PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
Some motive rejections which i don't understand.
Motiv
Motiv, distance (It was marked as airport overview and the closest plane was listed as it is requested by a.net)
Yes its off angle also but i am talking only about motiv and distance here.
Motiv
Screeners remark was: "pls include whole tail "
An appeal asking which part is missing brought no feedback.
What is missing?
Motiv:
Terminal inside views are motive now? Appeal asking if that was the case brought no feedback.
And those 2
No idea why the first is soft and the second has quality blurry oversharpened
Boeingfreak From Germany, joined May 2005, 398 posts, RR: 6 Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
Hello Peter,
#1: the upper side of the engine is slightly cut off, this is what caused the motiv rejection I think
#2: no idea, looks very nice
#3: no idea
#4: I had a similar looking picture of MUC's visitor's terrace rejceted for motiv about half a year ago or so.
#5: Looks quite dark, the BMW advertisement in the right upper corner distracts from the check in counters + lots of people messing up the picture
#6: Killed by heat haze, cockpit windows look soft + green halo around the nose
#7: Heat haze, jaggies around the engine and the LH tail logo + titles look jagged, nose looks blurry and soft + halos around the nose
Damned, your shots really look like the ones I took this day, didn't know that you were standing only a meter away from me till I saw your shots...
Eadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 16 Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1597 times:
[Rant]
Peter, its one of those mysteries that may never be resolved. I had a rejection of a war wreck recently. It clearly shows the remains of the WWII Thunderbolt wing, but it went for motive.
Secondly, I'm still finding that I get shots rejected for one reason, that is fixable, then having those shots rejected again for totally different reasons.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3770 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1591 times:
Peter, my humble opinions:
#1: due to lighting not giving a lot of detail despite being a close-up; also needs a little breathing space on top/bottom
#2: not a real overview, not too much of interest in the shot
#3: forward base of fin missing; looks awkward
#4: focusses on a viewing area which probably is not a permissible subject
#5: I'm glad I don't see many check-in counter rather than true terminal overview shots making it into the database, and this one doesn't look that sparkling: whiteness/emptiness on top/right; people cut on bottom
Regards,
Peter
[Edited 2007-04-20 14:43:29]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
LIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1582 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 2): Peter, its one of those mysteries that may never be resolved. I had a rejection of a war wreck recently. It clearly shows the remains of the WWII Thunderbolt wing, but it went for motive.
Secondly, I'm still finding that I get shots rejected for one reason, that is fixable, then having those shots rejected again for totally different reasons.
It's a sad thing...I have to admit it...
A woman's mind it's easier to understand than certain rejections...
I think that the more the time goes by the more we'll see rejections and shots accepted more for personal screener's taste rather than for any clear, definite, fixable reason...I read many posts in which it was said that standards will raise with time...but I guess those standards will be much more based on the screeners personal opinion on the shots...Standards cannot raise without end. So basically when a "cristal clear" picture will be the regular standard for A.net maybe the motive issue will become much more and more important. And that has something to do with screeners pesronal tastes rather than any quality issue.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1555 times:
Quoting LIPH (Reply 4): A woman's mind it's easier to understand than certain rejections...
LIPH
Now come on, that is being really absurd. You are old enough to know better than that !!!
Peter
No 1, Totally agree with Ptrjong on that. I would add that there is no detail towards the top of the intake and a bit more light was needed in that area, a touch of fill in flash perhaps ? Very difficult to do with a fish eye though !
No.2 Four aircraft almost in a dance, but I find the foreground and, in particular the flags very eyecatching and distracting. It does not really amount to much of an airport overview to me either.
No.3 Totally agree with Ptrjong, nothing more to add !
No.4 A nice photograph but neither shows enough of the airport or of the building.
No 5 Agree with Ptrjong again (this is getting to be a habit). The building is not an architectural masterpiece and I find my eyes wandering around it with no focal point. The cropped feet are again very distracting
Nos 6 and 7, agree with Ptrjong again. Subtle, very slight blur can often look like simple softness and it is only when sharpened to the point of no return that it becomes obvious that that slight blur is the cause of softness. I think that is the case here
I have not seen any of these images before !!!!
