Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photo Acceptance - Post-Screening (Walter2222)  
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1299 posts, RR: 28
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2284 times:

Hi All,

I had this shot rejected for double and motiv:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._ebfn_19940703_scan_wvb_1200px.jpg

I understand the double, since I have another shot in the database (same day, same side of the aircraft), but I had decided to upload anyway, given that there are only three shots of this reg. in the database. I thought this motiv was different enough (close-up, showing some details which can be handy for aircraft modellers...).

The question I have is thus more related to the motiv rejection part. Is it because of the steps attached to the aircraft or is this type of close-up not wanted?

Thanks and regards,

Walter


canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlyingZacko From Germany, joined May 2005, 583 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

Hi Walter,

not sure about the motiv, but you might as well have gotten NOA_Quality or NOA_Overprocessed for your excessive use of the shadow highlight tool showing up right underneath the wing and on the belly. The photo is rather grainy right there.

Cheers,
Sebastian



Canon 40D + 24-70 f/2.8 L + 70-200 f/4 L + Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineZakHH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

Maybe, but as a matter of fact, it was rejected due to motiv, and Walter was wondering why.

In the end, that's a question only a screener could answer, but my guess would be the attached steps as well. The crop would work for me.


User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1299 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2258 times:



Quoting FlyingZacko (Reply 1):
but you might as well have gotten NOA_Quality or NOA_Overprocessed for your excessive use of the shadow highlight tool

If I remember well, I did not use the shadow/highlight tool. It is, however, a scan from a slide and most of my scans are indeed grainy and that is more or less linear with age (from the slide  Smile ...).

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 2):
but my guess would be the attached steps as well. The crop would work for me.

Thanks for the feedback!

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2244 times:

Hi Walter

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 2):
but my guess would be the attached steps as well.



Quoting Walter2222 (Thread starter):
Is it because of the steps attached to the aircraft

 checkmark 
Yes, I believe that as well.

Quoting ZakHH (Reply 2):
The crop would work for me.

For me too!  Wink

Despite all this, I´m not sure you´ll pass the double cut. Be sure to include a message to the screeners explaining why you´re uploading this double shot.
Could you paste the link to the other photo from the aircraft, so we can see it?

Good luck with it.  thumbsup 

Cheers Big grin
Gastón.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1299 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2227 times:



Quoting Lanas (Reply 4):
Could you paste the link to the other photo from the aircraft, so we can see it?

Sure!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel



and in order not to be egoistic, I will also include the two other pictures in the database:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rogier Vermeulen



and


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephane Moitry




I had put a note to the screener that I was aware that this would be a double (given that it was also my shot, on the same day and showing the same side of the aircraft), but I also noted that I thought this close-up shot was a different motiv.

I was not surprised with the double rejection, but I just want to learn more why the shot was a not acceptable motiv.

After all the feedback, I assume that it is indeed the steps that are attached to the aircraft ( as is often the case with Swedish aircraft) that caused the motiv rejection.

Case closed  Smile

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
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...
Photo Acceptance - Post Screening (Neophyte) posted Tue Mar 3 2009 20:39:28 by Neophyte
Photo Acceptance - Post Screening (psyops) posted Tue Mar 3 2009 08:42:26 by Psyops
Photo Acceptance - Post-Screening (DeltaAVL) posted Tue Mar 3 2009 05:48:53 by DeltaAVL
Photo Acceptance- Post-screening (chuck9941) posted Sun Mar 1 2009 00:58:00 by Chuck9941
Photo Acceptance - Post Screening (idiotdoc) posted Fri Feb 27 2009 07:33:09 by Idiotdoc
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (Braby) posted Thu Mar 5 2009 06:24:44 by Braby
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (MikeL) posted Wed Mar 4 2009 16:07:36 by MikeL
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (SAA738) posted Wed Mar 4 2009 13:34:02 by SAA738
Photo Acceptance - Pre-Screening Comments posted Tue Mar 3 2009 17:37:27 by Canuckspot
Photo Acceptance - Pre Screening (FighterPilot) posted Tue Mar 3 2009 17:31:59 by FighterPilot