Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Isn't This Rejection Unfair?  
User currently offlineLufthansi From Germany, joined May 2002, 454 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Hi there!

It's me once again.

Shorty I uploaded a pic of a 777 main gear assembly. I got a rejection for bad motive and quality. This was the pic:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20061210_01010676.JPG

Today I saw a picture of another 777 main gear assembly running for the "top of the last 24 hrs position".

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1161188/L/

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?


Life starts at take-off!
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2725 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.

Georg


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

Quoting Lufthansi (Thread starter):
is the quality really worse than on today's 777

Yes, it really is worse.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2713 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
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2705 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.... Yeah sure

.....come on....look at your photo objectively...it is no where near the same as the example you linked to. Valid rejection.


User currently offlineWillo From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2697 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.  twocents 

User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2681 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.

Regards



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 6):
I do not think that the crop make the difference here.

Crop always makes a huuuuuuuge difference! Portrait format doesn't do it for this one, hence motive is absolutely justified.  Smile

Cheers
Florian



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2921 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2669 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
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2660 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...

Regards



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineCalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2660 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.

B


User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2645 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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!
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2644 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...  Wink

Regards



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2637 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.  Smile


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2628 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 ?

Regards



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2624 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!  Smile 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.

Florian



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2613 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!  )

E

[Edited 2007-01-08 16:30:42]

User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Quoting IL76 (Reply 16):

See Peter,
in this way, it's a bit frustrating to know you cannot learn from others nor improve your skills....  Sad

Reagards



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2559 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
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2542 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.  beady 

E


User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2541 times:

Coming back to

Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 18):
This is beginning to sound like "I don't like this photo and that's that".

Most photos are screened by more than one screener, so it's not so definitive as you describe.

E

[Edited 2007-01-08 18:27:47]

User currently offlineAirMalta From Malta, joined Mar 2006, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Quoting Lufthansi (Thread starter):
Today I saw a picture of another 777 main gear assembly running for the "top of the last 24 hrs position".

why dont you crop the pict and try to make it look like the one it was online today? in these circumstances you have to give it a try!!
Malcolm


User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3767 posts, RR: 60
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 18):
This is beginning to sound like "I don't like this photo and that's that".

And that's how it should be. This website is owned by Johan, and representing his interests, the screeners accept or reject.

If he tells them to reject all photos of white and blue aircraft, so be it.

...of course personal preferences are in the play re. motive, and that's not really avoidable as long as there are guidelines and screeners.

As said before, the rejected boogie is correct... it's just not worth being on here, sorry.



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

Quoting Lufthansi (Thread starter):
And is the quality really worse than on today's 777 pic?

Yes as its been over sharpened.

I save the trouble and don't go for motive's like this. They are hard to get accepted, and in the long run, saves a little less heartache.


User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2419 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".  Smile



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
25 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
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...
Opinion On This Rejection? posted Sun Sep 17 2006 19:31:13 by San747
Does Heat Haze Affect This Rejection? posted Thu Sep 14 2006 01:35:44 by San747
Check Out This Rejection HA posted Thu Sep 7 2006 00:06:06 by Maiznblu_757
Your Thought On This Rejection... posted Wed Aug 16 2006 02:49:33 by Globalpics
Isn't This A Double? Or A Triple In This Case! posted Tue Jun 27 2006 23:24:11 by NicolasRubio
Not Had This Rejection Reason Before posted Mon Jun 5 2006 22:02:59 by 9VSPO
Can I Improve On This Rejection? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 00:39:21 by Walter2222
Would Like To Save This Rejection! posted Tue Feb 7 2006 10:16:23 by Linco22
Thoughts On This Rejection posted Wed Dec 28 2005 18:42:22 by Futterman
Can I Improve This Rejection (quality Soft)? posted Fri Dec 9 2005 16:16:38 by EZEIZA