Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Motive Rejection: Advice - Clarification Sought  
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

I'm having trouble understanding the logic/reasoning behind a rejection I received recently within the last week.

Rejected for one reason: motive.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/20080831_737-4_2.jpg

The screener left a message that said "737-4_2.jpg only overviews for sims". I'm not whining about this at all. I'd like for the screeners to comment on and clarify their reasoning if possible.

And yet, a photo (which is a great shot btw, not smearing the photographer or anything) with similar motive/composition was recently accepted. Granted, it's not a simulator, but a cockpit of an actual aircraft - but what's the difference? This just seems like a silly rule, doesn't it?

And then, just a few minutes ago, this shot I had in the cue was accepted:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christopher Weyer - AirTeamImages



50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4778 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3475 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Chris, did you see my reply in the other thread before our posts got deleted? You said in that thread that it was rejected for motive. Well, I would say the motive is quite different than your accepted shot. The possible issues I outlined were that the crop was too wide for the throttle console to be considered the main focus, yet not wide enough for the displays to add anything to the shot (since they are cut off). I think it would look better if you cropped a little tighter, moved the throttle console higher in the frame and avoid cutting off the engine fire switches. If possible...

Apologies if you already read that...posted it again just in case you missed my previous comment...since it was deleted for housekeeping reasons.  

But on the issue of sims...I don't know.

[Edited 2008-09-03 13:58:13]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3462 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Thread starter):
not smearing the photographer or anything) with similar motive/composition was recently accepted. Granted, it's not a simulator, but a cockpit of an actual aircraft - but what's the difference?

The difference is clear. A simulator is not an aircraft.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 4964 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3453 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 2):
The difference is clear. A simulator is not an aircraft.

the one accepted is also from a simulator



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3451 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 2):
The difference is clear. A simulator is not an aircraft.

And does the Airliners.net viewer particularly care if a cockpit shot is that of a simulator or of an actual aircraft?

I'd venture to say no.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 1):
But on the issue of sims...I don't know.

I saw your earlier reply before it was nuked. My main reason for posting this isn't of the rejection itself (since another shot taken that night was accepted anyway). But it just seems ludicrous to me to apply a silly rule to simulators.

In retrospect, I'm glad the accepted shot got in...

[Edited 2008-09-03 14:06:54]

User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 4964 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3443 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 4):
And does the Airliners.net viewer particularly care if a cockpit shot is that of a simulator or of an actual aircraft?

I'd venture to say no.

I'm pretty sure its not a rule since you already have a sim cockpit shot (which is awsome btw  Wink )



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3418 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 2):
The difference is clear. A simulator is not an aircraft.

First I would like to say I am against Sim shots being acceptable here, tho means very little for the site allows it. Second I will say your shot is nice Chris but the motive is a tough one to pull off.

Getting to the shot you got in the DB I would have to say Ryan is right, much different motive and much better.

Not sure what to do, maybe crop closer and get rid of the instruments. Hard to say. Maybe an email and private convo with screener would yield results.


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3409 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 6):
First I would like to say I am against Sim shots being acceptable here, tho means very little for the site allows it.

Why? I'm just curious.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3400 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 7):
Why? I'm just curious.

IMO it's cheating. I mean what if I can go to Dave and Busters and get a shot from that flight Sim game into the DB? I feel the object of aviation photography is to actually photgraph aircraft. Not a machine used to help us learn to fly them.


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3397 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8):
I mean what if I can go to Dave and Busters and get a shot from that flight Sim game into the DB?

Of course that's your opinion. I would argue that flight simulator cockpit shots have brought a lot of traffic to the site over the years. Just do a Google search for something like '737 simulator photo' - an Airliners.net hit appears on the first page of results.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3392 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 9):
Of course that's your opinion. I would argue that flight simulator cockpit shots have brought a lot of traffic to the site over the years. Just do a Google search for something like '737 simulator photo' - an Airliners.net hit appears on the first page of results.

Oh no question, that goes without saying. Everyone knows flight deck shots bring a ton of views. I just feel they should be of an actual flight deck and not a sim.


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2044 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3384 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Thread starter):

The screener left a message that said "737-4_2.jpg only overviews for sims". I'm not whining about this at all. I'd like for the screeners to comment on and clarify their reasoning if possible.

