Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1732 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4121 times:
When little bits are missing like a the small portion of the tailplane, such as here, then there is a risk of a motive rejection and I guess that is what the screener meant.
Quoting from the rejection reason :-
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.
Note the word CAN !
Well motivated crops are acceptable, tight crops, but here there is little or no reason for that missing bit.
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4102 times:
One thing also I noticed is the shot is a bit oversharpened. Jaggies all over the leading edge of wings and horizontal stabiliser. Also the trailing edge of the previously mentioned areas are jaggered too plus the tail.
Lanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4070 times:
Maybe if you had cropped closer to the fin then it would have looked nicer. I either crop tight to the fin or include the whole elevator/tail stuff.
As for the jaggies I have to agree with Martin. Get rid of those jaggies before uploading it again.
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1928 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4047 times:
Many thanks again to all comments.
I probably won't upload this particular photo again. It's not that special anyway. The one thing I liked most was the clear blue sky with the cloud pattern.
I want to share something though about jaggies. Lately, I have noticed that full frame photos of planes make a lot more jaggies than that of heavily cropped ones, like around 50%. Of course after resizing the photo down to 1024 pixels. Has anyone else noticed this as well?