Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Motive Okay For Such An Unusual Shot?  
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

Hi all,

Found this in my collection this morning and, seeing as movements between maintenance and the rest of the airfield were rare at best (and now of course impossible), was wondering if it deserved a place in the database. Sun wasn't exactly in the best place as I was walking between the 27L and R spots, however I felt lucky to capture the unusual moment of something heavy in transit across the road. I think the line of waiting traffic really adds to the scene.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...496887.463g-bnlf_lhr_230805_kn.jpg

Opinions please?

Cheers,

Karl

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConoramoia From Ireland, joined Oct 2007, 499 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5196 times:

I like it but that could be a motive rejection,
the a/c is backlit or maybe just under a shadow which could be another reason.
Maybe a screener can share his/her view on it.

Regards,

Conor.


User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1300 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5191 times:



Quoting JakTrax (Thread starter):
the unusual moment of something heavy in transit across the road. I think the line of waiting traffic really adds to the scene.

Hi Karl,

I like your shot and the explanation behind the scene! I have my doubts, however, whether the screeners will accept it (because of blocking issues). It certainly is something different!

Good luck,

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 offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 5183 times:

To be honest I'd be a little disappointed if it wasn't wanted in the database, as a heavy crossing a public road (as well as the lengthy traffic queue) isn't exactly a frequent occurrence. In fact, I think anyone who's got a shot similar was just lucky to capture the scene as they walked/drove past - it's certainly not something folks wait for I imagine. It is slightly backlit but under the circumstances there wasn't a lot I could do - same goes for anyone else lucky enough I guess!

Karl


User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5145 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Karl,

Sorry to disappoint you, but I would reject it for motive straight away! There is just too little aircraft visible, and the picture seems to be of a waiting car line and sort of 'happens' to have a small part of an aircraft in the background.
Additionally, the lighting was bad, leading to the backlit aircraft.
Of course, as usual that's only my personal opinion, and others in the team might think differently.



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5136 times:

Well, I am disappointed as this image to me is clearly something different within aviation; something perhaps more interesting than a boring side-on. The sun wasn't in the right place but this type of shot (when it was possible at LHR) was always opportunistic and you just had to be lucky as you walked/drove down this road.

I agree that there's not a great deal of the aircraft visible but I think it's the size and position of it that draws immediate attention. The shot (in my opinion) is also unusual and certainly unique.

Any further opinions please? I'm pretty sure something like this would draw quite a few views.

Karl


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

Additionally, could you not say that an image of an A380 toilet doesn't show enoguh of the aircraft? While not particularly creative it does show something unusual, which I thought would qualify for more relaxed screening?

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlineWhisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 569 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5060 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I share Andrés' opinion on that one, sorry.

Stefan



Nobody is perfect - not even a perfect fool.
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5024 times:

Would be a daft rejection then. It's a photo opportunity which has now been resigned to the history books, and how many such shots are in the database already?

To say it could have just been "of a waiting car line and sort of 'happens' to have a small part of an aircraft in the background" is verging on the ridiculous

Top photo nonetheless


User currently offlineBottie From Belgium, joined May 2004, 281 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5021 times:

I could be wrong, but here the plane looks soft/blurry, while the car-queue looks sharper  Smile

User currently offlineChampfence From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5018 times:



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 6):
Additionally, could you not say that an image of an A380 toilet doesn't show enoguh of the aircraft?

I'd a whole helluva lot rather see this great shot than that of a 388 john! But what the hell do I know I'm not an ANET screener  snooty .

BRB


User currently offlineScottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5004 times:



Quoting Alasdair1982 (Reply 8):
... and how many such shots are in the database already?

A few:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gary Watt
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Justin Wood



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mint Photography Ltd - Kevin Minter
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Lawson [Airplane-Pictures]



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gregory Bajor
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michiel Haspeslagh



I agree with Stefan and Andres that the queue of cars is just too prominent in Karl's shot. These other shots already in the database are a good illustration of different motives from the same scene that highlight the aircraft more.

Mike


User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1300 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4982 times:



Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 11):
These other shots already in the database are a good illustration of different motives from the same scene that highlight the aircraft more.

You are right about that, but there are enough photos in the database where the aircraft is not the highlight of the scene (e.g. clouds, sunsets, ...) which can be equally attractive to someone.
I still like Karl's shot and to me (not knowing the scene) the long queue adds to the story! But that is just my personal opinion and I don't want to change the rules here  Smile Motives will always remain subjective, what is nice for someone is awkward for someone else...

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 offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4973 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi All,

Just to have it said, it's not what I or Stefan or any screener for that matter personally 'like', but how we apply the upload standards to the shots we screen. I may (or may not) like Karl's picture, but for sure I hope that doesn't play any role in how I screen it!
I have many pictures I like a lot but know that won't be accepted as they go against one or more rules we currently have. And that's OK, as I don't shoot for A.net, I shoot what I like how I like. If the result turns out uploadable, then it's only a bonus  Wink



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4889 times:

Please don't think I'm being funny when I say this but to accept an image of an A380's toilet then reject my shot just goes to show that, although the rules have been relaxed with regard to motive, A.net still has a long way to go before it fully satisfies its viewers and offers them everything they want to see.

Okay, so there are a few such shots in the database but by the same token there are hundreds and hundreds of interior cabin shots, which in my opinion all look pretty much the same.