I'd say the message means that simulator shots should show a "complete" flight deck ("overview"), not just one detail of it - as your rejected shot does.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3382 times:

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 11):
I'd say the message means that simulator shots should show a "complete" flight deck ("overview"), not just one detail of it - as your rejected shot does.

And that's my point - why? There are photos in the database (some accepted recently as I said, all of which are fine shots) that are not "complete" flight decks. Why should a shot of a simulator be required to show a complete flight deck?

Other than, of course, "...just because we said so."

Had I not uploaded this shot indicating it was a simulator, it would have been accepted. And therein lies the issue here.

[Edited 2008-09-03 15:39:21]

User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2044 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3356 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 12):
Other than, of course, "...just because we said so."

Had I not uploaded this shot indicating it was a simulator, it would have been accepted. And therein lies the issue here.

Well, I'm with Nik on this issue, I'd rather not see sim shots at all, but I am also glad that somewhere the line is drawn in regards of detail. Otherwise, I shall start taking photos like the one below... surely there's got to be a nut like this somewhere in a simulator...




I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3344 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 6):
First I would like to say I am against Sim shots being acceptable here,



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8):
IMO it's cheating. I mean what if I can go to Dave and Busters and get a shot from that flight Sim game into the DB?



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 13):
Well, I'm with Nik on this issue, I'd rather not see sim shots at all

I think both of you are off your rocker. A flight sim shot shouldn't be here? What a crock of you know what!

Eitherway, that shot above that Chris posted should've been accepted IMO. Especially with the new "Creative" rules in place! Simulators should abide by the same rules as typical flightdecks. And for those that don't think Sim Shots belong on here, take a look at the idea behind this website.

Personally, I think you all that don't think they belong are jealous of people that get them, or have them in their collection.



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2044 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3336 times:



Quoting Lexy (Reply 14):
Especially with the new "Creative" rules in place!

Well... my idea of creative may be different, but I've seen a lot of very questionable stuff accepted using the "creative" excuse, too, while at the same time I can point out loads of very creative and stunning photographs accepted prior to 08/2008.

Quoting Lexy (Reply 14):
Personally, I think you all that don't think they belong are jealous of people that get them, or have them in their collection.

Think all you like, but there are types of shots that just don't do it for me, and flight decks in general (hence I'm glad there's restrictions on sims) and cabin views are two of them. Now, I may not have frequent flight deck or sim access, but I sure as hell see enough airliner cabins' insides. Do I take photos? Rarely. On the other hand, I love wing views, and upload a fair amount of those, fully aware of the fact that there are others out there who don't like that particular type of shot.

So, I guess to each their own. But draw lines somewhere... and with sims it happens to be the close-up details. (Hey, maybe next wing view I'll try a close-up of the "do not walk outside of this line"-line  Wink)



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3330 times:

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 15):
Well... my idea of creative may be different, but I've seen a lot of very questionable stuff accepted using the "creative" excuse, too, while at the same time I can point out loads of very creative and stunning photographs accepted prior to 08/2008.

We can agree on that and i'll add that many "creative" shots were rejected during that period. Most will agree with that.

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 15):
Think all you like, but there are types of shots that just don't do it for me, and flight decks in general (hence I'm glad there's restrictions on sims) and cabin views are two of them. Now, I may not have frequent flight deck or sim access, but I sure as hell see enough airliner cabins' insides. Do I take photos? Rarely. On the other hand, I love wing views, and upload a fair amount of those, fully aware of the fact that there are others out there who don't like that particular type of shot.

So, I guess to each their own. But draw lines somewhere... and with sims it happens to be the close-up details. (Hey, maybe next wing view I'll try a close-up of the "do not walk outside of this line"-line )

You are right, to each their own. But the throttles are a important piece of the flightdeck on a sim and on a plane. The "do not walk outside this line" line is hardly important to the operation of the aircraft. But if you want a pic of that, be my guest. Being a smart a## will get you nowhere in this field.

On a more serious note, if flightdeck shots don't do it for you, why did you even bother to reply to this thread in the first place. I would've taken the high road and kept my nose out of it if I were you. It would only seem fair to the OP.

