I feel a bit sad about my rejection. It's definitly the same motive.
Please don't tell me that you would have rejected it for another reason. mine was bad motive. And as you can see it's definately the same. I got a nice sunshine in my frame as well... And is the quality really worse than on today's 777 pic?
Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3144 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1763 times:
Not the same pic. Yours has too much dead space above and below the tires. Try another crop and probably the Quality won't be an issue anymore. Also the gear door is overexposed in my eyes.
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1751 times:
I suspect the quality rejection was for the noise on the wing underside as well as the overexposed gear door. I think also that Georg is right about the motive.
I have the impression that a.net doesn't like detail shots (engines, undercarriage etc) very much, so such a photo has to be 100% right in terms of the a.net criteria to get accepted here.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1743 times:
Quoting Lufthansi (Thread starter): I feel a bit sad about my rejection. It's definitly the same motive.
You are absolutely right, I think the screeners are just picking on you....
.....come on....look at your photo objectively...it is no where near the same as the example you linked to. Valid rejection.
Willo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 13 Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1735 times:
I have to say that neither of the pictures mentioned do anything for me. Had the shot been taken in another direction so you could actually see all of the struts and workings then maybe it would be of some interest.
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1719 times:
Quoting Lufthansi (Thread starter): I feel a bit sad about my rejection. It's definitly the same motive.
Lufthansi,
this is one of the many cases wich really let me think about what is "in" and what is "out" on A.net. And personally cannot come up with any conclusion about it yet...(and probably never will)
The subject is exactly the same. I do not think that the crop make the difference here. It is not that levelling the gears more on the bottom or at the top will make any difference at all.
The only "thumb down" could be for the overexposed gear compartment door, but this has something to do with an overexposed rejection not "motive" or "quality". Probably the lights of the pic should be "re-assembled" but in my opinion, apart from this, the rejection is unjustified...or at lest the motivation for it.
Dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2601 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1707 times:
For me, this shot would be better in a landscape orientation rather than portrait. There isn't any interest in the foreground leaving too much dead space. The one on the front page would be my preferred crop for this type of shot. Motive wise, in my opinion, it is interesting so see a close-up of the main landing gear because its a substantial piece of engineeing. Its a nice photo, but it doesn't quite meet the a.net criteria unfortunately.
Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1698 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 7): Portrait format doesn't do it for this one
Why Florian ? I could argue that portrait crops enhace the weight sensation of the aircraft, just to make an examples among many...Here we are in the most subjective territory ever...
CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1698 times:
Quoting Lufthansi (Thread starter): Please don't tell me that you would have rejected it for another reason. mine was bad motive. And as you can see it's definately the same. I got a nice sunshine in my frame as well... And is the quality really worse than on today's 777 pic?
So to paraphrase: "Don't tell me if it's anything other than motive, but is it quality?" Which do you want? I recently had one rejected for quality, learned from the mistake, and see the same issues in this pic.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
Hi Stephan,
Please remember that the motive rejection does not only refer to 'what' you are showing in your picture but also to 'how' you're doing it. And in this case I think it is clearly about the 'how'. Unflattening crop, dark wing underside v/s overexpossed gear door, the baggage truck in the background, it all just doesn't help at all to make your picture feel right. I am not arguing that it is OK to reject pictures because of this, but I have seen lately that this is how it works here (if I'm wrong, anybody please just feel free to correct me!).
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1682 times:
Quoting Acontador (Reply 11):
Please remember that the motive rejection does not only refer to 'what' you are showing in your picture but also to 'how' you're doing it
Yes, probably it would be time to implement new rejections reasons under the name of "motive"...After all it's too much clear and precise...
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1675 times:
Quoting LIPH (Reply 9): Here we are in the most subjective territory ever...
Exactly, and that's why there will never be a black-and-white rule about motives. Simply because you can't make it. What you think looks cool, could be ugly to another. We have a group of screeners who try to come to a conclusion about what looks nice and what doesn't. You can disagree with a decision, but there is no way argueing, as it is subjective.
