 61
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6260 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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 !
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6203 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  Smile !


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel



Quoting Viv (Reply 3):
Looks like a T-33? Is it this one?

This one is not as good as the one from Viv (see reply 3) , but at least now I have "my" T-Bird in as well...

Best regards (and thanks again for all your comments and hints),

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Is The Meaning Of F/4-5.6 In A Lens? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 14:21:08 by TACAA320
What Is The Lens Of All Lenses? posted Mon Aug 1 2005 15:37:32 by FlyingZacko
What Is The Cost Of A 200mm Lens? posted Thu Jun 28 2001 16:56:23 by Thom@s
What Is The Registration Of This 747? posted Wed Oct 25 2000 21:08:08 by OO-VEG
Cyeg - What Is The Problem With Security? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 23:06:26 by Psyops
With A Limited Budget What Is The Best SLR? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 19:43:11 by COEXpilot
What Is The Problem!? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 14:46:56 by Martin21
What Is The Difference? posted Thu Dec 8 2005 15:19:41 by Nirmalmakadia
What Is The Latest On The FRA Observation Deck? posted Sun Oct 2 2005 13:41:25 by F4wso
Baddistance? What Is The Standard? posted Fri Sep 2 2005 17:39:57 by J.mo