Hi,
Are there any threads out there discussing when equipment blocking parts of an aircraft is acceptable? I have seen some recent photos with obstructions, but according to the rejection reasons this is not allowed. I presume that there have been some clarifications/modifications to the requirement since the rejection page was written, so I'd like to find out the latest. I searched the forum and did not find anything. Thanks.
Marty
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
I know small mobile steps or the aircraft's own steps are OK (most of the time). I don't know of any other acceptable obstructions.
Karl
Karl
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1): I know small mobile steps or the aircraft's own steps are OK (most of the time). |
Integral stairs are OK since they are part of the plane. Mobile stairs would normally result in a motive rejection unless there is some other reason why the shot should be uploaded (e.g. only shot of rare plane or colour scheme).
Integral stairs:
Photo © Steve Brimley
Mobile stairs (accepted on appeal as only shot of this plane in these colours)
Photo © Steve Brimley
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting Mjgbtv (Thread starter): Are there any threads out there discussing when equipment blocking parts of an aircraft is acceptable? |
I had a picture rejected recently of stairs blocking parts of the airplane as well. It was a new registration to the database. So this alone doesn't qualify to losen the motiv rule on that one.
WILCO737 (MD11F)
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
I had this one accepted - there are other shots of it in the database (albeit not too many) and it has small mobile steps in the way.
????????
Karl
 |
????????
Karl
-
- TransIsland
- Posts: 1826
- Joined:
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting TransIsland (Reply 6): |
I guess this can be the reason. The screener decide individually on every picture if it get accepted or not.
WILCO737 (MD11F)
-
- TransIsland
- Posts: 1826
- Joined:
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 7): I guess this can be the reason. The screener decide individually on every picture if it get accepted or not. |
Well, it was certainly the reason why this photo of it was accepted, because the quality sucks, and it was rejected previously while N2969 was still in one piece.
Photo © Stephen B. Aranha
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting JakTrax (Reply 4): I had this one accepted - there are other shots of it in the database (albeit not too many) and it has small mobile steps in the way. |
Hi Karl,
The steps, mobile or otherwise, in your shot of the Mallard do not spoil the overall image, as they are at the rear of the aircraft and are not blocking any of the undercarriage or other significant part of the aircraft. If the steps had been blocking part of the nose for instance, it would have likely received a motive rejection. In the shot of the Kam Air 737 however, the steps are blocking part of the nosewheel, which, for me, spoils the shot a bit. As Steve mentions, it did get through on appeal because of the rarity value. If it's a rare aircraft, most people will take the shot with the steps rather than not at all. If it had been a BA 737 for example, it would have been right to reject for motive.
Cheers
Mark
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting MarkyMc (Reply 9): If the steps had been blocking part of the nose for instance, |
Hi Mark,
can you maybe take a look at that thread and tell me if that is here the case as well? Those steps block parts of the nose and lead to motiv rejection. That's what I've been told. It is a new reg in the database. And I liked it to get it accepted but doesn't look too good.
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...on_photography/read.main/316717/1/
Thanks.
WILCO737 (MD11F)
-
- vivekman2006
- Posts: 414
- Joined:
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
What about airport fences?
I had a shot rejected as there was a fence in the picture. Mind you, the fence was at the bottom of the picture, and was not actually blocking any part of the aircraft. It was around an inch or two below the landing gear of the aircraft. Will it be a motive rejection?
- Vivek
I had a shot rejected as there was a fence in the picture. Mind you, the fence was at the bottom of the picture, and was not actually blocking any part of the aircraft. It was around an inch or two below the landing gear of the aircraft. Will it be a motive rejection?
- Vivek
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting Vivekman2006 (Reply 11): I had a shot rejected as there was a fence in the picture. Mind you, the fence was at the bottom of the picture, and was not actually blocking any part of the aircraft. It was around an inch or two below the landing gear of the aircraft. Will it be a motive rejection? |
Hi Vivek,
Was the rejection actually for motive? I recall seeing an accepted photo recently that had a fence in the foreground (not blocking any part of the aircraft) This may be another case (like the ones mentioned above) where it comes down to other considerations such as rarity of the subject, and there is probably also an element of subjectivity as to how much the fence distracts from the subject.
