Edoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, RR: 10 Posted (7 years 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
I just had the following pic rejected and appeal-rejected for Distance.
I know, nothing special, and The Law applies - too much 'empty space'. My plea that the two aircraft on the ground add something (I would have the composition led to a somewhat different picture than the usual) obviously didn't help.
So, given that "This problem may be very easy to correct", does a.net really want me to upload this instead?
Ugly. I guess I'll just leave it. I'm not going to edit another shot from the sequence that shows this plane, a few seconds earlier, not showing the other ones - too many similar but better-quality shots there already... But I don't really understand the rule. Or am I wrong?
(PS - on neither of both screenings, I received any other rejection reasons. Quality may be nothing special, but I don't see any obvious defects neither).
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50 Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1960 times:
Agree with Tim .
Edit the shot including the entire 767 but don't worry to much about the 737 as its chopped anyway and doesn't add a lot to the shot.
Cheers
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5431 posts, RR: 49 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1862 times:
Have to go with Eric on this one.. that winglet and tiny bit of tail.. just doesn't work for me, in some ways I think having a tiny bit of an A/C in a pic is as bad as cutting off a tiny bit.
If it was my photo, for my personal collection I might get out the clone tool... I know you can't do that here.
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Sponsor Message: 
From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 687 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 60 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}