N737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 678 posts, RR: 16 Posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
So I tried the composition photo I was looking to get, much like Bo's photos. It got rejected for bad distance, as I understand that the aircraft is in the distance a bit. But my point of the shot is clearly shown! I mean common, i see photos like this everyday in the DB with aircraft in the distance, that should be bad distance.
What is the reason behind mine? I mean, look at it. Can you understand the reasoning behind it? Im sure you can, as its another form of a shot trying to depict the aircraft and surroundings. Someone explain why some photos can be excepted that are distant aircraft shots and some can't. Is there somewhere that says certain ones can or can't?
N737MC From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 678 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1794 times:
As an example of a photo in the db that should be bad distance. Not knocking his photo or anything, because it is great, it is just he is focusing on whats around the aircraft and so am I, but I get rejected for it? Doesn't make sense to me. Im sure I can find more.
Vafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1780 times:
Aaron, You showed me the photo a few hours ago, and I understood the artistic environment you were trying to pursue in your photo, and you did it, but I was sure (and I told you) that some screeners would NOT. If I was a screener, I'd see that besides only the aircraft, I also get a background, that's not only blue skies.
Fantastic shot, but I guess many can't understand that there is more to a great photo than the object itself.
I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
An-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1789 times:
I think that it should have been accepted. The cloud picture is stunning, it emphasizes the aircraft surroundings, it is in the database and it is popular. The rejected shot should have been accepted too. The plane is closer, and downtown adds nicely to the picture. I also remember other pictures in the database from that location.
Awaiting the screeners' response.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
Kereru From New Zealand, joined Jun 2003, 873 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1766 times:
The aircraft looks like its stuck away to the right corner and its a little too light although the exposure looks okay. If some of the right hand side was cropped out to bring the aircraft nearer the center but not dead center I would like it better. Thats just my personal opinion.
Had the aircraft been lower in the frame I think it would have been accepted or at least by me anyway.
BO__einG From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2771 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1734 times:
Its a real nice shot Aaron.
But from my experience,these kinds of shots won't be added.
I have tried numerous times to get my own pictures added and the planes I captured were not mere A320s. They were PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT (747 and IL96). Much larger and more SIGNIFICANT due to the fact that it carried a president for petes sake, but it was CONTINUOUSLY rejected by screeners for baddistance just like yours.
I really do not understand the logic behind this. Not all but SOME screeners add pictures such as the example you provided with more simpler backdrops while other more dynamic/appealing ones get rejected. Quite irrational if you ask me. Its like trying to show something different gives me nothing but the shaft. From the replies I have read I am more than convinced that the general populous agrees that such a photo is infact worthy of a add.
Its also funny to note how for other sites when I uploaded, these photos get added and the screener who added it even puts in a nice comment in the remark field of the email. Not to mention decent amounts of hits came along with it. So why won't the largest and most prestigious aviation site recognize what I have done?
So what if some technical rules are not met. There are whats called exceptions where guidelines can be broken for some special shots under certain circumstances.
Those are 3 examples. By the way, thanks for making such a post Aaron. I'll put you on my respected list since you love this type of shot from Calgary
and your fighting for rationality.
Perhaps with some screeners gone and a whackload of new screeners, maybe this time these guys will have a different viewpoint and that may increase my chances of addition when I upload for the 1000th time.
My advice, keep trying! If there are some minor glitches which you can easily improve (perhaps reduce the effect of the haze in photoshop by adjusting a wee bit the curves or contrasts), do take the chance to make it that much a bit better. Then the shot should be unstoppable!