Marty
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting Mjgbtv (Reply 12): Was the rejection actually for motive? I recall seeing an accepted photo recently that had a fence in the foreground (not blocking any part of the aircraft) This may be another case (like the ones mentioned above) where it comes down to other considerations such as rarity of the subject, and there is probably also an element of subjectivity as to how much the fence distracts from the subject |
As far as I know fences are fine unless they really drag the viewer away from the subject. Fences at a distance which are fully in focus tend not to be distracting, however if it's right on top of the photographer and is blurred (OOF) I would imagine it'd get a rejection (I'd certainly give it one!)
Karl
-
- vivekman2006
- Posts: 414
- Joined:
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting Mjgbtv (Reply 12): Hi Vivek, Was the rejection actually for motive? I recall seeing an accepted photo recently that had a fence in the foreground (not blocking any part of the aircraft) This may be another case (like the ones mentioned above) where it comes down to other considerations such as rarity of the subject, and there is probably also an element of subjectivity as to how much the fence distracts from the subject. |
Yes, the rejection was for motive, and the screener mentioned the presence of the fence. Now, the part about how much the fence distracts seems to be the main issue that is really subjective.
Also, the aircraft in question was the Iron Maiden B757 when it visited BOM in Feb'08. Although there were quite a few photos of this aircraft in the DB in its original Astraeus colours, there were only a couple of photos in the Iron Maiden colours. Ah well!
| Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13): As far as I know fences are fine unless they really drag the viewer away from the subject. Fences at a distance which are fully in focus tend not to be distracting, however if it's right on top of the photographer and is blurred (OOF) I would imagine it'd get a rejection (I'd certainly give it one!) |
Hi Karl,
The fence in the photo was in focus and was roughly in the lower 1/4th of the picture.
Wonder if I should upload the photo again!
- Vivek
-
- vivekman2006
- Posts: 414
- Joined:
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
Borderline. That much fence shouldn't really be a distraction but the nature of the barbed wire (looking rather untidy!) causes the bottom 1/4 of the shot to look messy. I think if the fence was a standard chain-link and was neatly presented it wouldn't be so much of an issue. Still, I like the shot and think a little discretion could have been used. I believe I've seen worse here.
Karl
Karl
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
I think in the instance of the Iron Maiden plane, the nasty-looking barbed wire actually adds to the photo.
-
- vivekman2006
- Posts: 414
- Joined:
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting JakTrax (Reply 17): Still, I like the shot and think a little discretion could have been used. I believe I've seen worse here. Karl |
| Quoting JohnJ (Reply 18): I think in the instance of the Iron Maiden plane, the nasty-looking barbed wire actually adds to the photo. |
Thanks Karl and JohnJ for your comments. The photo just got accepted
Photo © Vivek Manvi
- Vivek
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting MarkyMc (Reply 9): The steps, mobile or otherwise, in your shot of the Mallard do not spoil the overall image |
| Quoting MarkyMc (Reply 9): In the shot of the Kam Air 737 however, the steps are blocking part of the nosewheel, which, for me, spoils the shot a bit. |
I recently got a motive rejection for what I can only assume is the tip of an orange cone in front of bottom edge of fuselage:
https://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...8222ASTARRETOUCHEDCROPFINALJJM.jpg
I find it amazing that anyone (average viewers in particular) would interpret this as "spoiling" the shot. Is this indeed the reason for the motive rejection in this case?
2H4
RE: Rules On Obstructions?
| Quoting 2H4 (Reply 21): Is this indeed the reason for the motive rejection in this case? |
'Fraid so. Valid rejection though I think - the cone is blocking the fuselage and therefore makes it an unclean shot. To me it would look far better without the obstruction. But then again I'm quite fussy about things like that.
Karl
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests