Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can A Fuel Truck Ruin Your Motive?  
User currently offlineSpiderguy252 From India, joined Feb 2009, 259 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6058 times:

Can a fuel truck in front of the engine ruin the motive of your photograph? Here's one I took recently:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/Spiderguy252/Tryouts/30042009042-001.jpg

Isn't a fuel truck part of an aircraft operation while on the ground?


Figure .09
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1293 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6051 times:

Yes, it ruins it. This is not rampoperations.net. Fuel trucks, catering trucks, buses, cars, etc have ruined thousands of shots for many photographers.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3292 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6036 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A fuel truck is not an automatic rejection...

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 2):
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Saudi...d=b790e23c12bf2a5ca1735ff05f4bbeaa

The focus is the rear 3/4 of the aircraft, and the fuel truck only blocks the front gear. It's small enough that the engine or other main components are not blocked.

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 2):
http://www.airliners.net/photo/China...d=b790e23c12bf2a5ca1735ff05f4bbeaa

The truck isn't in front of the aircraft, and as the caption says, the size comparison is funny.

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 2):
http://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM--...d=b790e23c12bf2a5ca1735ff05f4bbeaa

Old photo, and the importance is the classic aircraft and nature of the shot.

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 2):
http://www.airliners.net/photo/SriLa...d=b790e23c12bf2a5ca1735ff05f4bbeaa

Again, not blocking any part of the aircraft.

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 2):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...4_o1236734191.5443lvbbu_1edit3.jpg

Truck isn't blocking any part of the aircraft, and focus is on the artwork on the front, and the cockpit.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4741 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Most of the examples you posted were accepted a few years ago. The standards here are always changing so it's very possible that if submitted today, some would not make it.


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinePlainplane From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 6021 times:



Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 2):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...4_o1236734191.5443lvbbu_1edit3.jpg

Actually that 5th one was rejected, I think for motive relating to the jetway.

It is a bit annoying when special shots are rejected for motive simply because the jetway or a truck is in the picture. It is an unavoidable obstacle that often causes even the most precious and unique shots to be rejected.

I wish that A.net would lighten up on the equipment-causing motive rejection if it isn't blocking the main focal point, it is quite discouraging since it can often be hard at some airports to get shots of planes while they aren't in the gate area.

Unfortunately Spiderguy your main focal point (aircraft front view) is blocked by the truck.


User currently offlineSpiderguy252 From India, joined Feb 2009, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6008 times:



Quoting Plainplane (Reply 5):
It is a bit annoying when special shots are rejected for motive simply because the jetway or a truck is in the picture. It is an unavoidable obstacle that often causes even the most precious and unique shots to be rejected.

True. Just imagine how good this shot would look without those nagging trucks around:

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e168/Spiderguy252/Tryouts/30042009043-001.jpg

By the way, ignore that spot on the left. That was due to the dirty glass.  Wink



Figure .09
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5998 times:

In both your examples I think the most worrying thing affecting the motive is level.....

Karl


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5998 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR

Here's the shot that taught me the lesson:


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jason McDowell



The tip of the cone caused a motive rejection.  banghead 

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineSpiderguy252 From India, joined Feb 2009, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5993 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 8):
The tip of the cone caused a motive rejection.

 Wow! That's harsh, isn't it? That's a nice click, nevertheless.



Figure .09
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5971 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello

Quoting Spiderguy252 (Reply 6):
Just imagine how good this shot would look without those nagging trucks around

Unfortunately no, the quality is ghastly.

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 4 weeks ago) and read 5898 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 8):
The tip of the cone caused a motive rejection

To be honest it is distracting and I agree with the rejection - the cone is obstructing part of the aircraft, however slight.

Personally I'd have seen that coming and would have reserved it for the personal collection. Could you not have found anything to stand on to elevate your position? Or just been a tad cheeky and move the cone for a second?

Karl


User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5892 times:

There is a major difference from your shots compared to the examples you posted. Take a little time, look at the differences and they'll be evident.

Think about it, you have a fuel truck blocking one engine, and I believe an portable AC truck blocking another, with the cone in the middle partially obscurring the nose wheel.

Not knocking it, just over time it will become apparent the differences.



All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5879 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 11):
Personally I'd have seen that coming and would have reserved it for the personal collection. Could you not have found anything to stand on to elevate your position? Or just been a tad cheeky and move the cone for a second?

When I shot that photo, I wasn't thinking about it at all. That rejection taught me to watch for obstructions, and I now do everything I can....including moving the obstructions.....to make the shot work. I'll even ask museum staff for permission to move barriers and barricades out of the way.

Overall, this is one rule that I wish would be relaxed for rare shots and for shots of aircraft that aren't already in the database. It's one thing for a cone to be blocking part of a tire on a British Airways A320 at LHR. It's quite another for a cone to be blocking part of a tire on a newly-documented aircraft that might venture out of a hangar only a few times a year.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlinePlainplane From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5871 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 13):
Overall, this is one rule that I wish would be relaxed for rare shots and for shots of aircraft that aren't already in the database. It's one thing for a cone to be blocking part of a tire on a British Airways A320 at LHR. It's quite another for a cone to be blocking part of a tire on a newly-documented aircraft that might venture out of a hangar only a few times a year.]

