Lanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2676 times:
Yes, the motive rejection would apply to the tow truck (obstructed nose landing gear) and maybe also the (slightly) obstructed right main landing gear (both by the pipe and a bit hidden behing the grass). The latter seems a bit picky to me, however.
What I see in your picture, too, is that it´s a bit flat and grainy.
Hope it helps.
"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
I like your shot (with the angle and the crop)! Personally, I would not mind if small things are blocking the gears (but I don't make the rules here ). I had also a rejection for bad motiv (including quality, so I will not bother about this one anymore),although I liked this angle as well:
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2481 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2609 times:
I think the tow truck itself if it was fully visible it would have made it in.
Some of the tow is blocked by the fence.
I believe that to be the cause of the motiv rejection.
lovely shot anyways.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1443 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2593 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Wow, chill out guys !
Never said I didn't like the picture, and I didn't say that pictures with tow-trucks are not allowed ...
Daniel was asking a question, and I was only trying to give a possible answer. In terms of A.net, I just feel that in this shot the truck is too prominent, since when I opened the pictures my eyes were drawn instantly to it. Additionally, it completely blocks the forward landing gear (could have been avoided by cropping higher?), which together with the fence just may have tipped the balance against its acceptance.
Just an opinion from a non-screener, take it for what it's worth...
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 27
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2587 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 9): I believe there are plenty of shots here that include tow-trucks. I don't think that is reason for a motive rejection, and in this specific case is a significant part of the motive.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1732 posts, RR: 54
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2504 times:
I have only just noticed this thread - I wasn't about much yesterday
I am certain that the motive is the fence more than anything else.
II would have rejected for quality/contrast too. What, at a glance is a really impressive shot, is actually, as pointed out by Lanas, flat.
It is typical of a shot where shadow/highlight has been abused where there is neither a good deep, clean black nor a good clean white.
I do not think it is worth an appeal.
The issue on the one Monteycarlos shows is different where a substantial part of the nose is hidden
I hope this helps