Quoting scbriml (Reply 49): I'm particularly interested in whether 16:9 images will be accepted.

I know SOOOO many people for whom this would be interesting.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 49): While we're discussing this, is there any chance that the creative team's remit will include shots with different aspect ratios? I'm particularly interested in whether 16:9 images will be accepted.

I think this would be the perfect time for such a move, but who really knows with this site?

Quoting clickhappy: Perhaps someday we will entertain new ratios, but it won't be a discussion that takes place as a result of a mistake.

From: A.Net Now Accepting 16x9 Ratio Images? (by Elmdon Apr 15 2015 in Aviation Photography)

Well, there's no mistake under consideration at the moment, and change seems to be the flavour of the hour (week? month?)

So why not? 16:9 and 16:10 are common digital resolutions - I recall reading somewhere recently that 1366x768 is now one of the most widely used resolutions in the world, and that is a 16:9 screen. The Steam hardware survey (granted, gamers are not photographers, but they make up a HUGE chunk of content consuming internet users) has 1080p 16:9 widescreen displays as the most common resolution by some margin.

See: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

The vast majority of tablets also have widescreen displays.

When announcing the amended "double" rule, we were told:

Quoting clickhappy: Simple - the photos are good for business (page views). That's the business this website is in.

From: Note : Update And Change To The Double Rule (by andyhunt Jul 18 2015 in Aviation Photography)

If this site is in the business of page views (we know Demand Media loves their ad revenue) then making life easy for a huge majority of internet users with widescreen displays, at no cost to the non-widescreen crowd should be a no-brainer.

Anyway, that's my 2¢ on the subject, I will try and avoid the shouting match that so often follows calls for change around these parts 

Cheers
A

The only reason 3:2 is a standard here is because that's what old 35mm slide film was shot in and that's what the avphot community traded in before the internet. 4:3 is OK because that's what the first generation of digital cameras shot in; this is now a rarity except for 4/3rds cameras. There are cameras out there that have native aspect ratios other than these, such as medium format cameras which shot 6x4 or square roll film (and their modern digital counterparts who continue the same). Other film formats had different aspect ratios as well. The only rationale I could see for not allowing other aspect ratios (and this includes square, 5:4, and so on) is that imperfections are cropped out. Which is true, but if the image has the same image quality and the only thing keeping it out is that it's a 16:9 (e.g. an otherwise perfect sunny side-on) is arbitrary. IMO, the right crop is dependent upon the image, and sometimes a wider format image looks better than a taller one. As long as it has 800 vertical pixels of resolution, who cares if it's wider? We're not on itsy bitsy 17 inch CRTs anymore, even the average entry level laptop is pushing 1080P these days.

This also, by the way, goes for the "no black and white photos except for classic aircraft" rule, which I would expect to see tossed at some point as well. Black and white is a perfectly valid artistic medium.

Quoting dvincent (Reply 52): The only rationale I could see for not allowing other aspect ratios (and this includes square, 5:4, and so on) is that imperfections are cropped out.

That is not a rationale at all. I've cropped out plenty of "imperfections" at a 3:2 or 4:3 ratio.

Usually happens when my lens isn't long enough, so I crop in to achieve the framing I want.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 53): That is not a rationale at all. I've cropped out plenty of "imperfections" at a 3:2 or 4:3 ratio.

I'm not saying it's a GOOD rationale, just the only one I could think of, hence the sentence immediately after that describes the current situation as arbitrary.

Quoting dvincent (Reply 54): I'm not saying it's a GOOD rationale, just the only one I could think of, hence the sentence immediately after that describes the current situation as arbitrary.

Gotcha, OK.

Quoting dvincent (Reply 52): This also, by the way, goes for the "no black and white photos except for classic aircraft" rule, which I would expect to see tossed at some point as well. Black and white is a perfectly valid artistic medium.

That would also be nice.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 48): Airports are a working environment and not a display surface for aviation photographers and their preferred subjects so while I agree that not half or even a quarter of an aircraft should be blocked on a photo I fail to see why photos with very small obstructions are still so obstinately rejected.

Agreed.

Hi Thierry,

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 48): It has been relaxed a bit not so long ago but imo it is still ridiculous sometimes what is being rejected because of motive when the tiniest bit (talking of less than 1%) of an aircraft is blocked by some equipment.

