Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Change In Motive Rejection Reasons  
User currently offlinescreeners From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 15 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5225 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

To the airliners.net photographer community:

The screening team has been discussing the motive rejection reason over the last month and have decided to give a bit more leeway when it comes to minor obstructions, From now on we will look to accept images that may have a small portion of the landing gear or engine blocked by runway marker, light and airport signs as long as it is not too distracting from the overall image.Previously these types shots were regarded as an avoidable blockage and get rejected for motive but feel that is not always the case.

Below are a few examples of what is now acceptable.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Easter


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Wood


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Manny Gonzalez - Thrust Images


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lars Hentschel




Over the coming months Quality and Acceptance Criteria team will be reviewing more of our rejection reasons and whether any changes can be made, If changes are going to be made the screening team will discuss it and than inform the photographer community of these changes.


The Airliners.net Screening Team

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5216 times:

These changes are most welcome. It is amazing to think that the images above would have been rejected previously.


Whatever.......
User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5167 times:

What about cones blocking the engine or gear of a parked aircraft?

User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1747 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5169 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting mjgbtv (Reply 3):
What about cones blocking the engine or gear of a parked aircraft?

There has been no change in regards to static aircraft having cones blocking wheels, They are usually unavoidable and were acceptable and still are acceptable blockages.


Cheers Mark


User currently offlineKIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5132 times:

Mark,

Thanks for sharing the update. I was curious if this new change will give any leeway to static aircraft at the gate that have a tug or ramp vehicle blocking a wheel or partially blocking the gear?

-Andrew


User currently offlinemjgbtv From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5123 times:

Quoting aussie18 (Reply 4):
There has been no change in regards to static aircraft having cones blocking wheels, They are usually unavoidable and were acceptable and still are acceptable blockages.

Okay, good to know. For what it's worth, I find that section in the rejection guide to be a bit confusing. The mention of cones seems to be under the category of "museum type shots", which I always took to mean a permanently parked aircraft, not one temporarily parked at a gate or on a ramp...

Thanks!

Marty


User currently offlineeskillawl From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5116 times:

Quoting aussie18 (Reply 4):

Quoting mjgbtv (Reply 3):
What about cones blocking the engine or gear of a parked aircraft?

There has been no change in regards to static aircraft having cones blocking wheels, They are usually unavoidable and were acceptable and still are acceptable blockages.

Really? I've recived a few rejections for cones blocking engines in the past months, where the screeners actually stated that the cone was the reason, on photo like this one.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2efiywi.jpg

Eskil



Photo equipment: Canon EOS 60D | Canon 70-200 F4L USM | Canon 18-55 3:5-5:6 |
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5097 times:

Personally I've always found the "motive" rejection bizarre. I suspect becuase it was a poor translation of the concept the founder Johann was trying to express. I think it would be easier for everyone if the "bad motive" was broken down into clearly understandable reasons, for instance in the case of cones, barriers etc. "obstructions" or "clutter" might be more readily understood.

In my many years at A.net (as contributor, screener and viewer) "bad motive" has always generated the most confusion, upset and argument. Perhaps now would be a good time to unpack this catch all and make it clear what you mean.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineKIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

I guess I will throw up the picture that I am curious about. I tried to avoid the vehicles and several different angles, but had no luck. Will there be any leeway in this situation?

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/big/ready/p1373494966.6303sa.jpg

Cheers,
Andrew


User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5081 times:

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the motive of your shot Andrew, it is an airliner doing what airliners do, but I suspect that it will still fall foul of a motive rejection.


Whatever.......
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5080 times:

I must admit I'm not too keen on this relaxation. If the blockage was in any way avoidable, it shouldn't be tolerated unless the image depicts a very rare event or aircraft. That's just my opinion of course. I assume this move was set in motion by complaints and protests originating in the photographer community?

What's the current stance on grain? That's one of the issues heavily discussed; one which bothered an awful lot of people. I assume if we're seeing a relaxation such as the above the 'grainy' rejection will also be equally relaxed (within reason)?

