NPeterman From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 187 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 849 times:
This photo was previously rejected for motive, but after seeing a recent top photo from LAX, I surmised that something had clearly changed, and re-edited and re-uploaded this shot, only for it to be rejected again for the same reason. Both shots are included below.
I will be perfectly honest, there are numerous photos in the DB with objects in the foreground that are far more distracting to the viewer (in my opinion). Including this one, accepted into the DB less than 2 weeks ago:
In comparing the two shots, the accepted photo has far more sign than aircraft, whereas I feel my shot at least retains some semblance of balance. And (in my opinion) it is hard to argue that a sign with a mostly nude woman, text, and a semi-veiled double entendre is far more distracting than the top half of a train-look at the one comment the photo has already garnered.
Similar examples of photos that seem to have far more distraction, and far less plane than the rejection in question. All are fantastic images, and a credit to the photographers who took them:
I don't want to come across as bitter, I love the site and will continue to do so. However, I would just like some clarification into the factors at work here. I think fairness and perceived equality are all things we strive for and enjoy, and I guess I am missing something here it seems.
[Edited 2012-09-14 11:58:23]
Note: Edited due to my own accidentally deleting some text, twice
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 831 times:
Sorry, but the other images you reference look like they were framed as they were with the foreground object in mind. Yours looks like you caught the top half of the train by accident, and it wasn't planned. A wider, more centered shot of the train might have worked.
Nothing inconsistent about the screening result; in fact, it was consistent with the first time you submitted it back in February. I would advise against uploading previously rejected shots without making changes again, as that can earn you an upload ban.
NPeterman From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 826 times:
Thank you for the reply. I meant no disrespect or ingratitude towards the screeners, was simply confused by what I was seeing. I understand your point about their shots feeling more planned, although I would have thought that a shot that did not feature an aircraft as it's "primary" subject would have been either rejected or accepted regardless of how planned it was or not.
As a wider crop of this scene would have included more bridge than train or plane, I guess I will simply have to let it go into the not for A.net pile, and move on to my next project