Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Triple Rejection  
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

Ok this is it. Just help me to understand :

- On 28/2 I've been rjected the following pic :

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ia_posizionandosi_a_barcellona.jpg

Reson for rejection : contrast and center

- I then re-edited the pic and corrected the centre and contrast. My shot was rejected another time on 5/3 :

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ia_posizionandosi_a_barcellona.jpg

Reason for rejection : motiv

- So I posted on the aviation photography forum receiving some good advices. Ok, the motiv rej was due to the cut engine. I re-edited the pic and tried another upload. Today the shot was rejected again :

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...posizionandosi_a_barcellona_ok.jpg

Reason for rejection : motiv. I guess this time it's for the cut tail, and I must agree (even if the database is full of cut engines, tails, stabs and so on...an example ? http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1189892/M/. And this shot is damn close to the second rjected of mine). I just wonder : wouldn't have been much faster for all of us to know this from the beginning ? I just appealed it. Would love to hear your opinions.

Ciao


Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

Giovanni,

The motiv issue for me would be the cut (blocked) gears.

Michael


User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

If you read your original post....

Quote:

Quoting Rotate (Reply 4):
I dont like the cutoff wheels .....

= motive rejection

Cut off logo on the tail also = motive rejection.

Jid

You would of saved yourself the effort and rejections against your id.

Jid



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2286 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

LIPH

I think that you are making a common mistake - ignoring the fact that the aircraft does not stop at the fuselage, the fin is a part of it too. Simply tipping the camera up a little and you could have put the nosewheel near the bottom of the frame and the complete fin may well have been included. It is a pet dislike of mine, a poor composition (poor motive). Don't study your image, just glance at it and the instant impression is that it is too high. The crop of the logo on the fin is really distracting.
And so to the example to which you refer.......
I do not actually like the crop of the engine on the right but it looks unavoidable given the tight crop. However, look at the position of the nosewheel compared to yours, near the bootom and towards the corner. I actually looked at that image after I had written the first bit. Does it make my point ?
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineLOCsta From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 306 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

i would only ask the question why the 1st reject didn't include MOTIV? That happened to me recently with a shot that I bothered to fix a second time only to THEN rec'v a motive rejection....
Shouldn't MOTIV trump other rejection reasons as to not waste everyone's time in new edits and submissions of shots with MOTIV issues from the beginning.
If I see a MOTIV rejection on a shot that has something like the tail cut off, and the original also has the tail cut off, I wouldn't bother trying to fix it, but if you don't get the MOTIV the 1st time you might be led to think that it was acceptable motive and just need the other things fixed to make it passable.

Cheers,

Kevin



Missed 4 chasing 1
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

OMG!  banghead 

I really dont get why you try to get this certain shot into the DB ....

All Rejections reason have been valid ...

I said allready : The gear does kill it ......



We allready discussed that pic sometime ago .....

Rather Concentrate on others .... than trying to get this one in. It only brings you ratio done - its not that special.

RGds

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2248 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Shouldn't MOTIV trump other rejection reasons as to not waste everyone's time in new edits and submissions of shots with MOTIV issues from the beginning.
If I see a MOTIV rejection on a shot that has something like the tail cut off, and the original also has the tail cut off, I wouldn't bother trying to fix it, but if you don't get the MOTIV the 1st time you might be led to think that it was acceptable motive and just need the other things fixed to make it passable.

All valid points, and yes motiv should be checked, but I actually HQ'd the image, I liked the crop *shrug*


User currently offlineJajo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2226 times:

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 3):
Simply tipping the camera up a little and you could have put the nosewheel near the bottom of the frame and the complete fin may well have been included

I had the same problem with one of my shots. It was rejected for center, and it was a true eye-opener. It looks very strange to leave lots of empty asphalt in the bottom of the picture, and the fin cut off...

LIPH,

Thanks for reducing the visibility of the watermark on the last one. In the first two shots, the watermark is probably one of the more annoying I have ever seen.

/ Jacob


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2222 times:

Mick - I can't stand cut off gear either! However, if 'motiv' actually stated 'poor composition' then I think this would be easier to understand as 'motiv' may not be specific enough.

