WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1330 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted
Sat Jun 24 2006 01:05:11 UTC (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3608 times:
I think the rejection is justified. It may have been easier to accept if you had more of a 3/4 angle vs. side on.
Globalpics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 216 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted
Sat Jun 24 2006 01:05:45 UTC (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3608 times:
Sadly this will be one for the private collection, and it is a shame and a loss to the site but as the guidelines state the people cannot be recogniseable.Really nice shot though
ManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3030 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted
Sat Jun 24 2006 01:09:21 UTC (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3602 times:
Thank you oh well, it's not lost if it goes to the private collection. That's why I'm taking pics in the first place - although I have to admit that getting a shot accepted on A.net is always a nice feeling
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4213 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted
Sat Jun 24 2006 01:11:59 UTC (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3602 times:
I don't quite see the motive problem but I think the recognizable pax are probably unacceptable.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3267 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted
Sat Jun 24 2006 04:57:57 UTC (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3583 times:
The motive issue is the odd crop of the aircraft, no landing gear, etc.....the people....well, that's obvious. I wouldn't appeal it.