Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Baffled By My Recent NOA_Motiv Rejections!  
User currently offlineSpeedbird2025 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3434 times:

Hello Everyone...

Over the past few months now it is becoming clearly evident that there seems to be a inconsistency when screeners reject for 'motiv'. I just had two photos rejected last night for 'motiv'. They both were, IMO a motivated close-up of the front portion of the A/C's. I appealed them and took time to write the headscreeners, what I thought was a polite and clear explanation on how these two photos were incorrectly rejected for 'motiv'. Today I got the generic e-mail back from the headscreeners saying the photos were rejected again for 'motiv' again (without any personal comments).

Now here is where the inconsistency comes in. This photo was added to the database yesterday and was in the same queue as the two that were rejected.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nathan Zalcman - AirTeamImages



and these two are the ones that got rejected yesterday and rejected via appeal today.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20060829_29-1.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20060829_28-1.jpg


My point is that these shots clearly show the inconsistency of screeners rejecting motivated close-ups as 'motiv'. I have had a number of these 'types' of shots rejected for 'motiv' in the past few months and simply thought, well maybe these are not allowed. But when one shot gets accepted and two almost identical ones get rejected. It simply is not fair. If motivated shots like these are not allowed, then it should be stated clearly in the 'motiv' guidelines.

Any opinions on this would be appreciated, especially from Head Screeners and Screeners.

Thank You

--Nathan

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3405 times:

Quoting Speedbird2025 (Thread starter):
My point is that these shots clearly show the inconsistency of screeners rejecting motivated close-ups as 'motiv'.

NO! Its much more pleasing to look at a Wunala close up. I agree with the screeners here.

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineEDDL From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3401 times:

These just don't look right, sorry.

NOA_Motiv  checkmark 

Phil / EDDL


User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3389 times:

Quoting Rotate (Reply 1):
NO! Its much more pleasing to look at a Wunala close up. I agree with the screeners here.

I disagree. The other two are much nicer. However, it must come down to the special paint scheme. Good job anyway Speedbird, keep them for yourself and others (friends, etc.).


User currently offline9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3384 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 3):
I disagree. The other two are much nicer. However, it must come down to the special paint scheme.

 checkmark 

Make your own website then no-one can tell you what you can and can't put in it.


User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 3):
The other two are much nicer.

I disagree. Dont look nice on my screen. Anyway - keep up speedbird.

Quoting EDDL (Reply 2):
These just don't look right, sorry.

 checkmark  checkmark 

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

Nathan
The Wunala shot appears to be more focused on depicting the nose of the a/c. I don´t know why. Maybe it´s the livery or the 747 shape that help it look more like a close-up.
The other two give me a hint or a feeling that part of the a/c is missing, that it´s not a 'complete' shot. Maybe that´s why they got rejected.
It´s quite a subjective matter, I just hope I could express myself correctly for you. Just my 2 cents, hope it helps.

Cheers!
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Nathan on the T7s with both shots a portion of the engines are chopped even at times chopping more can be better then chopping less.
Nice shots by the way keep it up.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

According the bad_motive definition it surely is a correct rejection <-> "MOTIVE
Your photo(s) showed a motive that is not accepted by Airliners.net. This problem may be due to a very wide range of reasons.

Some of the most common examples are:

- Photos showing just a part of an aircraft (with no motivation for doing so, like a special sticker, damage etc.).
..."

However I agree with Nathan that there is just too much inconsistency in that matter; I for instance love that Saudi 777 as it shows many nice details you don't see on a full frame shot of the a/c and it is motivewise definitely nicer than a recently added shot of only the belly of a B747; I still wonder how screeners justify that addition; I find the framing just awful except for the details it shows. And that's just what such a close-up is all about and Nathans 2 other shots fullfill that criteria quite nicely.
I'd really like more consistency here.
We were also told some time ago that close-up shots where pilots are the primary subject wouldn't be accepted anymore; well, then why did I see a shot accepted only a week ago where nothing except the behaviour of the co-pilot was the photographer's reason to uplaod the shot!?

Now some may come with statements like "screeners freedom when accepting (rejecting) a shot" but what about the photographer's freedom to show angles he/she regards as justified. I believe that experienced photographers like Nathan should be granted more freedom here. And than let the viewers judge if the shot was rightfully uploaded or not.

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 3):
I disagree. The other two are much nicer.