User currently offlineDiezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

You might try a different, more "dramatic" crop which takes the attention away from the cut off parts. This picture might just be suitable for a crop like this, allthough I don't think the quality is really there. Well, anyway, I just quickly cropped the picture to give you an idea of what I mean...  Smile

Big version: Width: 581 Height: 387 File size: 107kb
different crop


Roel.



Never be afraid of what you like. (Miles Davis)
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting Diezel (Reply 9):
You might try a different, more "dramatic" crop which takes the attention away from the cut off parts.

And get the 4th Rejection cause of Motive ....  cool   cool 

LIPH - Forget this IB Shot .....  tired 

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1667 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2187 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting Jajo (Reply 7):
It looks very strange to leave lots of empty asphalt in the bottom of the picture, and the fin cut off...

Jacob....I totally agree.

Motive is very subjective and here is a perfect example. Royal would have accepted, I have not seen this during screening but would have rejected it if I had. Neither of us are wrong but we have a different opinion and as it was rejected other screeners clearly agreed with me, though perhaps others agreed with Royal too. The process is actually a pretty democratic process but on balance it was rejected. Some may scream 'inconsistency' but it is not in my eyes, a human foible, failing, it may well be though ! Generally motive does trump all others yet it is still frequently ignored by people re-uploading. Some motive rejections can be corrected, missing little bits for instance but in most cases they cannot.
Centreing and motive can at times be subjective too and in all of LIPH's examples both fit the rejection.
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2166 times:

Ok guys,
thanks, some of your advices make sense. I'd have some points to discuss though... :

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 1):
The motiv issue for me would be the cut (blocked) gears.

Ok Michael, this one of the blocked gears sounds new to me (never happened to deal with it before). I thought that the motive rejection of the second upload could be rather for the cut engine, than for the gears. After all a cut engine sounds more bad than a couple of cut tires. Anyway, this thing of the cut gears it's not that clear to me, sorry. A shot of mine, taken from the same position was added in the db without any motive rejection :

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1187061/L/

Probably the gears were not "that cut", as in my IB shot, but were nonetheless cut. Could you explain to me the difference ?

Quoting Jid (Reply 2):
You would of saved yourself the effort and rejections against your id.

You're right.  checkmark 

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 3):
gnoring the fact that the aircraft does not stop at the fuselage, the fin is a part of it too

Mick you're right. A plane does not stop to the fuselaghe. But how many fuselage closeup, nose closeup, gears closeup, tail closeup can you count in the entire DB? My intention was to make exactly a closeup of the fuselage, and cannot understand what's wrong with it : there are tons of fuselage closeup in the db, and a closeup of the fuselage necessarly means to cut off some other pats of the aircraft, isn't it ? Now what's wrong (gears apart) with my way of cropping the pic for a fuselage closeup ? I would be grateful to learn something new here, really. I'm not in the mood to complain here (I have damn cold and headache... Wink). I just want to understand how to crop fuselage closeups...

Quoting Rotate (Reply 5):

I really dont get why you try to get this certain shot into the DB ....

All Rejections reason have been valid ...

I said allready : The gear does kill it ......

Yes, Robin I should follow your advice...That shot has really nothing special...There is not a specific reason why I want it into the db, but nonetheless believe that it has all the credits to...(gears apart). I just lov fuselage closeups...and would like to understand the "perfect crop" for them.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 6):
If I see a MOTIV rejection on a shot that has something like the tail cut off, and the original also has the tail cut off, I wouldn't bother trying to fix it, but if you don't get the MOTIV the 1st time you might be led to think that it was acceptable motive and just need the other things fixed to make it passable.

I would agree if the database wasn't full of cut tails, stabs, angines and so on in order to make the fuselage being the center of the pic. As I told my intention was to make a fuselage closeup. Nothing more, nothing less...If there's something wrong in my crop (gears apart) I'd love to understand it....

Quoting Diezel (Reply 9):
You might try a different, more "dramatic" crop

Yes Roel, that would be nice, but at this point I do not understand which parts are "eligible" to cut and which are not in these type of closeups....Anyway that crop would suffers from quality and the famous cut gears as well...