It would be great if you could provide some examples in order to understand what you mean with "tiniest bit". We have been changing this and you might have noticed that pictures that previously would have been rejected for really tiny blockages are now accepted.

We still want to have a good view of the main subject, that is the aircraft, this is still Airlines.net and not Airportequipment.net   !

Cheers,
Andres

Quoting acontador (Reply 56): It would be great if you could provide some examples in order to understand what you mean with "tiniest bit".

Obstruction

Hi Andres,

see attached photo as an example. That is the most recent one but I can provide you with a couple more examples if you wish. The photos I am talking about have been through the normal screening and through the appeal process so it is not a matter of some photo that was rejected by mistake.

I fully agree that the main subject of a photo here should remain the aircraft but I think we'll agree that on the attached photo this is clearly the case. On top of that it was showing a new paint scheme for that airplane which would have been interesting for a database which Airliners.net still claims to be...

Cheers,

Thierry

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 57): I fully agree that the main subject of a photo here should remain the aircraft but I think we'll agree that on the attached photo this is clearly the case.

Agreed!
Should be in the data base, in my oh so humble opinion.

No Tax On Rotax

Hi Thierry,

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 57): see attached photo as an example

Thanks. May I ask you a question? Wasn't it possible for you to step a little to the right when taking the picture, and thus avoiding any obstruction at all?
I'd say here this is the main problem, that is the obstruction seems avoidable, coupled with the very prominent starting cart and that you had a good part of the NLG door and part of the nose obstructed.

We can discuss if this represents the "tiniest bit" or not, but I think the HS already cleared that by upholding the rejection.

Cheers,
Andres

Quoting acontador (Reply 59): Wasn't it possible for you to step a little to the right when taking the picture

Sometimes it's just impossible either by security reason or just because you have no time to check and can discover such obstruction (or after shooting once-in-a-lifetime photo of same rare plane/event that small part of wingtip or tail is cut off for example) only when you are back home at your computer. I not post this to discuss rules, but sometimes it's just impossible. Period. By current rules it's no-go so I just count this as bad spotters luck and discard such photos.

Quoting acontador (Reply 59): Wasn't it possible for you to step a little to the right when taking the picture, and thus avoiding any obstruction at all?

Hey Andres,

to answer your question, no, it was not possible for me to get any further to the right to take the photo otherwise I would have done so.
My point is that if you don't specifically look for it you won't even notice right away that some aircraft part is blocked yet along the current upload criteria such photos will be rejected for no apparent reason other than "tradition" to put it bluntly.
A.net nowadays accepts sometimes major obstructions (e.g. museum exhibits, Air-to-ground shots, maintenance action,...) yet such minor obstructions as the one above keep to be rejected obstinately. For what greater good, if I may ask? Imo it is not a matter of whether the obstruction was avoidable or not; sometimes it may be sometimes it won't and mostly the screeners would be unable to tell whether it was or not.

So why not use good and fair judgement as you (the screeners) intend to do with the creative photos, as laid out by Peter, and become a bit more lenient with minor obstructions? A guideline might be, as hinted at above, if one as to look for the obstruction and it is not apparent at first sight, than it should be accepted.

Anyway, just adding my thoughts here.

Cheers,

Thierry

[Edited 2015-09-03 08:49:55]

Quoting acontador (Reply 59): I'd say here this is the main problem, that is the obstruction seems avoidable,

But that is not at all for sure!
Maybe there was a wall next to him.
Maybe he got called away by security (happens to me a lot!)
Maybe there was another disturbance in between himself and the plane.
Heck, maybe his battery died?
This photographer produced this (good quality) unique image and it meets the following requirement, as stated by you:

Quoting acontador (Reply 56): We still want to have a good view of the main subject,

That piece of equipment is not the main subject, I am sure you´d agree.

Quoting acontador (Reply 59): We can discuss if this represents the "tiniest bit" or not, but I think the HS already cleared that by upholding the rejection.

But that is what we are discussing here, right?
About being a tad more flexible, for future calls?

Cheers!

