Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NOA_motiv Consistency?  
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

I was hesitant to post this, however in light of recent NOA_motiv discussions and ongoing 'motiv' issues I figured I may as well say what a number of people are probably already thinking.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TZ Aviation



What's up with that shot? Other than the fact that only a small sliver of the aircraft is actually visible, there is no airport or other significant aviation-related subject matter visible on the ground or anywhere else in the frame. Yes, I do see the aircraft carrier however even then, there are no aircraft on deck. Given that relevant photos with much more aircraft visible have been contentiously rejected for _motiv, I'm curious as to the acceptance of this shot.

Disclamer: Tamsin, in no way do I mean to single you out. I regularly see your work and enjoy what I see. It's not a big deal, I merely want to put forward an example of an instance where screening can be somewhat inconsistent.

Cheers.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1554 times:

Is this a smart move ??

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

yea i had the same thought i bet most of us did but hey this is a.net. lovely shot by all means but by no means does it follow the normal guidelines for motiv

imo



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1528 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Window shot rule(s)

If you can see part of the plane (ie a wingtip, wing, engine etc etc) then the view "out the window" doesn't need to be aviation related. If it did we would not accept most window views.

If you can see something aviation out the window (airport, another plane) then a piece of the plane doesn't need to be visibile.

TZ's shot is in no way bad motiv, nor are the 1,000's of other shots that have the same motiv.

All the above assumes the shot in question meets other guidelines.


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

I think it's only the absence of a wing that makes it look odd, but actually, I like window views, especially of a town I'm familiar with.

Shame he didn't do Southampton.



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineLasham From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 226 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1520 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting QantasA332 (Thread starter):
I'm curious as to the acceptance of this shot.

As TZ put >This commanding view is made possible by the bowl-shaped windows which allow rescue crews to observe beneath the helicopter.

Its had nearly 2000 veiws so must have some good motive!

Tony



No sun no fun
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

All depends who uploads unfortunately. Had similar ones rejected for motiv and I am sure many other had as well.

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1501 times:

Quoting Lasham (Reply 5):
Its had nearly 2000 veiws so must have some good motive!

That is some logic.

Quoting QantasA332 (Thread starter):
I figured I may as well say what a number of people are probably already thinking.

 checkmark 

Quoting QantasA332 (Thread starter):
photos with much more aircraft visible have been contentiously rejected for _motiv, I'm curious as to the acceptance of this shot.

As are countless others.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

You know Jeff, if we apply the (so called) logic you apply to most of your replies, who cares? It's an airplane picture. BFD. Get over it.

Should we have rejected these, too?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicola Maraspini
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex McMahon




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frans Zwart - DutchOps
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tomas Galla




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michal Kaczmarek (Wlkp_Spotters)
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JB



This is a cry baby thread. If you want to attack TZ at least do so in a way that makes sense.


User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
This is a cry baby thread. If you want to attack TZ at least do so in a way that makes sense.

Nice to see you read the full post Royal

Quoting QantasA332 (Thread starter):
Tamsin, in no way do I mean to single you out. I regularly see your work and enjoy what I see. It's not a big deal, I merely want to put forward an example of an instance where screening can be somewhat inconsistent.


Also the images you have cited as your evidence, only go to prove the thread starters point.

[Edited 2006-09-01 16:40:33]

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Phil, my comment was not directed at the thread starter.

At any rate it is just another example of the passive aggressive nature that exists on most Internet forums.


User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1461 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 10):
Phil, my comment was not directed at the thread starter.

Ok, sorry Royal.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1447 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 8):
This is a cry baby thread.

This thread is about inconsistency and the photos you attached actually prove the point of it.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1445 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Really? If you could explain how I would appreciate it.

And some links to rejected photos of the like would help, too.

Thanks.


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1432 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Danny (Reply 12):
This thread is about inconsistency

At least you are very consistent in popping up in these kind of threads whenever you egt the chance.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1416 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 14):
Quoting Danny (Reply 12):
This thread is about inconsistency

At least you are very consistent in popping up in these kind of threads whenever you egt the chance.


Tim would you please show me my last post in a thread like this (presumably you meant critisizing the screening team)?