Any other input/suggestion on fuselage closeups is greatly appreciated...

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2138 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 12):
Ok Michael, this one of the blocked gears sounds new to me (never happened to deal with it before). I thought that the motive rejection of the second upload could be rather for the cut engine, than for the gears. After all a cut engine sounds more bad than a couple of cut tires. Anyway, this thing of the cut gears it's not that clear to me, sorry. A shot of mine, taken from the same position was added in the db without any motive rejection :

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1187061/L/

Probably the gears were not "that cut", as in my IB shot, but were nonetheless cut. Could you explain to me the difference ?

I'm old-school, cut from the slide-shooters mold and any shot with gears not fully visible (possibily with exceptions) kills the shot. Just image the exact same shot with fully visible gears and compare the two, it's difficult to explain. Motiv is very subjective and will always be.

Mike


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2116 times:

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 13):

I'm old-school, cut from the slide-shooters mold and any shot with gears not fully visible (possibily with exceptions) kills the shot

Ok Mike, I'll keep this in mind when will post other shots, but still remain unclear to me why the crop of my fuselage closeup is not good. Really, browsing the db you can find tons of fuselage closeups with cut engines, tails, stabs and so on. Is there a specific way to crop these shots ? What was wrong with mine ? Thanks in advance for input.

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2325 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2100 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 14):
Ok Mike, I'll keep this in mind when will post other shots, but still remain unclear to me why the crop of my fuselage closeup is not good. Really, browsing the db you can find tons of fuselage closeups with cut engines, tails, stabs and so on. Is there a specific way to crop these shots ? What was wrong with mine ?

1 - It depends on how quickly the observer notices the discrepancy. For example, on the first edit, I noticed the cut nose gear first. I think if the "cut" part is noticed quickly, it stands a good chance of being rejected. Another person might not have seen the nose gear immediately.

2 - It depends on to what degree the part is cut. Half an engine almost never looks good. It makes the photo look unfinished or seems as though you weren’t paying attention to what you were doing/didn't care. In the photo you linked to originally, it is obvious that the photographer was cropping the plane close to the nose. I can understand his motive and yours in the second upload, but the gear is still cut in half.

3 - It depends on the screener.

(if I were you, I would chalk that photo of the AeBal (Spanair Link) 717 as getting one "past" the screeners and look at your Iberia shot as a valid rejection)



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineUnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2325 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

I can think of 2 types of motive rejection off the top of my head.

1 - Motive rejection where an unavoidable entity is obstructing the aircraft, such is the case with your photo. A bump in the pavement cuts off part of the nose gear, an airstairs distracts from/obscures part of an aircraft...

Some parts of an aircraft may be cut out to accomplish a certain goal such as a tight crop of the nose. This can be acceptable as long as the crop is done smartly.

2 - Motive rejection where it's not exactly certain what the photographer was trying to accomplish with the photo. A photo where the viewer isn't quite certain what he/she it looking at.

any others?



Slower traffic, keep right
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2043 times:

Ok, from all this I can have learned how not to cut gears. But I still have not received any answer to my question about how to make a good crop. Hey :


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon Blakesley



Marvellous shot, surely much more interesting than mine, artistically speaking, but nonetheless part of the right wing is cut, part of the stab is cut. Couldn't the photographer try to find a better position to shoot ? There is no reason for such a crop. One could argue that the photographer tried to balance the shot with the lightened mountain in th etop left corner. Ok I say : couldn't he move back a bit in order to include the lightened mountain and also the entire wing and stab ?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Schofield



Gear blocked and tail cut


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Markus Mosshammer



Fuselage not centered and tail cut (with titles cut)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Marlow [Airplane-Pictures]



Tail cut


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Knut Raddatz



Tail cut


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Schofield



Tail cut.

Now I would love to hear your opinions....

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offline747438 From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 837 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2034 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 17):
Now I would love to hear your opinions....

My opinion is that it's not on to criticise the work of others, although I'm sure some will be grateful for the extra hits you have given them.


User currently offlineManc From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2030 times:

Yeah thanks for the hits!


No URL in signature please
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2024 times:

Quoting 747438 (Reply 18):

Useful post. Anything better ?

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2021 times:

Quoting Manc (Reply 19):
Yeah thanks for the hits!

Save a beer for me during my next trip to England...  rotfl 

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offline747438 From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 837 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2018 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 20):
Quoting 747438 (Reply 18):


Useful post. Anything better ?

Yeah, I have actually !
Rather than criticise the work of others and the screening team, why not take a close look at your photos and compare them to the examples you give?
Ask youself how you can learn from them, stop whining like a jealous youngster and go out and shoot some thing different.


User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

Quoting 747438 (Reply 22):
Yeah, I have actually !

You could spare some time and post it first, kiddo...

Quoting 747438 (Reply 22):
Ask youself how you can learn from them, stop whining like a jealous youngster and go out and shoot some thing different.

This is exactly what I'm trying to do. I learn from others as all people do. If I see something which is not clear to me I try to understand it. And I need some examples to compare my shot with. So difficult to understand ? See ? It's that simple.
Note : you wrote 2 posts and no advice/suggestion/input/clue at all. That's exactly the kind of post I hate.

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offline747438 From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 837 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2004 times:

Quoting LIPH (Reply 23):
That's exactly the kind of post I hate.

That's fine, I haven't a problem with you disliking that type of post.
It gets my goat when the work of others is criticised by others bemoaning the fact that their photo has been rejected.
I'm pleased to read that you try to learn from others (as we all do).
Why do you need to show those photos in such a way?

Quoting LIPH (Reply 17):
Gear blocked and tail cut



Quoting LIPH (Reply 17):
Fuselage not centered and tail cut (with titles cut)



Quoting LIPH (Reply 17):
Tail cut

Very poor taste in my opinion


25 LIPH : I could agree with you in such a sense. Anyway I'm just looking for answers and trying to understand and to learn from others. Ciao
26 EK20 : LIPH, Don't get yourself worked up about it. It's just one shot of one aircraft. Was that the only shot you took of it? Are there any other shots of i
27 Post contains images LIPH : EK, I agree, this it. I quit, I give up with that shot. But I wouldn't have disliked to learn something new from that rejection, in order not to loos
28 Post contains images EK20 : Nothing! Don't worry, practice makes perfect. You'll get there and I'll be sat here going "WOW what a shot!" We've all been there, it just takes time
29 Post contains links and images Eadster : Fair go mate, he was not criticizing the work of others. Why do people think that posting others shots is having a go at them? I don't see how using
30 Post contains links and images Psych : Good to see some screeners prepared to discuss motive interpretation in this thread. LIPH - fundamentally your problem is that you seek clarity in a s
31 LIPH : Thanks for you clear and transparent support Eadster. Not many people expose themselves as you did. Thanks. Ciao
32 LIPH : Thanks also to you, Paul. Very useful post. Ciao
33 Post contains images EK20 :   Be careful, you can get arrested for that these days.   [Edited 2007-03-22 18:24:52]
34 Post contains images Eadster : No worries!!
35 AirMalta : not agreed on this one since the gear here is hidden because of the engine and not cropped the F900 would have been cropped better agreed but its bet
36 Paulinbna : We all have had rejections where we look at them and say what where the screeners smoking, It makes your life a lot easier if you just accept the reje
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...
Triple Rejection posted Tue Mar 20 2007 20:22:55 by LIPH
Color Rejection posted Mon Mar 19 2007 19:20:52 by Paulinbna
Help With Editing For A Rejection posted Sat Mar 17 2007 22:54:03 by Flipdewaf
Another Level Rejection posted Wed Mar 14 2007 22:50:31 by Chukcha
Motive Rejection? posted Tue Mar 13 2007 07:32:07 by Damien846
Is This Motive Rejection Fixable? posted Mon Mar 12 2007 23:21:00 by Acontador
Motive Rejection posted Fri Mar 9 2007 20:59:56 by JRadier
Rejection Question posted Fri Mar 9 2007 01:23:45 by Fly747
Rejection For Quality posted Thu Mar 8 2007 12:55:10 by Viv
Risk Of A Double Rejection posted Tue Mar 6 2007 21:50:58 by Carlos