Is it not time to listen to the viewing majority (at whom this site is fundamentally targeting) a little more and review things again? I have seen a lot of great shots rejected recently simply because they 'aren't quite what A.net wants'. As we've seen in these very forums, people want to see them and through the refusal of the site to adapt more these people are being denied. Things have progressed since Johan devised his own priority rules many years ago, so why are we essentially still hanging onto them?

On a final note, the above images all show slightly different motives, but does mine not show yet another different one? Are the above really so different to mine with regard to how much of the aircraft is pictured? Could we not apply such 'not enough aircraft' rules to many, many other shots we see getting accepted daily?

Anyway, no great shakes if it really is a no-no - I'll pull it from the queue.....

Karl


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9076 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4885 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

I think you see quite a bit airplane on in that shot. Most part of the fuselage can be seen of the 744.
I like the motive as it shows how many cars have to wait for one 744 to cross. The airplane has the right of way. It shows parts of aviation which we don't see everyday. It is not a every day motive...
We have even seen pictures accepted where is no airplane at all in the picture, only a shadow. But it is the decision of the screener. And if the rules and their opinion say it will get a "motive" rejection, then we cannot do much about it.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
'll pull it from the queue.....

I'd leave it in the queue. There are a lot of other screeners and maybe the headscreener will decide then.
It is a personal opinion on that shot. It is creative for me and I'd like to see it in the db.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1300 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4873 times:



Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 15):
I'd leave it in the queue. There are a lot of other screeners and maybe the headscreener will decide then.
It is a personal opinion on that shot. It is creative for me and I'd like to see it in the db.

 checkmark 

I would also leave it in, the worst that can happen is a rejection! If you haven't tried, you will never know...

Good luck,

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 offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9076 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4871 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 16):
I would also leave it in, the worst that can happen is a rejection! If you haven't tried, you will never know...

Usually if a screener says: "remove it, it doesn't have a chance" due to quality, I'll pull it right away. But this is more a motive question and I'd like to hear more opinions.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, I like it personally - if you'd make some changes. For one I'd crop more off the left and get rid of the nasty sign and improve the composition. Look at Stuart's shot in the above post, that looks much better IMO

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4852 times:

Thanks for all the replies; they've all been constructive. Guess I'm gonna just pull it as I've re-archived the original file and don't really have too much time to go through it again.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4601 times:

Well, it's been rejected, so I for one am no longer willing to upload 'something different' as it's just not worth the drop in my ratio.

Sorry folks, but unless the creative rules become more clear cut I think many others are justifiably depriving A.net of some big hitters.

Karl


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9076 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4585 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 20):
Well, it's been rejected, so I for one am no longer willing to upload 'something different' as it's just not worth the drop in my ratio.

What were the rejection reasons?

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 20):
orry folks, but unless the creative rules become more clear cut I think many others are justifiably depriving A.net of some big hitters.

This has been discussed so many times. The creative rule cannot be made very clear. As the name says 'creative'. Hard to set standards for it... If not impossible...

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4581 times:

Rejected for motive. Oh, and common as well, which made me laugh! Presumably if I'd got a shot of this particular aircraft crashing through the roof of St. Paul's Cathedral (God forbid!) it would be rejected on the grounds of the 'plane being featured extensively in the database......?

Common 'plane? Maybe. Common caught like this? Definately not!

Oh, well,live and learn...

Karl

[Edited 2009-08-26 04:10:21]

User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1671 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4573 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Karl

I did not have any input into the screening of that image but Tim just about said it all in his comment at Reply 18.
It is not a bad image, it could just be better and in particular the sign sticking up in the bottom left corner is distracting. Distracting is one thing, but the fact that is is totally avoidable with a slightly different crop is worse - precisely what Tim, a Head Screener pointed out when you asked for advice, yet advice that you did not take.
Just in case you think otherwise, Tim did not have any input into the screening of it either, though had he done so, well, he had already given his view.
My feelings, for what they are worth, is that that image is redeemable with a different crop.

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9076 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4572 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 22):
common

Common is just a rejection reason which is added if there are a lot of pictures of that airplane in the database. If the quality and the motive is ok, then the common doesn't lead to a rejection of the picture. So don't see that common as a too bad rejection reason.

The motiv is sad. But as you have read in this thread the opinions are different.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
25 JakTrax : As I pointed out in reply 19, advice I would have heeded had I had a few spare hours to root out the original file. Yes, I agree, the sign is distrac
26 Dendrobatid : When three screeners have said that it was not acceptable, it should certainly not have come as a surprise that it was rejected. So perhaps to answer
27 ManuCH : The question has been answered several times. Therefore I'm locking the thread.
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...
An Unusual Aviation Photography Incident posted Sun Jul 29 2007 20:36:45 by Mirrodie
What An Amazing Shot posted Fri Feb 2 2007 11:58:36 by AndrewUber
What An Amazing Shot! posted Mon Aug 28 2006 02:47:59 by KFLLCFII
Is Motive Okay? posted Mon May 1 2006 04:08:43 by AirbusfanYYZ
Motive Question For Cockpit Shots posted Tue Feb 14 2006 23:08:30 by ElpinDAB
Motive Okay On This? posted Sat Jan 21 2006 23:28:36 by Sulman
Interesting AN-124 Shot posted Sun Oct 16 2005 10:34:58 by Brendan03
Getting W To Sign An AF1 Shot posted Sun Oct 3 2004 05:27:24 by Sleekjet
Photo Rejected For Being A "Nice Shot"! posted Sat Sep 11 2004 04:54:21 by Jakbar
An Underrated Shot posted Wed Aug 11 2004 09:13:12 by N178UA