If any changes are mainly down to general community reaction to the old criteria then I'm fine with that, irrespective of whether I agree or not. It at least shows someone has been listening. What I think is worrying a few people is the fact that there's the very real prospect of a general reduction in quality. I pointed out a few very dodgy recent acceptances to the heads and they told me they'd be discussed internally - which I assume means that they at least partly agree with my analyses.

As I said recently, I will reserve any real judgement until the new process is fully adopted. Any drastic change such as this will inevitably lead to initial errors until the system has had time to settle and adapt.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlinehenkita217 From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 390 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can definitely welcome this change.

Though, I just like to provide an example, just to make sure that we are on the right page.

Photo in question is below.
The airport is DPS (Bali).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roberto Prawiro


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roberto Prawiro



As can be seen, there are thin wires placed which runs at the length of the taxiway, so theoretically, this is UNAVOIDABLE, beyond our control.

I have had a couple of photos rejected for motive, and the examples above were apparently accepted by mistake, as explained by an ex-head screener, which to me, it means the wires aren't distracting the photo/subject.

So, is it now OK to upload similar photos as per example above?

Please confirm.

Regards,
HB


User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5048 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 11):
What's the current stance on grain?

Karl - we are discussing this as well. Not a 'relaxation' per say, but more of an effort to get all screeners to judge grain on a consistent basis.

My personal feeling is that we are way to strict with "grain" or "noise."


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5044 times:

Royal,

Good to know. I suppose 'relaxation' was perhaps the wrong word to use as this suggests a lowering of the standards; in reality I think it just needs to be judged better, as you say.

I've always maintained that, of the numerous rejections reasons, 'grainy' is the least serious because it's the least noticeable and it's also not a true flaw (i.e. it's beyond the photographer's control and is a perfectly natural by-product of the photographic process).

I'm optimistic about these changes but one thing I will say.....

Please don't use this new system to encourage the acceptance of genuinely below-par images. I may have complained over the years but those complaints have only ever been about the application of the rules rather than the rules themselves. I think most would agree that the old system was in theory very fair. It demanded the highest quality; trouble was it was too open to interpretation.

As I've said repeatedly lately, any new system should make it EASIER (NOT EASY) to get a GOOD photo accepted, not just A photo.

Cheers,

Karl


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4988 times:

Quoting screeners (Thread starter):
have decided to give a bit more leeway when it comes to minor obstructions

I think this is a move in the right direction as I often found the site a little anal when it come to minor blockages, especially if they were unavoidable. I hope avoidable, major blockages are still going to be rejected unless they add to the composition? We don't want to be taking too much of a backwards step here but an unavoidable cone or a little grass over the landing gear should not be rejected in my view.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 13):
My personal feeling is that we are way to strict with "grain" or "noise."

That's certainly another step in the right direction Royal. I certainly agree with Karl on this one that the site was becoming too obsessed with having no trace of noise when it was simply beyond what many cameras were cable of producing.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
Please don't use this new system to encourage the acceptance of genuinely below-par images

I fully agree here too. While we all welcome the review of the acceptance criteria, there are certainly acceptances that I feel have gone a little too far the other way in terms of quality. While it'll take time to strike the new balance, standards need to be maintained high, but applied more consistently and without the pettiness we'd become accustomed to.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
any new system should make it EASIER (NOT EASY) to get a GOOD photo accepted, not just A photo.

Spot on Karl, I wholeheartedly agree.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlinenotaxonrotax From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 404 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4938 times:

Quoting screeners (Thread starter):
From now on we will look to accept images that may have a small portion of the landing gear

I noticed!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sir Hofma



No Tax On Rotax



Als vader voorlicht, kan je merken dat hij achter ligt.
User currently offlineKIADPRTHD From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4931 times:

Quote:

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the motive of your shot Andrew, it is an airliner doing what airliners do, but I suspect that it will still fall foul of a motive rejection.

Thanks, derekf. After reading the post on here and looking at the posted examples, I'm going to leave it in the queue and see what happens. The worst thing that happens is it gets rejected.


User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1747 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4895 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting ckw (Reply 8):
I think it would be easier for everyone if the "bad motive" was broken down into clearly understandable reasons, for instance in the case of cones, barriers etc. "obstructions" or "clutter" might be more readily understood.

One thing that has been improved on these days is we give a lot of personals and usually motive rejections will receive a personal as to what the rejection for motive is "Unmotivated crop on stabilizer", Blocked nosegear"", Too much clutter" and so on.

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 15):
I think this is a move in the right direction as I often found the site a little anal when it come to minor blockages, especially if they were unavoidable. I hope avoidable, major blockages are still going to be rejected unless they add to the composition? We don't want to be taking too much of a backwards step here but an unavoidable cone or a little grass over the landing gear should not be rejected in my view.

Major obstructions we still get rejected unless they are part of the composition.

This is a good recent example of what we mean:



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabrizio Capenti - Malpensa Spotters Group

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
Please don't use this new system to encourage the acceptance of genuinely below-par images. I may have complained over the years but those complaints have only ever been about the application of the rules rather than the rules themselves. I think most would agree that the old system was in theory very fair. It demanded the highest quality; trouble was it was too open to interpretation.

We will continue to accept high quality images, Standards for the quality will not drop, Part of the reason for change was we felt that some nice shots were being rejected for a minor obstruction which were not too distracting.

Quoting henkita217 (Reply 12):
I can definitely welcome this change.

Though, I just like to provide an example, just to make sure that we are on the right page.

Those 2 examples for me would be acceptable though the AirAsia A320 is borderline as the fence pole blocking the wheel makes its more noticeable, The Garuda 330 the fence blockage is not to noticeable. We will judge each image on its own as it comes down to how distracting the obstruction is from the overall image.

But as mentioned I have seen plenty of shots from here and it does look like a unavoidable obstruction.

Cheers Mark


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10027 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4892 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
Please don't use this new system to encourage the acceptance of genuinely below-par images.

Karl, your point has been noted (several times   ), and as has been explained, that's not the goal here.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 14):
Good to know. I suppose 'relaxation' was perhaps the wrong word to use as this suggests a lowering of the standards; in reality I think it just needs to be judged better, as you say.

I agree. I personally think we're generally too strict on noise, but I'm one opinion in the bunch. Anyway, we're doing a pretty good job of discussing things behind the scenes. It will take time, as we're all in different locations and primary contact is through email. But I will also note that there was a note on grain in the forum post about revised screening criteria:

Quote:
- Grain and noise in low light situations with subjects that are not static will receive more leeway

Obviously that's for specific situations, but it's still a step in the right direction.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlinewalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1299 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

Hi All,

Maybe a silly question (but I have been away on holidays) and in the mean time, I got a motiv rejection for "waiving pilots" (photo taken during the last flight of the Phantoms to Jever):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._20130705_img_42710_wvb_1200px.jpg

I was not aware that this was reason for a motiv rejection. Is this new?

On the other hand, I was pleased to see that my shot of the Phantom, with all the JG71 crew on top, did get accepted while I was on holiday and somewhat later I noticed (on my mobile) that it even made it to Photographers' choice     . I believe this was a first for me and I would like to thank all photographers for their votes. I am sure that this had more to do with this special event than with the quality of the shot (because conditions were really poor)...

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 offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 912 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4594 times:

Having the photo rejected for that reasons seems particularly trivial. "Waving pilots" maybe  

Seriously that seems very petty to me.



Whatever.......
User currently offlineeskillawl From Sweden, joined Jan 2012, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4557 times:

Quoting walter2222 (Reply 19):
Maybe a silly question (but I have been away on holidays) and in the mean time, I got a motiv rejection for "waiving pilots" (photo taken during the last flight of the Phantoms to Jever):
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r..._20130705_img_42710_wvb_1200px.jpg

I was not aware that this was reason for a motiv rejection. Is this new?

That rejection reason is stated in the rejection reasons guide. The screeners do not accept photos where waving pilots is in what they call "sole focus", who they are in your photo.

Eskil  



Photo equipment: Canon EOS 60D | Canon 70-200 F4L USM | Canon 18-55 3:5-5:6 |
User currently offlineacontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4516 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Walter.

Quoting walter2222 (Reply 19):
I was not aware that this was reason for a motiv rejection. Is this new?