Have a look at the detail of the Wunala shot, then go back at look at the detail, or lack of, on the others. Screeners were dead on the money here.

The other shots show NOTHING interesting like dents/damage, stickers, etc. Just plain liveries.


User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3282 times:

Quoting Eadster (Reply 9):
Have a look at the detail of the Wunala shot, then go back at look at the detail, or lack of, on the others. Screeners were dead on the money here.

Oh come off it you morons. I'm allowed to disagree, just as you're doing. I hate that ugly paint scheme. Must I also point out that I don't like the aircraft type, that the blue backdrop is boring to me, and that it's simply not up to you to tell me I'm wrong with my OPINION. Snobs.

Let me state further:
the dreaming shot is plain to me, not great, not terrible. It appears too bright. Not that the contrast is bad, just that it's a mid day lookin' shot and I like dusk/dawn ones. That's why there's that category in the search feature.
The 777 shot is awesome due to the dirt on it, that's my choice.
I like the 340 due to the engines.

Sorry for all the disrespect, being told that my opinion on art is rubs me wrong, especially when I was being respectful.

Quoting 9VSPO (Reply 4):
Make your own website then no-one can tell you what you can and can't put in it.

Haha, limited capacity with First Class here!  

Lucas

Ps-Eadster, upon rereading, your post was not mean. Please forgive my mean words. I think I read it wrong. Still, I disagree with respect. have a nice one.  Smile

Lucas (again)

[Edited 2006-08-31 03:20:41]

User currently offlineSpeedbird2025 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3259 times:

Hello Everyone..

Thanks for all the comments so far.. Quite surprised that no screeners have posted their thoughts on this issue.

I am a personal fan of close-up shots that show the A/C from the Engines forward. It shows detail of a plane that a full side shot can't. While some liveries are more colorful to look at than others.. My point here is that if you take the Saudi 777 and the Wanula shot (which were in the same day queue), the crop is almost identical and there is NO reason to accept one over the other due to livery itself. I have plenty of shots like the Saudi of CO (which IMO are SOS to me as I see them alot) but those all get up as well. I also see many other photographs of this nature that made it up where main landing gears are chopped, engines are chopped, etc (which IMO are a clear violation of the motiv rejection)... I would just like a bit of an explanation from the screeners on the true difference between the Saudi shot and Qantas as far as motiv is concerned. As I said they are cropped almost 100% the same and it simply is not fair to strike it down for motiv because of the livery (if that was the case) and I didn't dirty up the plane or design the livery of either. LOL!

The first bullet in the MOTIV rejection description is certainly not an issue here as the Qantas and Saudi have an almost identical crop. The Etihad, I guess you can argue that one engine is cropped (even though I see quite a few photos added to the database like that everyday. And I think a photo looks a bit off balance due to the length of the A345 and A346 if you include all the 4 engines) All the other bullets are clearly not applicable in this situation.

I would just please like some screeners to chime in on this issue for me as well as for other people who like to upload these type of motivated close-ups. It is the only way to be clear on what is considered 'badmotiv' and will allow spotters to not waste their time in taking close-ups of the front half of the planes as they fly by. The motiv rejection is probably the hardest one to start over and re-edit, so I think it is very crucial that the screeners be consistent on this issue. That is the point of this topic.

Thanks again

--Nathan


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3255 times:

Quoting Speedbird2025 (Reply 11):
I would just please like some screeners to chime in on this issue.....



Quoting Speedbird2025 (Thread starter):
I just had two photos rejected last night for 'motiv'.......I appealed them............. I got the generic e-mail back from the headscreeners saying the photos were rejected again for 'motiv' again

I think they already have 'chimed in'. I think you were lucky with Wunala making it it.


User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3222 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting Eadster (Reply 9):
The other shots show NOTHING interesting like dents/damage, stickers, etc. Just plain liveries.

If something is interesting or not lies in the eye of the beholder; I for instance find the oil traces on the engine nacelle, the small IATA sticker, all the different ports and all the other small details on the 777 you don't see in a full frame shot very interesting and I'm sure so would many other viewers if they got the chance to get a glimpse at the shot.

Quoting Speedbird2025 (Reply 11):
The first bullet in the MOTIV rejection description is certainly not an issue here as the Qantas and Saudi have an almost identical crop

Well, yes the first bullet IS the issue here as your shots only show the front part of an aircraft and it's up to the screeners' subjective opinion if the crop is correctly motivated or not. In case of the special livery they apparently gave it a "yes" whereas they put in a "no" for the other two.
I'm not a friend of this procedure neither becasue of the same reasons you put in Reply11 but that's sadly the way it's handled by the A.net crew at the moment.


Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3216 times:

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 13):
it's up to the screeners' subjective opinion

Which should not be the case.
Motives should be handled also along a set of objective guidelines set by the boss and the screeners altogether. Yes, on the end of the day they are subjective but not subjective by the personal opinion of one, two or three screeners.
Consistency is what should be achieved.



-
User currently offlineLasham From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 226 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3192 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Speedbird

Just want to say a few words re the rejected photos. Its the crop that kills the shot, if you had left the back of the engine in the shots and not cut them short the shot would have been more balanced.

Tony



No sun no fun
User currently offlineSpeedbird2025 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3151 times:

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 14):
Which should not be the case.
Motives should be handled also along a set of objective guidelines set by the boss and the screeners altogether. Yes, on the end of the day they are subjective but not subjective by the personal opinion of one, two or three screeners. Consistency is what should be achieved.

 checkmark  checkmark  checkmark 

Thank You Peter

Quoting Lasham (Reply 15):
Its the crop that kills the shot, if you had left the back of the engine in the shots and not cut them short the shot would have been more balanced.

Hi Tony and thanks for chiming in on this issue... I appreciate it. However this is what I was thinking, but again this is where the inconsistency lies IMO.

The Qantas as well as most my other similar shots are cropped almost 100% the same (with the engines slightly cropped).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nathan Zalcman - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nathan Zalcman - AirTeamImages



As I said before there are photos added to the DB everyday with cutoff engines, landing gears, etc. So there must be a set guidelines written for the Motiv rejection and not just leaving it so broad! Quite unfair to the photographer to try and read the minds of the screeners or differentiate a photo due to a few mm's of crop difference on the engines.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 13):
and it's up to the screeners subjective opinion if the crop is correctly motivated or not. In case of the special livery they apparently gave it a "yes" whereas they put in a "no" for the other two.

Thanks for the responses Thierry, I appreciate it also.... The screeners (especially the Head Screeners upon appeal) should really perhaps check photos for the photographer already in the DB if they are screening to decide if the shot is motivated or not... Tony so far is the only screener to chime in, but would it have been so hard for the Head Screeners (upon rejecting my appeal (which most screeners and Johan encourage to use) to just put a simple note like "too much crop on engines"... Especially when I took the time to compare the issue to them. This is why I am baffled at this rejection as it makes one very confused and sets double standards for the shots one already has plenty of in the DB.

Thanks

--Nathan


User currently offlineLasham From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 226 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3111 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting Speedbird2025 (Reply 16):
Hi Tony and thanks for chiming in on this issue... I appreciate it. However this is what I was thinking, but again this is where the inconsistency lies IMO. [/quote

[quote=Speedbird2025,reply=16]So there must be a set guidelines written for the Motiv rejection and not just leaving it so broad!

Hi

Motive, as per the rules. See the last line.

MOTIVE
Your photo(s) showed a motive that is not accepted by Airliners.net. This problem may be due to a very wide range of reasons.

Some of the most common examples are:


Photos showing just a part of an aircraft (with no motivation for doing so, like a special sticker, damage etc.). Additionally, cutting off the nose or a part of the tail can also result in a motive rejection.
Photos with distracting or obstructing objects in the foreground (this is especially true for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common nature and the large amount of equipment which usually surrounds the aircraft). Any equipment or objects blocking parts of the aircraft will result in a motive rejection.
Photos that do not show an aircraft or anything sufficiently related to aviation at all. Common examples are photos of ramp equipment, like stairs, or cars. Or airport structures like radar towers, jet bridges, office buildings.
Photos showing the date in the lower left or right corner of the image. If your photos show the date on them please disable this feature on your camera.
Close up cockpit shots with the only reason for the shot being showing pilots waving.
Cockpit photos in which the pilots block out most of the panel
Photos taken through aircraft windows that show little wing/engine and have no airport visible on the ground.
Photos that include window reflections. These can result from taking photos through terminal windows or observations decks that are enclosed by glass. Shots taken through aircraft windows can also result in reflections, or can show scratches or dirt from those windows. This will also result in a motive rejection.
Photos taken inside aircraft that only show tables, dinner trays, or personal tv's. Cabin overviews that are taken from a very low standpoint and have seatbacks block out most of the image.
Please note that motive rejections can also result from other, more subjective reasons. These are usually of an aesthetical nature.



