Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2166 times:
And it got rejected
My question is this, did it even get screened as such a shot? Because it got rejected for dark, motive, soft, quality and size. The size I understand, but the rest I thought were supposed to be flexible for such photos?
Here it is:
It's the rear view mirror of my car, I tried to include the spoiler on the trunk for extra effect. Eh, maybe it's really not that creative...?
JetCrazy From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 68 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2154 times:
really can´t understand the rejection. This shot is so fantastic....the mirror, the spoiler, everythings is great....yes, and an aircraft is on the imgage also... Try to appeal.
Mjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 319 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
As I understand it, most rejection reasons still apply even if you are trying to be creative, unless, for example, the softness or darkness is by design, and even then it would be a judgement call. In this case, there does not appear to be any particular reason to make the shot soft or dark, so those would be valid rejection reasons.
Motive is more subjective, and I don't known what the screeners thought, but one could argue that although it is a clever way to take the photo, the end result is more distracting than anything. It is also not obvious to me that it is a mirror and not just a window...
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5430 posts, RR: 49 Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
My Opinion...
I would like it to be more obviously a rear view mirror and the aircraft much larger in the frame then it might have (IMHO) a chance.
Right now it looks like something snapped while driving past the airport!
Quoting Sovietjet (Thread starter): but the rest I thought were supposed to be flexible for such photos?
Also my opinion.. but I don't see where failures to meet these criteria qualifies an image as creative.
cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Yeah definitely creative, I think not well-executed though.
Looks like you've been sitting there and just by chance snapped it.
The aircraft would be nicer if bigger in the mirror, light at the time of the day was unfavourable (sunrise / sunset sky would look more impressive), and sorry, but including the spoiler for the extra effect?!?
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11359 posts, RR: 50 Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2009 times:
As a contributing photographer, I too wish to see debate and discussion about the new "creative" types of shots that are now acceptable. However, please refrain from making disrespectful remarks about the work of other photographers.
There is absolutely no issue with you posting your work or rejections for comments and discussion, but please leave out the digs at others.
Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1927 times:
Thanks for all the replies! I guess I missed some posts that were deleted..? For whoever is wondering, I left the spoiler because it sort of looks like a wing/tail. My mirrors are not exactly as clean as my lenses, but the aircraft is rather small so I how much quality/sharpness can really be extracted out of such a subject?
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 3): Right now it looks like something snapped while driving past the airport!
I actually sort of planned this out. While driving to my spotting location I noticed a CRJ in the mirror, I thought it would be a cool shot to make but a CRJ is way to small. Two minutes later the B767 came and I tried to make the best of the situation but executing the plan was more difficult than I thought
Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 4): Maybe if you had the "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear" on the mirror
It's weird, I have that on the passenger side mirror but not on the driver's side. Maybe I will try again from the other side.
Quoting INNflight (Reply 5): The aircraft would be nicer if bigger in the mirror, light at the time of the day was unfavourable (sunrise / sunset sky would look more impressive), and sorry, but including the spoiler for the extra effect?!?
Yes I agree but I just can't get the aircraft to be much bigger, since by then it is out of the mirror. Either I need a bigger mirror, or a bigger aircraft. This was taken around 6pm so the full sunset colors were still not there.
Quoting Viv (Reply 7): "Creative" does not mean "different".
Well, I'm still not sure what is creative and what is different which is why I tried to upload this. Tim encouraged us to upload almost anything out of the box in the original thread, so that's what I did. The screeners decide in the end but so far I haven't seen a shot like this on this site.
I might try this again, maybe in some later light and with a 747 instead.
SFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 392 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1872 times:
Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 8): It's weird, I have that on the passenger side mirror but not on the driver's side. Maybe I will try again from the other side.
Driver side mirror is always regular, no magnification.
JohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1339 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1864 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting SFO2SVO (Reply 11):
Driver side mirror is always regular, no magnification.
Not always, some mirrors have magnification on drivers side as well, one example is when 1 third of the mirror is done to cover the blind spot, then there is often magnification on the other 2 thirds. My Volvo V70 has that.
7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
Sponsor Message: 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 68 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 319 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5430 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1339 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11359 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
