conoramoia From Ireland, joined Oct 2007, 498 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1223 times:
Ok so I really want to get back into this properly so any help on these would be much appreciated
And if its something small then feel free to add whatever it needs and email me the final copy and I'll credit you in the remarks (experienced photographers only if possible - sorry to be so rude)
KelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1149 times:
Quoting conoramoia (Reply 7): But now considering motive rules have changed how does this one shape up?
Primarily focusing on the 'motive' issue, regarding vehicles and tugs etc., it is acceptable ( in my opinion) as the new rules state:
Quoting dlowwa: tugs...are allowed to block part of the aircraft as long as they are:
[1] not blocking engines or wheels (exception: tugs are allowed to block engines/wheels if towing aircraft,...)
So in my opinion, it should be acceptable for that stated above (the tug is active as the lights are flashing). However, regarding other things, such as quality, softness etc. I am not in a position to comment, sorry.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 9, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1139 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting conoramoia (Reply 7): But now considering motive rules have changed how does this one shape up?
There actually has been no change in regards to tugs: they have always been allowed to block part of the aircraft, and you will find countless examples of such in the database.
It looks a little soft and not the best light, but might be salvageable.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (10 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1086 times:
Looks a bit soft in parts on my screen but then again I'm no expert in the sharpness of images. Mid-fuselage and tail appear to be the offending areas.
To be honest I hate judging the clarity of an image by a resized version. Is the original sharp?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (10 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1076 times:
Putting the aircraft a little lower in the frame will help eliminate much of the person bottom-right corner, but I can't see how said person can be ejected from the frame altogether.
Surely if this was re-cropped with the aircraft slightly lower in the frame (thus allowing less of the figure to intrude) it wouldn't be rejected for motive? I concur that the 'distraction' is OOF but it literally occupies about 2% of the frame.
Sponsor Message: 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2007, 498 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4735 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
){kind=link}