No Tax On Rotax

[Edited 2015-09-03 08:42:34]

Hi Thierry,

I fully understand your point, and I can only say that currently our upload guidelines clearly state (amongst others) for acceptable motives as follows:

- Photos with distracting or obstructing objects in the foreground (this is especially true for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common nature and the large amount of equipment which usually surrounds the aircraft). Ramp Vehicles (including tugs, loaders, baggage carts, etc...) 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, and ground crew are allowed to block any part if not too prominent, which is at our discretion) [2] below the window line [3] part of active operations (this amendment is meant to exclude any aircraft parked with equipment in front of it. 'Active operations' is meant to include those aircraft actively loading or unloading.).

- Please note our updated rules for museum type shots. Permanent obstructions (such as steps, fences, or signs) that could not have been avoided by composing the shot differently are acceptable. A tighter crop should also be a consideration to avoid major permanent obstructions. Minor obstructions such as chains or ropes should be positioned to not seriously detract from the image. Temporary obstructions (such as people, cars, or other moveable objects) will lead to a rejection. Cones are ok if unavoidable (i.e. by shooting from different angle) and not obstructing too much. How much is 'too much' will again be at our discretion.

- Air-to-ground shots (i.e. taken from an aircraft of a subject on the ground) will be exempt from most obstruction rules due to the difficulty in obtaining them.

This is the current definition on acceptable blockage, and your picture clearly does not comply (blocked by ground equipment not part of active operation).

Setting up "rules" or any other parameters for screening pictures will always mean that there will be pictures that (maybe just slightly) do not comply with them, and somewhere a line must be drawn, otherwise this site will be no different than any of the other "image storage" sites. These rules are definitely not written in stone, and I think that the screening team has shown the willingness not only to open up for discussion but also concretely change the criteria (see double rule, the obstructions for Air-to-ground shots, the Creative Team), and we are continuously evaluating further refinements, so keep watching this space for more good news   .

Cheers,
Andres

[Edited 2015-09-03 10:32:37]

Hi Andres,

Quoting acontador (Reply 63): This is the current definition on acceptable blockage, and your picture clearly does not comply (blocked by ground equipment not part of active operation).

yes, I am aware of the current rules and that is why I eventually accepted the rejection. I understand this thread is not meant to discuss past rejections and that is not my intend. However since we are discussing "creative" and some more leniency towards certain photos why not discuss, in the same go, this kind of motive rejections?

See, my question is, to what greater good are photos rejected where an aircraft is blocked so little by some equipment? You say 'somewhere a line must be drawn, otherwise this site will be no different than any of the other "image storage" sites' and I hear you on that. However for me this is not a convincing argument. Let me tell you why. In the early days here photos which were backlit were rejected, simple as that; with only very little exceptions. Than, a few years ago, the headscreeners decided that some backlit shots were acceptable. They had their reasons and since then this was not a clear cut decision anymore, the screeners would use their best judgement to decide whether a backlit photo would be acceptable or not.
Then why stick so stubbornly to this obstruction rules when sometimes there is a good reason why such a photo should be accepted, namely when the obstruction is only minor and the photo would add something to the database? Clearly this cannot be because then A.net would be no different to other "image storage" sites. I believe the screeners would be more than capable of telling a minor blockage from a major one and hence the quality of the accepted photos would not diminish.

So, excuse me for being obtrusive but as long as I don't hear a convincing reason as to why minor obstructions keep getting rejections when there are tons of reasons why this makes not so much sense I'll keep asking the question and hope that the screening criteria will be adjusted in that matter some day.

Cheers,

Thierry

Hello Thierry  

Had a look at your image and have to agree with Andres.

While there is only a small part obstructed it just doesn't work for me.

Take care

Best regards

Gary

Hey Gary,

thanks for your opinion!

I believe it is not merely a matter of whether it works for someone or not. Imo it is a question of what is allowed into the Airliners.net database and what isn't. The word "database" already means that something is recorded and collected here and in his initial post Peter confirmed that this status is being maintained. However, how good is a database if it refuses entries that just slightly don't match criteria which are at least disputable. The phrase "looking to accept" comes into mind here which is a motto along which we were told to screen when I (and you) were still screeners but which I greatly miss today on many occasions.

As said above, the screeners chose to make exceptions for a number of upload criteria and I cannot see why this one should not be granted exceptions. I am still waiting for a valid argument.

Cheers,

Thierry

Is this a good example of the new Creative Team at work?