From the rejection guide:
Close up cockpit shots with the only reason for the shot being showing pilots waving

Now, I did reject the picture, but you forgot to add the other rejection reason, double. Overall, since you already had a static shot same aircraft/day/side accepted that showed the complete side of the aircraft, including the cockpit, I felt that the rejected one was focused solely on the waiving pilots. In any case, if you do not agree please feel free to use the appeal function, that is the reason it exists  .

Keep the nice pictures coming, and hope the weather is better and more cooperative!

Cheers,
Andrés



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlinesulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4469 times:

The waving pilots thing came in (if I recall correctly) because certain photographers at AMS and one or two other places used to fill the queue with them, and caption them accordingly (for hits). I think people just got tired of it.


It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlinewalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1299 posts, RR: 28
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4416 times:

Hi All,

Thanks for your feedback!

@ sulman: I agree with the situation at AMS, as you explained, but here it is a caption of the "Phinal moment": the pilot greet the phorographers and their friends/families because it is theire final moment in the Phantom, before it will be dismantled and scrapped. That was my motive for capturing it.

@ Andrés: This shot (the 38+48) was solely rejected for "waving pilot" (not "waiving" as I put it first  ...). I had another one (the 37+22)rejected because I had already one in the database and for this one you mentioned double (but to me, as explained above, it is a clearly different motive...).


I know that weather conditions were not ideal, but this was an event which will never happen again. Hence I also thought that a shot during taxi and a shot taken at the ramp (the final death row) were also different enough to avoid the double rejection, but this is apparently not the case ;-((

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 - ...
25 Post contains images acontador : Hi Walter, You are absolutely right, I did reject your 37+22 shot with the personal "Hi Walter, sorry but cockpit already visible on your other shot s
26 Post contains images walter2222 : Hi Andrés, that's a fact! But I wished it to be otherwise (this time) Would you mind if I would try an appeal (for the one which was not double)? Yo
27 Post contains images acontador : Hi Walter, Of course not, that's your right . Cheers, Andrés
28 Post contains images venemaje : Hi everyone: Leaving the picture quality aside (sharpeness, resolution, etc.), what's the problem with "motive" in this picture? Just trying to unders
29 vikkyvik : Motive looks fine, unless there's some small blockage I can't see at that resolution. Could use a tighter crop on the right, though.
30 Post contains links and images unattendedbag : Could this photo be used as a bench mark? View Large View MediumPhoto © Szabo Gabor Everyone is talking about "small" and "barely noticeable" blocka
31 Post contains images vikkyvik : After discussion among the Quality Team and Head Screeners, it was determined that the photo should have been rejected for Motive. It has been remove
32 derekf : Boy, I bet that's made you popular with the photog! Interesting that half the aircraft can be invisible behind clouds of vapour, or large parts cut o
33 unattendedbag : I don't know if you are talking to me or Vik, probably both. That being said, I love the shot. Any shot of an SP and I begin to drool, especially in
34 vikkyvik : Any attempt to enforce consistent screening will inevitably lead to some images being added, and others removed, after the fact (and has already resu
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...
Do You Agree This Should Get A Motive Rejection? posted Tue May 12 2009 13:05:28 by SAA738
Motive Rejection - Crop posted Wed Sep 10 2008 12:32:13 by McG1967
Motive Rejection: Advice - Clarification Sought posted Wed Sep 3 2008 13:32:56 by Flynavy
Why Can't This Be In The Rejection? Bit Annoying. posted Tue Jan 15 2008 11:19:17 by TweetDriver
Motive Rejection, Help Please posted Mon Jan 14 2008 06:15:20 by Raoulr
Illustrated Guide To Rejection Reasons V posted Tue Jan 8 2008 01:30:49 by ThierryD
Cabin Photo - Motive Rejection, Advice Needed posted Mon Jan 7 2008 06:31:09 by FlySAS
Motive Rejection Help Please! posted Wed Dec 19 2007 05:37:02 by Mnazarinia
Will This Result In A Motiv Rejection? posted Sun Nov 4 2007 08:10:58 by Walter2222
Confused About Motive Rejection posted Wed Oct 31 2007 23:44:42 by Sovietjet