I have said many times before in threads that I'm not a fan of screener bashing, and I believe we have to accept the decisions made on this site, whether we like them or not. So the following is not a whinge about this rejection, but an attempt to understand the process a bit more.
The following photo
has just been rejected. The reasons given were two - bad motive and bad common. I would be very interested to know the opinions of others on this.
One of the reasons I chose this photo to upload is that I am a bit of a fan of these kind of zoomed perspective images. If you choose to look at my pictures you will see a number of examples of photos taken in such a way - cropped to have the compressed fuselage as the primary subject in the image. Of course I accept that this bias towards photos such as this may be a personal thing and I am happy for others not to feel so positive about them. But I like them and I have not had a rejection before for a similar composition on the grounds of motive.
Are there other members who do not approve of such images, are a bit fed up with them or agree that the general motive is poor?
On the second point, I do not travel around to take photos from many venues, and so am rather limited to the aircraft we see at Manchester. As such, and because I now am fortunate enough to have had a number of photos accepted on the database, I am increasingly looking to different ways of photographing aircraft that already appear a lot on the site. Prior to uploading I checked this aircraft and there are 89 photos on the database. However, there is not a single example of the aircraft photographed in this way - using this zoomed perspective on the airframe. To me that led me to feel I would have avoided the issue of bad common.
So, my second question is - do you think that when a particular aircraft has that kind of number of images already on the database we need the picture to stand out in some more obvious way that what was, in my opinion (but not the screener's), a new and different motive.
I am very interested in members' views on this, but I would like any discussion to be constructive, rather than an opportunity to complain about screening inconsistencies etc - we have all seen those arguments many a time.
Thanks very much for constructive comments.
All the best.