View Large View Medium

Photo © Akira Uekawa


I would't have thought this would be an A-net type of shot.
No disrespect to the photographer, good on him / her.....but it reminded me of this thread!



No Tax On Rotax

I'm all for the relaxation of rules to allow creativity but I don't think this should mean a drop in standards.

Now perhaps Thierry could have got a better angle, perhaps not - let's assume this is the best possible shot at the time.

But by letting it in, surely that's an open invitation for countless more uploads with the same problem - including an inevitably increasing number of shots which were the result of carelessness.

The paint scheme may be new, but cannot be said to be rare - there will doubtless be other uploads without obstructions. I could see "special pleading" if this were, say, a new subject from the 60s, but not here.

Cheers,

Colin

My mate just had this picture accepted.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Tavo Cruz



Pretty cool, is this an example of the new creative rules?

I'd still like to see examples, if possible!


Cheers,


No Tax On Rotax

Hi Colin,

Quoting ckw (Reply 68): I don't think this should mean a drop in standards

do you think allowing photos with minor obstructions would be a drop in standards? If yes, why? A.net allows photos with large obstructions on some motives; would you consider that as a drop in standards as well? If not, why not?

Quoting ckw (Reply 68): But by letting it in, surely that's an open invitation for countless more uploads with the same problem - including an inevitably increasing number of shots which were the result of carelessness.

I will have to disagree. When A.net started to increasingly accept backlit shots this was not considered a problem of carelessness and although more of these shots can now regularly be seen accepted into the database this is not considered as a drop in standards by most people.

Quoting ckw (Reply 68): The paint scheme may be new, but cannot be said to be rare - there will doubtless be other uploads without obstructions. I could see "special pleading" if this were, say, a new subject from the 60s, but not here.

The photo was taken on May 30th this year. It is now more than 3 months later and still no photo of that aircraft in that paint scheme was uploaded to A.net. For a database, lacking that far behind for something that is new is poor imo.

However too much focus (yes, I was aware that there was a danger for that) is now being put on that one photo I displayed here and not enough attention is given to the actual point I want to bring across. I'll try to shift focus by showing another example of what I mean:

Obstruction 2

Rather rare image of 3 Cargolux Jumbos stacked together. Rejected only for "obstruction in front of engine". In fact I only noticed the obstruction after I got the rejection. Would it be a drop in standards to allow such a photo in? I would answer with a clear "No" as the motive clearly outweighs the minor obstruction which in this photo really isn't prominent.

My point really is consistency. Many upload criteria are allowed exceptions, even the former killer "blurry" is now judged to be acceptable if the conditions of the shooting of the photo are deemed difficult (e.g. Air New Zealand 787 photo, which has been discussed at great lengths here a couple weeks ago). So why not introduce a bit more leniency for obstructions as mentioned above?
Still haven't heard a convincing reason.

Cheers,

Thierry

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 67): Is this a good example of the new Creative Team at work?

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 69): is this an example of the new creative rules?

Yes

A few recent ones:

View Large View Medium Photo © Paul McCarthy

View Large View Medium Photo © Braccini Riccardo - Avioreporter

View Large View Medium Photo © André Garcez - NewsAvia

View Large View Medium Photo © Pierre Cester

I've seen some nice photos which I assume are creative shots such as the night photo of that fighter jet with flares and the IB A340-300 taken at night in TLV. Nice to have these creative shots here. I also would like to see more examples of creative shots so I can see what is looked at when looking at creativity. I know this probably is difficult but at least it gives us some idea. I really hope my photo will be accepted as a creative shot.


A388

Quoting ghajdufi (Reply 71): A few recent ones:

You're used to me dissenting, so this should be no surprise. The only one here that I think may not have made it under the "old" rules is the helicopter shot. There is precedent for all the rest.

Cheers
Angad

Quoting angad84 (Reply 74): You're used to me dissenting, so this should be no surprise. The only one here that I think may not have made it under the "old" rules is the helicopter shot. There is precedent for all the rest.

There is precedent, but in the past images like these would be hit or miss whether they would get in or not. With the recent changes there is an active effort to make sure we get as many of these as possible.

Of course people like to nay-say on this site. However, I think if we open our minds up just a little bit, we can admit that, while similar images have been accepted in the past, the frequency and numbers have increased with the new team and guidance.

Pete

Quoting ghajdufi (Reply 71): Yes A few recent ones:

Quoting alevik (Reply 75): With the recent changes there is an active effort to make sure we get as many of these as possible.

From my end....thanks very much!
Interesting!


No Tax On Rotax

Those examples are great shots, but those such as the Qantas A380 and the AW-139 would be quite impossible for the vast majority (I should think) of us to take, we just don't get those opportunities. Great to see, however!

Quoting alevik (Reply 75): There is precedent, but in the past images like these would be hit or miss whether they would get in or not. With the recent changes there is an active effort to make sure we get as many of these as possible.

Fair. This is all music to my ears TBH. Personally, I'm not even close to being in the same league as the more creative shooters around here, but if it means I get to see and enjoy more such images, I'm all for it!

Cheers
A

Quoting ghajdufi (Reply 71): A few recent ones:

Hi!
What about theese?
A/c flypass over the RWY to check problems with landing gear - rejected for distance


Rainbow over the airport - rejected for blocked a/c


Regards,
Oleg

More examples:

View Large View Medium Photo © Kas van Zonneveld

View Large View Medium Photo © Danijel Jovanovic - AirTeamImages

Oleg, I'm ok with the low pass. The rainbow though is not prominent enough and the foreground is cluttered. This is just what I think and others might have completely different opinions.

While there is a debate about creativity and 'quality' why not think about raising file size as a 1Meg restriction is only going to restrict quality not enhance it?

Quoting jid (Reply 80): 1Meg restriction is only going to restrict quality not enhance it?

Also A.net compress uploaded 1Mb photos to ~500kb anyway.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 70): do you think allowing photos with minor obstructions would be a drop in standards? If yes, why? A.net allows photos with large obstructions on some motives; would you consider that as a drop in standards as well? If not, why not?

I think there is a distinction between a shot with temporary obstructions and cases where there are fixed obstructions with no other options. But of course each has to be considered on a case by case.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 70): I will have to disagree. When A.net started to increasingly accept backlit shots this was not considered a problem of carelessness and although more of these shots can now regularly be seen accepted into the database this is not considered as a drop in standards by most people.

But by this very post are you not making my point for me? If one gets in, then it will be continually cited as a precedent.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 70): The photo was taken on May 30th this year. It is now more than 3 months later and still no photo of that aircraft in that paint scheme was uploaded to A.net. For a database, lacking that far behind for something that is new is poor imo.

Bit surprising but again that's a judgement call on the screeners whether to make an exception - I don't think it should mean a relaxation of the rule in general.

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 70): Rather rare image of 3 Cargolux Jumbos stacked together. Rejected only for "obstruction in front of engine". In fact I only noticed the obstruction after I got the rejection. Would it be a drop in standards to allow such a photo in? I would answer with a clear "No" as the motive clearly outweighs the minor obstruction which in this photo really isn't prominent.

I guess I have 2 answers to this. 1 - I think the obstruction is fixed, hence unavoidable, so should have been accepted all things considered. 2 - you say you didn't notice, well I'd say it's your job to notice. So referring back to the original example, I have to ask did you notice the obstruction when you took the pic? Could you have changed angle slightly?

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 70): My point really is consistency. Many upload criteria are allowed exceptions, even the former killer "blurry" is now judged to be acceptable if the conditions of the shooting of the photo are deemed difficult (e.g. Air New Zealand 787 photo, which has been discussed at great lengths here a couple weeks ago). So why not introduce a bit more leniency for obstructions as mentioned above?

Exceptions are exactly that ... the screeners can always choose to ignore a rule in a particular case (not always justifiably perhaps) but presumably have to be accountable for that decision. This is very different to relaxing a rule (ie. changing it) as then you'll have exceptions to that and so on down the slippery slope.

At the end of the day, I assume the reasoning behind the rule change on creativity is to permit the uploading of images which add a new dimension to the database. I don't see why anyone should interpret this as accepting shots not up to current standards without an interesting creative element.

Cheers,

Colin

Quoting jid (Reply 80): While there is a debate about creativity and 'quality' why not think about raising file size as a 1Meg restriction is only going to restrict quality not enhance it?

There is some work going on behind the scenes on the site, and this is one of the "asks", among many others for upgrades.