Mick Bajcar
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5433 posts, RR: 49 Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1506 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 2): I had a rejection of a war wreck recently. It clearly shows the remains of the WWII Thunderbolt wing, but it went for motive.
Send it to me, who cares what the motive "Police" at A.nut care about, some of us are interested in Aviation history.
The Pacific War may not mean much to the Eurocentric A.net view but it is important to some of us!
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Morvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 702 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1501 times:
I love that A380 tail, but indeed you have cropped to much. You have cut off some of the tail on the left side. Crop it untill the tail meets the rest of the fuselage and you will be alright! If you have it on the original though!
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1445 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 2): Peter, its one of those mysteries that may never be resolved. I had a rejection of a war wreck recently. It clearly shows the remains of the WWII Thunderbolt wing, but it went for motive.
Martin,
I would be intrigued to see that too !
Mick Bajcar
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1382 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 12): Yet another example. You guys ARE rejecting stuff that people WANT to see.
Martin, you are making a leap to far and jumping to conclusions here !
I would like to see it but I might well reject it too if I was screening it. It happens you know. There are some great aircraft that get rejected because they are awful quality. In my minds eye I see one that I rejected a few hours ago, a superb aircraft but dreadful quality and the info all wrong too.
It can be a fine balance and it is a tightrope we have to walk. If I had accepted that one a lot would have looked but there would have been screams about quality too. When I can point an uploader in the right direction to impriove I do, but it would have taken more space than is available for that one so we won't see it again unless/until someone else manages to catch it.
The same might be the case with yours, though I do know your images and doubt it. Without seeing it my suspicions are already around motive. Why not post it here for us all to see and comment on ?
Mick Bajcar
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1262 times:
Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 15): Also thanks but the quality of the architecture as screening criteria is fairly new isn't it?
Taken in isolation, of course not.
I went on to say........
I find my eyes wandering around it with no focal point. The cropped feet are again very distracting
And that to me is a subjective rejection criteria ie motive. Your editing of my comment seems like an attempt to have a dig at me (as a screener, not personally I hope )
Yes rejection ping-pong can be annoying and you have been on the ping and pong end of things.
I also think that your thanking of Boeingfreak, Ptrjong and Morvious, (excluding me) before you take shots at me is downright rude. YOU asked for my opinions and I gave YOU them, just that, opinions !!!
Mick Bajcar
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, RR: 56 Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1256 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 16): Your editing of my comment seems like an attempt to have a dig at me (as a screener, not personally I hope )
No it is not i was just wondering about criterias. If it came over that way please accept my appologies.
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 16): I also think that your thanking of Boeingfreak, Ptrjong and Morvious, (excluding me) before you take shots at me is downright rude.
Mick please re-read my reply
Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 15): Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 5):
The building is not an architectural masterpiece and
Also thanks
I did not exclude you!!! In contrary it's a nice change to get screener feedback. (No sarcasm intenden here)
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 16): YOU asked for my opinions and I gave YOU them, just that, opinions !!!
And as written in my reply I was thankful for you opinions.
BrianW999 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 310 posts, RR: 6 Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1154 times:
Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 15): I had this one rejected for border, very fair. I left a white border edge on the right upper corner. I fixed it resubmitted it, waited a week and then I got the dreaded motiv. What! http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...w.jpg
I find that one a bit hard too. Very striking picture, the type that Song Airlines might well use in their literature/on their website.
I can only guess that the screener thinks that the background intrudes on the motive. With that in mind, perhaps this crop, wirh a touch of selective sharpening on the tail title registration and windows, would work. If I was the Song Airlines executive in charge of adverising I'd be looking at using it.
Sponsor Message: 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 398 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2214 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3770 posts, 
From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2005, 505 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
![_](javascript:compressPost('275359','1','1','18','BrianW999','" target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/uf/view.fil...w.jpg I find that one a bit hard too. Very striking picture, the type that Song Airlines might ','2')){kind=link}