Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Some Interesting Rejection ;)  
User currently offlineStefanovOgi From Bulgaria, joined Aug 2006, 8 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

I tryed to add in the database one picture, which has no very good motivation, but it is interesting.
That I call "Low Level", seen from inside.
5m over the field, with 210km/h
Full frame camera (EOS 5D) with focal length 24.0 mm (lens 24-105 IS L)
Unique feeling!

Enjoy

Free Image Hosting at <a href=www.ImageShack.us" />

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2375 times:

That's an excellent photo, but you know it's not for a.net. Unfortunately.

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2321 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I agree that this is a very interesting photo, and a potential big hitter.

I am not so sure that it is a definite 'no no' for A.net, and I can smell an interesting discussion coming here - I hope  wink . Why would it not be acceptable? We see photos accepted which include relatively minimal elements of the aircraft in question - such as wing views, or cabin seats etc. There are also other acceptable motives where the aircraft is not clear, an example being those slow shutter shots of trails of lights at an airport at night, or standard silhouette shots at dusk. Of course, other shots are accepted where there is no aircraft at all - such as control tower photos; the inside of terminal buildings etc.

My hunch would be that the screening team would - at the very least - like to have the opportunity to discuss a photos such as this. And given the clarity of the silhouette (as I see it on my laptop as I write), and the panning effect, which I really like, it looks highly acceptable to me.

I look forward to the views of others.

Cheers.

Paul


User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2309 times:

That is a fantastic shot, Ognyan. Once again, I daresay.

I would recommend an appeal. Sure, there is no aircraft in the picture. But neither is it in this shot of yours:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ognyan Stefanov - AirTeamImages



Still, it was accepted - and rightfully so - even before the new "creative rules" were recently announced. So why not accept this one? At least, the shadow is clearly identifiable as that of a Mi-24 Hind.


User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2278 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Re my reply No. 2 above - my apologies, I think things must be finally getting to me  boggled . Somehow I had not processed that the photo was already rejected, which is a bit dumb of me (or maybe I was living in a dream world where such photos are snapped up, which caused me to misinterpret the thread!).

Unfortunately (for me) I am now at my normal computer but cannot open the link, so cannot comment on the quality etc. I agree that an appeal is in order - I would really like to hear the reasoning behind why this shot is unacceptable. There are plenty of acceptable motives for A.net where there is no aircraft clearly in the photo. Any takers.....?

Paul


User currently offlineStefanovOgi From Bulgaria, joined Aug 2006, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

No coment from me  Smile

It was reject after appeal.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2248 times:

I'm going to agree with the screener. When I look at it, my eye wanders the frame looking for something, but never finds "it". The shadow is clipped at the tail, low in the frame, and the background lacks anything of interest. I think it may have had a chance if some recognizable part of the aircraft had been visible.

User currently offlineScottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

Interesting shot.. but I agree with jeff in that it needs just a little something more.

Bet that was a helluva ride nonetheless!

Mike


User currently offlineAnder From Spain, joined Jan 2005, 367 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Fully agree here with Paul Markman's reply no.4.
The shot is very imaginative, well executed and a pleasure to the eye.
Ogi, I hope you keep surprising us mortals with your superb work Big grin
Ander



Born to tri.
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2145 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can't deny I am somewhat disappointed that it looks as though a potentially interesting debate about motive is dying. For me one of the best ways for 'the site' to educate photographers about what is and is not acceptable is by discussing this very kind of image (and it would make for a more dynamic Forum).

I am genuinely not having a pop at anyone by asking for clarification - I can fully understand why some might see this as a legitimate rejection. But now I am wondering whether it might not have been rejected for motive had the shadow not been clipped at the tail, so centring the silhouette more effectively (for A.net rules).

I would like to think this photo did generate some interesting discussion within the screening team and - if so - I reckon knowing elements of the pros and cons would be really informative to help others understand this trickiest and most subjective of rejection criterion.

Enjoy the weekend.

Paul


User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5855 posts, RR: 39
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

love it..one of the better shots I've seen in recent times, any chance I can get a size for my desktop?


a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
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 And Some Thing Else Rejection posted Thu Aug 16 2007 09:02:54 by Paulinbna
Would Like Some Advises About Common Rejection posted Fri Jun 8 2007 02:20:51 by Fhlaran
Some Rejection Help Please posted Mon Jun 4 2007 09:46:17 by DerekF
Rejection...need Some Help Here. posted Sat Jan 27 2007 01:33:30 by Silver1SWA
Please Some Help With Level Rejection posted Sat Dec 16 2006 16:10:32 by Acontador
Some Rejection Input, Please posted Wed Dec 6 2006 04:12:14 by Futterman
Some Comments On This Second Rejection Please. posted Thu Mar 16 2006 12:40:11 by BrianW999
Angle Rejection... Need Some Help Please. posted Sun Mar 12 2006 22:40:01 by AirbusfanYYZ
Nightshot Rejection Party, Need Some Help Please posted Fri Mar 3 2006 11:36:36 by EDDL
Rejection, Some Advice For The Future? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 10:26:53 by JRadier