Pete

I am excited to hear about these changes. Unlike many, I haven't had a large number of shots binned for being too creative. The only one that ever irked me a little was this shot of an Etihad A340 at JFK. I considered myself quite lucky to have had the airport train pass by at precisely the same moment as the aircraft, and I thought it made for a unique composition

IMG_88a60 by Nicholas Peterman, on Flickr

It was rejected and I was told the train was too distracting, and that the aircraft was not the clear subject of the photo. I appealed, making reference to the numerous LAX photos of the (mostly) nude TAO billboard that features an aircraft shoehorned in the top of the frame, or the In'n'Out/Maho Beach shots that feature buildings or people more than aircraft but to no avail...

This wound up being the shot in the DB. Can't help but feeling it's a lot more boring  
View Large View Medium

Photo © Nicholas Peterman


Would love to hear if anyone thinks the first version would stand a chance today. Some sort of reupload and replace feature would be super cool for similar such moments  

This is a great thread with very good discussion. I will start a new thread, in the Av Photography feedback forum, intended to post images to get feedback on whether they fit under the creative guidelines. in that way, we can keep the discussion going and help create the riverbanks on this very subjective topic.
Creative Or No? Examples For Consideration (by alevik Sep 7 2015 in Photography Feedback)

Pete

[Edited 2015-09-08 00:33:07 by moderators]

Quoting alevik (Thread starter): - The colour of an image is judged acceptable if it matches the colour of a mid-morning or mid-afternoon side-on. Cast for the lighting conditions found in early morning or evening or night time are often rejected for not looking as though they were taken mid-day.

I remember plenty of shots by numerous photographers with visible casts from the older days that were accepted (early morning or late evening shots). I remember when I would submit such shots, I used to just include a note that it was from that time. I would use the standard daylight white balance setting for those (5250k) for shots in summer at 7:30pm or 8:00pm. I should clarify that when I say visible casts, I'm really just talking about the normal, natural ambient light conditions rather than any casts introduced by improper processing of the image.

Quoting AlexC (Reply 76): Those examples are great shots, but those such as the Qantas A380 and the AW-139 would be quite impossible for the vast majority (I should think) of us to take, we just don't get those opportunities. Great to see, however!

The A380 shot is perfectly easy to get if you come to Sydney, find a friend and you each pay your $440 to the helicopter firm, get weighed and do the first timer briefing and up you go to do your helicopter spotting. Once you've done it a few times it is pretty ordinary/run of the mill stuff.



I even had one where we chased a large jet down the runway as it took off. I don't do that stuff any more but if you were down this way and really wanted to try it I'd be happy to split the costs with you and give someone else a go at it. I'll just sit in the back seat and watch.

I think the Kas van Zonneveld photo highlighted earlier is a great creative image.

[Edited 2015-09-07 15:50:35]

Quoting npeterman (Reply 84): Would love to hear if anyone thinks the first version would stand a chance today.

For me , yes.
The skytrain is aviation related up to a point that the pic works for me......but alas, I decide nothing though!


No Tax On Rotax

Quoting npeterman (Reply 84): It was rejected and I was told the train was too distracting,

This shot would work for me perfectly if the train was not cut in half. This crop makes the train look like an obstruction but a photo with a train in the foreground of an aircraft departing would tell a story.

Quoting cpd (Reply 86): I think the Kas van Zonneveld photo highlighted earlier is a great creative image.

I agree.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Kas van Zonneveld

Quoting ghajdufi (Reply 88): This shot would work for me perfectly if the train was not cut in half. This crop makes the train look like an obstruction but a photo with a train in the foreground of an aircraft departing would tell a story.

Totally fair! I appreciate the feedback. Truth is the train is less cut in the uncropped version, this was done to center the aircraft more properly. Regardless, the train was running in an above ground bridge, so concrete would have made part of the train obstructed either way.

Such is life...

Hey Colin,

Quoting ckw (Reply 82): But by this very post are you not making my point for me? If one gets in, then it will be continually cited as a precedent.

Not exactly as it would be up to the screeners to judge whether a precedent is deemed valid or not.

Quoting ckw (Reply 82): Bit surprising but again that's a judgement call on the screeners whether to make an exception - I don't think it should mean a relaxation of the rule in general.

Why not? There is a relaxation of rules for about any reason that the screeners judge justified, so why not for minor obstructions, especially if it means that the database would be richer?

