Q330 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5326 times:
Great shot Brian, but I don't think it's got much of a chance. It's obviously tough to get unusual angles like this accepted, but the shot is also fairly dark and lacking some detail in the engines and under the wing.
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 41
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5191 times:
Thanks for all the comments.
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 4): Should've used a fill light under the wing, and there's a dust spot next to one of the cones.
Would a fill-flash really have lit much up over a 30-second exposure? And good eye on the dustspot, will definitely clear that up. I might try re-editing it to correct the darkness and bring out more detail, but that won't change the motiv. Damn.
Here's another fresh rejection from that night. I part expected it to get bounced for motive as well (which it did) because of the nose-area, but I also wanted to believe that this was an extenuating circumstance all the way around -- new registration and relatively new airline for the database, plus something not normally seen around here...
Sulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 31
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5101 times:
i think this is a super shot Brian, and I wouldn't change it. I'm wondering if fill-flash might have created some nasty glare off the underwing and engine mounts - that glossy grey paint looks like it would pick up a strobe very nicely.
Shame it wasn't accepted.
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.