Agreed. On Thursday I saw the newest A320 in the JetBlue fleet. So new that it did not have a name yet, and while I was standing there photographing it, all the aircraft lights were turned on at one point. The problem is that the jet bridge was attached to the door, an unavoidable circumstance. I am hoping that if I try to submit it to the database, that the screeners would make an exception for the special situation, but I am doubtful.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5832 times:



Quoting Plainplane (Reply 14):
Agreed. On Thursday I saw the newest A320 in the JetBlue fleet. So new that it did not have a name yet, and while I was standing there photographing it, all the aircraft lights were turned on at one point. The problem is that the jet bridge was attached to the door, an unavoidable circumstance. I am hoping that if I try to submit it to the database, that the screeners would make an exception for the special situation, but I am doubtful.

There are two sides to this story.

An Il-76 never before seen by human eyes perhaps should warrant some flexibility, but on the other hand too many obstructions will effectively make it a poor photo, which obviously would be detrimental to the A.net philosophy. A jetblue A320, however new, is still a Jetblue A320 and therefore should warrant no special treatment what-so-ever. It's like new Ryanairs - the next looks very much like the last.

Come on folks, use common sense here - while we do moan about certain things this site has undoubtedly built up the reputation of hosting only the very best images, and anything which could jeopardise that ain't worth thinking about. You know the rules by now - if there's any doubt, why risk your ratio needlessly? To keep the site going forward we need to consistently supply the best images we can.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4741 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5765 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
A jetblue A320, however new, is still a Jetblue A320 and therefore should warrant no special treatment what-so-ever. It's like new Ryanairs - the next looks very much like the last.

Exactly. And give a brand new jetBlue aircraft about a week or two before someone out there catches it in proper airliners.net fashion.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4963 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5748 times:



Quoting Plainplane (Reply 5):
Actually that 5th one was rejected, I think for motive relating to the jetway.

By coincidence, that picture is mine ... I guess I must have opened a thread about the rejection because if not I have no idea how it ended up here  Big grin

And yes, I still don't understand, months later, why I got a motive rejection. I can understand other reasons,but motive? It is so sensitive as to who is uploading that it's not worth "fighting" anymore  Wink



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlinePlainplane From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5708 times:



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 15):
Come on folks, use common sense here - while we do moan about certain things this site has undoubtedly built up the reputation of hosting only the very best images, and anything which could jeopardise that ain't worth thinking about. You know the rules by now - if there's any doubt, why risk your ratio needlessly? To keep the site going forward we need to consistently supply the best images we can.

My ratio is already in the garbage, and if I didn't think the shot would a chance then I wouldn't upload it. My idea is that if the shot is bad, then the screeners would simply reject it, but if the reasons are potentially correctable, I would attempt to rework it until the shot is considered worthy, as now I have good editing software available to me that I didn't have before.

Before I got my Canon Powershot G10 and CS4, I often just attempted to upload any shot that I made without any regard to quality or motive. However now I have a better idea of the subject and I take photos whenever I am able to. I still think the shot has potential but I will probably post a thread with it before submitting it.


User currently offlineLHRTOSFO From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5694 times:

I think you also need to work on the quality of your pics getting the right motive isn't the only thing that makes a picture good.


lhrtosfo
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4963 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5690 times:



Quoting LHRTOSFO (Reply 19):
I think you also need to work on the quality of your pics getting the right motive isn't the only thing that makes a picture good.

Absolutely, but how many times have we seen good shots rejected for motive? And I can show you average shots with dubious motives that do get in. So it's a matter of taste sometimes



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5614 times:

Has anyone here really gotten a motive rejection for ramp clutter that didn't obstruct the aircraft? I love taking pictures from airport terminals and I have a fair number of shots with plenty of ramp lice. I can't remember getting a motive rejection for the equipment unless it did block a portion of the main subject.

User currently offlineMhtspotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5590 times:

I don't think its to obstructive at all and love the shot, but there is a problem with level. Other than that I love a little clutter. This site needs to change this. This picture should be added as long as the level is corrected. Shot is too soft also.

[Edited 2009-05-03 23:25:05]

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...
Can Alcohol Seriously Harm Your Postimage Editing? posted Mon Oct 25 2004 12:54:10 by Flightcheck
Tow Truck = Motive? Prescreening posted Sat Nov 10 2007 04:00:09 by Stefan171288
Motive Rejections- Can You Please Help? posted Wed Jan 17 2007 22:53:30 by Opso1
Can This Motive Reject Be Saved? posted Mon Jan 15 2007 23:50:49 by AirKas1
Can This Motive Reject Be Improved? posted Sat Jan 6 2007 13:55:18 by Dazbo5
Soft Reject: Can I Borrow Your Eyes? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 15:29:44 by D L X
Your Thoughts On This Motive Rejection? posted Sun Aug 6 2006 08:29:49 by Futterman
Can You Spot Your Picture! posted Sat Apr 8 2006 02:13:22 by Leezyjet
Quality, Can You I Have Your Opinion? posted Mon Feb 27 2006 13:38:03 by Pitchul
Can I Avoid Info And Motive Rejection? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 00:00:10 by Edoca