Quoting ckw (Reply 82): well I'd say it's your job to notice. So referring back to the original example, I have to ask did you notice the obstruction when you took the pic? Could you have changed angle slightly?

You are right, I should have noticed but even if I had it would not have changed anything as this was the best angle I could get. As for the other photo, as already said, no, I could not change my angle any further.

Quoting ckw (Reply 82): This is very different to relaxing a rule (ie. changing it) as then you'll have exceptions to that and so on down the slippery slope.

I agree but again, rules have been changed for other rejection criteria, so why not for "motive" when it comes to minor obstructions?

Quoting ckw (Reply 82): At the end of the day, I assume the reasoning behind the rule change on creativity is to permit the uploading of images which add a new dimension to the database. I don't see why anyone should interpret this as accepting shots not up to current standards without an interesting creative element.

Yes, and that is why I mentioned before that I do not see "minor obstructions" as something that should be added as "creative". I just think that while boundaries are being stretched a bit, that it would be great to try to stretch them in that direction as well.

All I am asking really is why no flexibility is welcome on this criterion when it is very much so on other criteria?

I haven't heard anything from the screeners yet on that question, which is a bit disappointing. I would love to hear their reason(s) for not wanting to allow these kind of shots in.

Cheers,

Thierry

Hi Thierry,

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 90): I haven't heard anything from the screeners yet on that question, which is a bit disappointing. I would love to hear their reason(s) for not wanting to allow these kind of shots in.

Probably because last time I counted there's 40 of us, and no one by himself changes anything.

I can give you my personal opinion, for what it's worth, and that is that we have relaxed quite a bit the motive rules with respect of obstruction in the last couple of years, and for me we have arrived at what I personally would deem as a good compromise.

In the end, to me at least it is important not to forget that we want the best possible quality photographs, and pictures such as yours simply look like they could be improved by avoiding the obstruction. Remember, we as screeners don't know the story behind the picture, we just see the end result (of the picture and the editing).

That is simply my take on it, one in 40   !

Cheers,
Andres

[Edited 2015-09-10 04:54:21]

Hi Andres,

thanks for your input, it is much appreciated.

Quoting acontador (Reply 91): Probably because last time I counted there's 40 of us, and no one by himself changes anything.

Certainly true but while we are having a discussion, wouldn't it be great for the guys most directly concerned (namely the screeners) to participate?  

Quoting acontador (Reply 91): and pictures such as yours simply look like they could be improved by avoiding the obstruction. Remember, we as screeners don't know the story behind the picture, we just see the end result (of the picture and the editing).

I get that point, Andres, I really do but isn't that also true for other obstructions or for backlit shots? With a bit of a different angle or waiting a couple of seconds (or minutes) one would also be able to get a "nicer" shot. Yet, exceptions are allowed for those but not for minor obstructions. I would love to understand why? And so far, excuse me for repeating myself, but I just couldn't hear a good reason for it.

Cheers,

Thierry

Hi Thierry,

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 92): Yet, exceptions are allowed for those but not for minor obstructions.

That is exactly the point that you are missing, since there ARE exceptions for minor obstructions in place, but at least I (and if I recall correctly also the HS through their decision on the appeal) think that the obstruction in your picture does not warrant such exception.
In other words, I wouldn't generalize as you do and just keep it circumscribed to your picture; the obstruction in your picture is not a minor one as we define it, it's distracting and since it is a ground equipment not part of an active operation, deemed avoidable.

If we would be talking about a cone obstructing the NLG, that is another story...you see, we do make exceptions, just your picture doesn't qualify!

Sorry mate  

Cheers,
Andres

Is leniency being granted to "normal" shots, i.e. shots that, in the past, wouldn't fall into the "creative" category, with respect to grain and level? The two shots I'm ambiguously referencing are sunny side taxi and approach shots that suffer from grain and level respectively.

Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 94): Is leniency being granted to "normal" shots, i.e. shots that, in the past, wouldn't fall into the "creative" category, with respect to grain and level? The two shots I'm ambiguously referencing are sunny side taxi and approach shots that suffer from grain and level respectively.

Perhaps the odd mistaken one that snuck through. One of mine made it and was axed just yesterday, so if you email the headscreeners with examples (it seems the old quality team has disbanded) they will probably take care of it.

Cheers
A