No sun no fun
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3099 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Get a different lens other than that 100-400, thats the easy answer.

Did you appeal the shots? If so you will know where the head screeners stand.


User currently offlineMarkJBeckwith From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 156 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

Quoting Lasham (Reply 17):
Motive, as per the rules. See the last line.



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
Did you appeal the shots? If so you will know where the head screeners stand.

Do you guys really have trouble understanding simple questions or are you being politic? The question is, what was the difference between the accepted shot and the rejected shots? Simple.

M.



One day, I might be good at this...
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3080 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Do you guys really have trouble understanding simple questions or are you being politic?

You want me to break it down for you? The shots were rejected because they were boring. The light was crap and the contrast both flat AND high. Add it all up and it is a motiv rejection.

The Wunala shot was accepted because it is interesting and colorful. The Etihad and Saudi shots are neither.

Thats MY opinion. Others on the screening team might feel different. So, appeal.

Can I have a dollar for every "What a jerk, crew isn't supposed to talk like that" reply?


User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
Get a different lens other than that 100-400, thats the easy answer.

He has the 24-105...  sarcastic 

I agree with Tony, the cropped engines don't look nice - ever.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3069 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Really, because the comments say he shot it with a 100-400.

If you want to shoot parts of airplanes, you will be looking at motiv rejections from time to time. Such shots need to be really good, if not perfect.


User currently offlineMarkJBeckwith From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 156 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3053 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20):
The Wunala shot was accepted because it is interesting and colorful. The Etihad and Saudi shots are neither.

Wow, an actual answer; was that so hard?

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20):
Thats MY opinion. Others on the screening team might feel different. So, appeal.

They're not my pictures so I can't appeal (If you'd read the initial post you'll know that he already appealed and that his name is different from mine).

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20):
Can I have a dollar for every "What a jerk, crew isn't supposed to talk like that" reply?

Can I have a dollar for every time you sound off like you're some kind of God almighty instead of just answering the question [or ignoring it - your call]?

M.



One day, I might be good at this...
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3040 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Nice shot


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Beckwith



See you around.


25 Speedbird2025 : First off thanks to everyone for some additional comments on the motiv issue here.. Royal... C'mon now... That is a bit below the belt there.. I know
26 Lasham : I did not screen your shots. And was not going to get into the why one was ok and the others were not, so only made a comment on the rejected photos.
27 Clickhappy : I hate threads like this. Do I ever reject a photo because I think it is "boring?" Nope, but I do Second Opinon them and start a discussion with my fe
28 Post contains images Speedbird2025 : Thanks Tony for all your comments and suggestions. I really do appreciate it and I will re-edit the Saudi and give it one more shot Thanks Royal for
29 Eadster : No Problem, I personally don't mind the shots, but I was speaking from an Anet perspective and should have stated that.
30 LHRsunriser : Hi all, Thought I would chip in here. Earlier you said that the lack of contrast and crap light etc... adds up all together to being a "bad motive" r
31 Clickhappy : Neither the color, by itself. the contrast, by itself, or the motiv, by itself, warrants a rejection. However, when you add those three things togethe
32 Post contains images LHRsunriser : Ook kl, I still dont understand how contrast and colour added together makes a motive rejection. But I guess it is the subjective opinion of the scree
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...
Baffled By Centering Rejection posted Mon Mar 27 2006 00:56:00 by D L X
Baffled By Badcatagory........... posted Wed Aug 10 2005 17:46:14 by Johndm1957
E-mail Questions About My Recent LHR Pics Answered posted Thu Sep 16 2004 22:26:47 by Ben2
Screeners Challenged By My Pics? posted Wed Mar 24 2004 19:23:09 by Atomother
My Recent Rejects posted Fri Oct 10 2003 19:10:25 by Sushka
My Rejections - This Time Qual And Soft posted Mon Oct 9 2006 02:01:17 by Lanas
My First Two Contrast Rejections posted Wed Aug 23 2006 02:42:02 by NicolasRubio
My Last 5 Rejections... Help. posted Thu Jun 15 2006 05:14:14 by D L X
My Latest Rejections posted Wed May 17 2006 16:13:10 by Ander
Puzzled By Many Rejections. posted Sat May 13 2006 20:58:57 by Aero145