Ummm, what about this.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex Stoll



Double standard??

Regards

[Edited 2008-09-03 18:19:58]


Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineAirplanenut From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3322 times:



Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 8):
IMO it's cheating. I mean what if I can go to Dave and Busters and get a shot from that flight Sim game into the DB? I feel the object of aviation photography is to actually photgraph aircraft. Not a machine used to help us learn to fly them.

I respectfully disagree with this statement... any simulator you see anywhere is nothing like one of these sims. If you go in a professional simulator (which run upwards of $30 million each, I believe), you'll realize they ARE cockpits. The graphics are photorealistic, and the cockpit just like any real airplane's. Without a doubt they're an extremely important aspect of commercial aviation, and I think that's what this site shows.

Plus, the fact that you can get a type rating on a computer says it must be pretty damn good.



Why yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist...
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3316 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Airplanenut (Reply 17):
you'll realize they ARE cockpits.

I know of one sim...technically an FTD, actually...that used to fly passengers for United.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 4964 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3312 times:



Quoting Lexy (Reply 16):
Ummm, what about this.....

And that was before the new rules!

Some people can like cockpit shots (I do!) and other might not, and that's perfectly fine, but IMO the rejection doesnn't make too much sense. If sims are forbidden alltogether, as a rule, then ok (on the basis that it's not a real aircraft), but only accepting whole views but not details just seems ... dunno, I don't really get it. btw, both shots are nice, but the rejected one is really, really a delight.

question for the experts, could that shot have gone through if it was uploaded with a proper reg.? meaning, can the difference be seen between a real a/c and the sim?

regards  Smile



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2044 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3311 times:



Quoting Lexy (Reply 16):
On a more serious note, if flightdeck shots don't do it for you, why did you even bother to reply to this thread in the first place. I would've taken the high road and kept my nose out of it if I were you. It would only seem fair to the OP.

Thanks for your friendly advice, and for the not so friendly name you called me, too. I initially replied in this thread, because the thread starter had asked for clarification of the screener's comment. I thought I could be helpful here. Besides, as it was rejected for motive, the discussion about how much detail of a sim is acceptable, is what this thread is all about. But then again, what would I, as a "smart a##" know about the "high road"? Tell me, is it a scenic drive?

Quoting Lexy (Reply 16):
Double standard??

Only if this is a *really* fancy simulator!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Lockett




I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3307 times:



Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 19):
question for the experts, could that shot have gone through if it was uploaded with a proper reg.? meaning, can the difference be seen between a real a/c and the sim?

On an aside, every certified flight simulator does indeed have an FAA registration number. Granted, they aren't N numbers. The first simulator shot I uploaded I used its FAA ID but it was rejected for info.


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3309 times:



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 20):
Only if this is a *really* fancy simulator!

With all due respect, you are completely missing the point of this thread.


User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3306 times:



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 20):
Thanks for your friendly advice, and for the not so friendly name you called me, too.

I was describing your previous reply, not calling you a name. I don't resort to name calling on the computer, rather I do that to people's faces if the need is there. LOL!!

As for the high road, don't know about the view. I've never had to take it.

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 20):
Only if this is a *really* fancy simulator!

That doesn't count and it really isn't a "good enough" reason to accept an image that is basically the same motive as the one rejected.



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2044 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3303 times:



Quoting Flynavy (Reply 22):

With all due respect, you are completely missing the point of this thread.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you questioned to validity of a motive rejection of a photo that showed a simulator detail. It was then pointed out that details are acceptable for "real" cockpits, but not for sims. Then, somebody else cries *double standards* after finding a detail shot of a "real" cockpit, so I just pointed out that that bird is indeed capable of flight, and not just simulating it.

Quoting Lexy (Reply 23):

I was describing your previous reply, not calling you a name. I don't resort to name calling on the computer, rather I do that to people's faces if the need is there. LOL!!

With all due respect, you called me a "smart a##," and forgive me for translating the hash sign into an "s" ...



