Sky120 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 19 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2007 times:
Hi,
The following picture was rejected for bad motive.
<< The photos were of low esthetic qualities - bad angle, included window reflections (for shots taken through glass such as terminal windows),
pictured just a part of an aircraft (with no motivation, like a special sticker, damage etc., for doing so), out of focus, distracting or obstructing objects in the foreground or similar (this is especially true for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common nature and the large amount of ancilliary equipment which usually surrounds the aircraft) or did not picture an aircraft or anything sufficiently related to aviation at all. >>
Should I crop it to remove all the birdies on the foreground? Also, my digital camera takes pictures in 1984 x 1488. Should I resize it to 1024 x 768 myself or let Airliners.net resize it automatically?
Sky120 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1994 times:
Thank you for your prompt reply, Wietse. I appreciate it!
If the missing landing gear is the reason why it was rejected then I guess I should not spend too much time working on this one, then LOL!
Sky120 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1903 times:
Hi,
Thank you. I have resized the image and sharpened it a little and it looks better. I've reuploaded it and I'm waiting for the results.
I really don't feel like planespotting during orange alert and 9-11 to avoid getting hassled. One tip about spotting at MSY. Don't do it near any MSY airport parking facilities (including the remote lots) without permission.
A supervisor for the MSY parking garage was summoned after a booth attendant at the remote parking lot saw me taking pictures of planes coming in for finals from the South. I was not parked at the remote parking lot but pulled over to the side of a 2 lane road with patches of concrete shoulders. The attendant told me it was okay to sit there and watch but not take pictures without permission from the airport. Obviously MSY still doesn't grasp the concept of planespotting. The supervisor (who is a Hispanic female) was very nice about informing me what I had to do to receive permission. I think it's too much trouble for me to go into the terminal right now (avoiding parking fee). I'll ask when I am flying out of MSY but for now I'll stay on the North side of the airport to get pictures like these. http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Andy%20P.%20Jung&distinct_entry=true
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1881 times:
Apjung:
Those are common ramp shots. And in both you have stuff in the front along with ramp lice. Quality isnt that bad but theres lots of stuff in the front and distractions. Like that pole in Photo #2
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
Hi guys,
JAL picture... It exhibits far too much jpeg compression, whether or not motiv is an issue. Resize it to 1024, DO NOT save it with any compression (should come out between 400 and 700k) and try again. To be honest, I think its a bit mean spirited to reject it badmotiv, but that just illustrates the differences in screener opinions!
On the Delta's, I'd probably reject the 757 (slightly marginal quality, loads of ramp lice, etc) but I'd probably accept the MD - it'd need two other screeners though.
Sky120 From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
Hi again,
I have uploaded the JAL 747-400 at a size of 1024 x ... but it has still been rejected. The reason is:
<< The photos were of low esthetic qualities - bad angle, included window reflections (for shots taken through glass such as terminal windows),
pictured just a part of an aircraft (with no motivation, like a special sticker, damage etc., for doing so), out of focus, distracting or obstructing objects in the foreground or similar (this is especially true for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common nature and the large amount of ancilliary equipment which usually surrounds the aircraft) or did not picture an aircraft or anything sufficiently related to aviation at all. Finally, you might read this because your camera displays the date in the lower right corner of the image. If so, please disable that feature in the future.
These photos appear to have been either overexposed (too bright) or underexposed (too dark). This could be a scanning problem or a
problem with the original photos. Check your original photo, if it appears to be correctly exposed then please change the settings
on your scanner or use a photo manipulating tool to adjust the brightness
of the photos. If the photo is a digital shot then you will probably be
unable to improve the shot to an acceptable standard.
If you think you have been able to improve the quality of the photos, please re-upload them. Note that we are still very interested in having these photos in our database, we only ask that you try to improve the quality of the digital version of your photos. >>
Here is the link to the picture. Any ideas on what I should do?
Apjung From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1841 times:
Forgive me if I may sound dumb but what exactly is ramp lice and how the nickname was coined? I searched everywhere and couldn't get an exact answer.
Sure, they may be distracting whatever they are but I thought as long as 99% of the plane is not blocked it should be okay.
Apjung From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1791 times:
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1793 times:
Ramp lice is all that stuff that runs around on the ramp at an airport---luggage trucks, SST's (sh** sucking trucks...), food vans, firetrucks, starters, everything that gets in the way.
Sometimes they help to make the photo, other times they distract too much from the subject. It is a subjective choice and sometimes up to the screener to decide. (A general rule is to avoid having lice in the photo and on your head.)
Will having some shrubs in the way make for a reject? Sometimes. It all depends on how the plane appears. In the JAL shot the foreground is in perfect focus, the engines are nice, but then the body of the plane is just a touch off. I think it is heat haze... While it is overall a nice shot, it just lacks a bit.
Andy...In my opinion, all of your photos just have too much stuff in front of them or around them. If they were of a significant aircraft they might have a chance, but the planes are run of the mill and the shots are way too "busy" if you know what I mean. (Looks a bit grainy, but I'm not good at judging that...) You need to find a better shooting location.
Tony
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 19 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}