Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Motiv, Soft, Blurry, Oversharp, NOA_lost_the_grip  
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2565 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

Any ideas or feedback would be appreciated


-
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBoeingfreak From Germany, joined May 2005, 398 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2557 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...  Wink

Hope this helps,
Florian  wave 


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2536 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.

[/Rant]


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3905 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2530 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)
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2521 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...  Wink
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.

Ciao

[Edited 2007-04-20 15:03:58]

[Edited 2007-04-20 15:04:26]


Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2494 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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 !!! Big grin

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


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3905 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2485 times:

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 5):
Agree with Ptrjong again (this is getting to be a habit).

It seems so, Mick... I didn't even comment on #6 and #7... I guess you're agreeing with Florian Wink

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineLIPH From Italy, joined May 2004, 848 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 5):
LIPH
Now come on, that is being really absurd. You are old enough to know better than that !!!

Mick,
I've never learned enough !!  Wink

Ciao



Life sucks. Then you die. Live fast, die young.
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5678 posts, RR: 45
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2445 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!
User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2440 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!


have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3905 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 2406 times:

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 8):
The Pacific War may not mean much to the Eurocentric A.net view

That's an absurd accusation I think. My fairly crappy shots of old Japanese planes in Indonesia have all been accepted.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2384 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2331 times:

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 11):
I would be intrigued to see that too !



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 8):
Send it to me, who cares what the motive "Police" at A.nut care about,

I'll send you guys and email with what I have so far. It's quite interesting. A lot to be found around this place.

To Airliners.Net...
Yet another example. You guys ARE rejecting stuff that people WANT to see.


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 62
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2321 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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


User currently offlineYanqui67 From Puerto Rico, joined Jan 2005, 508 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

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...7633&filename=1177139529NC0HEw.jpg


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Quoting Boeingfreak (Reply 1):
...



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 3):
...



Quoting Morvious (Reply 9):
...

Thanks for your feedback guys.

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 5):
The building is not an architectural masterpiece and

Also thanks but the quality of the architecture as screening criteria is fairly new isn't it?

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 5):
The cropped feet are again very distracting

 Wow!  Confused






Quoting Yanqui67 (Reply 14):
I fixed it resubmitted it, waited a week and then I got the dreaded motiv. What!

This rejection Ping Pong is getting very annoing indeeed.



-
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1663 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2201 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2195 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.



-
User currently offlineBrianW999 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 312 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2093 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.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3694/1177139529nc0hewv2vw5.jpg


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...
Quality Motiv Editing Soft Dark? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 17:11:33 by Mario340
First "soft", Then "motiv" posted Tue Aug 29 2006 22:01:38 by Walter2222
Rejected For Soft : Seeking Opinions posted Thu Apr 19 2007 10:29:24 by LIPH
Bad Motiv Help. posted Thu Apr 19 2007 06:19:34 by Mx330
Is This Motiv Acceptable? posted Thu Apr 5 2007 22:59:37 by Ranger703
Trying A New Motiv, Thoughts? posted Wed Mar 28 2007 20:46:22 by TupolevTu154
Blurry? posted Tue Mar 27 2007 18:19:50 by PilotNTrng
Motiv Reject? posted Sun Mar 25 2007 10:14:30 by Alibo5NGN
Would This One Get A Motiv Rejaction? posted Wed Mar 14 2007 23:20:37 by KLM772ER
Want To Share A Motiv Rej posted Tue Mar 13 2007 14:12:14 by Rotate