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
25 Flynavy : And yet no one can give me a logical answer as to why, other than "just because" or "we feel like it." That is the point of this thread.
26 TransIsland : And that's a new development at a.net? C'mon... surely you're a.net veteran enough to realise that *they* make the rules the way *they* see fit. All
27 Lexy : Whatever. If you want to make it out that way, then so be it. I'm not going to set here and argue over something as trival as this. Especially when I
28 NIKV69 : Chris I disagree, I think if that shot was of an actual flight deck it still would have got the motive rejection. I doubt it, something about the ins
29 Flynavy : I implore you folks to keep this discussion constructive. The point of this thread wasn't to incite a petty dispute, it was to get clarification from
30 Flynavy : Not true... For example Ryan (Silver1SWA) has a awesome shot of a similar motive in the database. His shot is of an actual aircraft. Again, I'll quot
31 Silver1SWA : Just a guess...maybe they want it to be apparent somehow just by looking at the photo that it is a flight simulator. By allowing complete overviews,
32 Post contains links and images NIKV69 : Let's take a look at that pic Chris shall we? BTW great shot Ryan! See you in LAS soon I hope! View Large View MediumPhoto © Ryan Pastorino Now
33 Flynavy : It didn't fall short to the screener (simulator motive notwithstanding). Thank you for your intriguing analysis.
34 TimdeGroot : The rule is quite simply, we only allow full cockpit views for sims. We had a hard time deciding a few years ago whether or not to even let them in an
35 Flynavy : What is the logic behind this? Some might say I'm pressing the issue but can you give me a clear and concise reason?
36 TimdeGroot : Because sims are not actual aircraft and therefore we want to limit their number on here. They also have to be of the very best quality and it needs t
37 Flynavy : I can certainly see the logic in that, however not many folks have access to simulator facilities anyway. This reasoning, IMO, is a solution to a pro
38 TimdeGroot : didnt say your shots didnt meet the standards, merely pointed out the requirement for sim shots. Tim
39 Flynavy : Okay Tim, though I must say I strongly disagree with the reasoning here. Duly noted. I will, however, continue to upload high-quality, full simulator
40 NIKV69 : Your taking this a little too personally Chris, which is why you can't accept this rejection. If you are going to post these threads put the vendetta
41 Flynavy : Please, give me a break. I accepted the rejection a long time ago. NO! Why must you spin each and every post I make into something it isn't? Who the
42 Swiftski : Are you aware of exactly how much sims replicate real aircraft???
43 EZEIZA : I for one like flight sim shots since the only way I have to actually see one is through pictures. Of course the real deal is amazing, but sims have
44 Cpd : I like to see simulator shots - they are machines that we don't often see. Why can't we just have a category for professional simulator equipment and
45 NIKV69 : Actually Chris you have been campaigning to have sim shots treated the same as actual flight deck shots in addition to arguing the motive which falls
46 EZEIZA : good idea!
47 Lexy : He has more shots from "the airport" than he does from the sims. You would be surprised with just a tiny bit of research on your part. Is it personal
48 GOCAPS16 : I agree 100% on this.
49 WILCO737 : Ok guys, this thread is going out of control and it has been discussed enough and it is starting to get personal. WILCO737 (MD11F)
50 Post contains images GOCAPS16 : Oh, we're sorry, phil. It won't happen again...we promuise.   Hey, it's starting to rain. Oh wait, Nick Vollaro must be here!!! - A fellow spotter.[E
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...
Rejection For Dirty/speck, But It's Not Dirt... posted Tue Aug 5 2008 18:31:11 by Dlowwa
Another Rejection. posted Fri Aug 1 2008 04:53:35 by ISOB
Dark Rejection! posted Thu Jul 31 2008 14:33:47 by Ranger703
Other Motiv Rejection. Opinion And Help. posted Mon Jul 28 2008 14:39:00 by Bustin
Rejection--again posted Sun Jul 27 2008 09:46:50 by C133
Request Of Clarification For An Absurd Rejection! posted Thu Jul 24 2008 00:21:49 by Dreamliner84
Baffled By Centre Rejection posted Mon Jul 21 2008 20:57:11 by JakTrax
How Can I Improve A Shot After Rejection. posted Sun Jul 20 2008 23:11:19 by AirMalta
Rejection Reason - Level posted Wed Jul 16 2008 20:21:37 by Olegchaplin
Oversharpening Rejection posted Tue Jul 15 2008 09:47:23 by UnitedJumboJet