It's like discussing food. The cook may be Gordon Ramsey, but it's still possible that I don't like the taste of a dish he makes. But I'm not going to ask if he can put a peanutbutter sandwich on the menu. I will just have to go elsewhere for my peanutbutter sandwich. Just like how photographers display their A.net motive rejections elsewhere.
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1666 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 13): Exactly, and that's why there will never be a black-and-white rule about motives
Ok Eduard,
but could you please tell me why the shot of Lufthansi was rejected and the other one not ?
Also, there is not the risk that, at the end, all rejections will be NOA motive ? Knowledge about composing a pic and post processing tecnique can improve, but if there is no clear rule about motive, so what ? Will it become a lottery ?
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1662 times:
Quoting LIPH (Reply 14): but could you please tell me why the shot of Lufthansi was rejected and the other one not ?
I guess the main factor (as you said subjective!) still is the portrait crop! There's too much uninteresting, bare metal on top, and too much uninteresting concrete on the bottom... The accepted one is full frame without dead (uninteresting) space.
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1651 times:
Quoting LIPH (Reply 14): Will it become a lottery ?
Well... Some say it is. But I'm not too sure about that. If a picture clearly shows why someone took it that way, it looks appealing and it shows something aviation related (and I don't mean close-ups of nuts and bolts, a piece of sheet metal hardly recognisable as part of a plane or something obstructed by other objects in an unappealing way), you'll have some winning lottery numbers already. Not saying that it's a winning combination though, that can only be decided for each photo individually. But there has to be an X-factor to the photo that will make the screeners go: "Hmm, that's nice!". And yes, in the end it comes down to the screeners opinion, just like my foods taste comes down to the cook's opinion when I go to a restaurant.
(...and if I don't like his cooking, I take another flavored dish or I go to another restaurant! )
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1597 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 16): But there has to be an X-factor to the photo that will make the screeners go: "Hmm, that's nice!". And yes, in the end it comes down to the screeners opinion, just like my foods taste comes down to the cook's opinion when I go to a restaurant.
(...and if I don't like his cooking, I take another flavored dish or I go to another restaurant!)
This is beginning to sound like "I don't like this photo and that's that". OK motive decisions are inevitably subjective, but at least please tell us why you don't like it. Different people have come up with different reasons but you haven't said yay or nay to any.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, RR: 51 Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1580 times:
Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 18): Different people have come up with different reasons but you haven't said yay or nay to any.
Maybe because I never talked about the above photos, I was merely giving comments about the general code of conduct and the whole 'fairness' of things.
So you want my vote? I haven't screened this shot, but I'd say nay. The subject is the wheel bogey, which makes up only a part of the whole picture. The surroundings don't add to the photo, they don't give it an extra vibe (like an interesting sunset or landscape does) and are more a distraction. A horizontal crop would be better. On top of that it's got quality issues (grainy, overexposed gear door).
There. I've said everything that was said before already.
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1457 times:
Quoting IL76 (Reply 19): There. I've said everything that was said before already.
But none of it was said by a screener.
I'm not saying that the photo should have been accepted - see my own post no. 3. I'm simply saying that, precisely because motive rejections are subjective, the more you can tell us about the reasons behind them the better. So thanks for the feedback.
Quoting INNflight (Reply 22): If he tells them to reject all photos of white and blue aircraft, so be it.
So be it. But I'm sure you'll agree that in such a case photographers should be told about "noa_white and blue".
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
25 Codeshare: I think it would help us all to get exact reasons for the motivs, but it's highly unlikely at this moment, unless you get a personal message. I'd lik
26 Lufthansi: Txs to all for your discussions. I hope to get some time for taking other shots. I'll use my space for the main object and try to avoid "boring and em
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined May 2002, 454 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3109 posts, 
From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, 
From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, 
)
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