When you choose to attack somebody personally at least base it on facts.

[Edited 2006-09-01 18:00:53]

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Lets not loose site of the carrot here!

You said my reply, and the pictures I included "This thread is about inconsistency and the photos you attached actually prove the point of it."

So, how about it? Explain what you meant. Please.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1404 times:

That means that similar photo gets either accepted or rejected depending onwwho screens it and not depending on how it looks.

Funny (?) story: I got one photo rejected for badcontrast. Appealed - headscreener responded that indeed contrast was ok only the angle should be fixed a bit. Once angle got fixed photo got rejected for soft.  Wink

Different screener, different monitor, different results.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1398 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

The rules about window shots are quite well defined and (as far as I know) followed. The above shots show that we accept those shots, not just those uploaded by screeners.

Not sure what your rejection has to do with it, but I will comment. I imagine that you had to rework the photo from scratch? Maybe something was different in your workflow? If you reworked it from scratch it is no longer the same picture. Maybe you tried to tweak the contrast and it affected something else?

Screening will always have an element of subjectivness (sp?) to it.


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 18):
Not sure what your rejection has to do with it, but I will comment. I imagine that you had to rework the photo from scratch? Maybe something was different in your workflow? If you reworked it from scratch it is no longer the same picture. Maybe you tried to tweak the contrast and it affected something else?

No, it was larger than 1024 so I was too lazy to do anything else other that rotate and crop.

Regarding photos that you selected - four out of six show an airport so the main motiv of the photo is airport overview and it is irrelevant how much of wing they show. The main motiv of the photo that started the thread is city, which is not aviation related. Just use a bit of common sense.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1375 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

No, it was larger than 1024 so I was too lazy to do anything else other that rotate and crop.

So you took a jpeg, rotated it, cropped it, and reupload it, and are complaining about a rejection?

You are right, you are lazy

four out of six show an airport so the main motiv of the photo is airport overview....Just use a bit of common sense

Photo ID: 1101626 - Shows a nearly deserted grass strip. I was liking it to an aircraft carrier

Photo ID: 1093060 - No airport, shot shows a city.

Photo ID: 1092066 - No airport, shot shows a race track.

Photo ID: 1084666 - Another empty grass strip, see my first comment.

Photo ID: 1082812 - No aiport, shot shows clouds and some scenery.

Photo ID: 1082313 - Airport view, again, deserted.

Would it help it I provided JUST examples with no airport in sight. What you called "The main motiv of the photo that started the thread is city."

Here:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Patrick
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Henrik Rickardsson




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ron Peel
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael C. Sikoutris




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joop Stroes
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bruce Leibowitz




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicolas Kersting - NiK Photography



I can do this all day...

So, where is the inconsistency? Seems to me it if we had rejected the shot that was used as an example, by TZ, THAT would have been the inconsistent.

[Edited 2006-09-01 18:53:14]

User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1334 times:

You're right, the main motiv is the same  banghead 


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TZ Aviation
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bruce Leibowitz



EOT for me, waste of time.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1332 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Maybe that is why you are not a screener anymore? Clearly you don't get it.

Later.


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...
A Tale Of Screening Consistency posted Sun Sep 24 2006 20:46:34 by Ptrjong
Baffled By My Recent NOA_Motiv Rejections! posted Wed Aug 30 2006 21:20:14 by Speedbird2025
Night Long Exposure - NOA_motiv? posted Wed Dec 21 2005 21:53:47 by QantasA332
NOA_Motiv. Need Help posted Sun Dec 4 2005 20:45:08 by F70173
NOA_motiv? posted Sat Dec 3 2005 04:43:32 by YULtoPEI
Centre Rejection Consistency posted Sat Nov 26 2005 12:11:02 by Ryangooner
Another NOA_Motiv? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 01:13:11 by Cruiser
I'm Not The Only One, But Another NOA_motiv posted Mon Oct 17 2005 13:21:49 by JRadier
Noa_Motiv posted Thu Sep 29 2005 21:36:19 by Cruiser
NOA_Motiv? posted Thu Sep 22 2005 20:15:42 by Yanqui67