Bad Motive ?????

[Air2Air]

I just got a photo rejected because of "Bad Motive". Can someone explain to me what the heck that means. Normally you get some decent feedback on why it was rejected, not this time just the above comment.

Come on Chris if the screeners are going to start acting like the ones from Airliners this makes it no different. A proper explanation has been the telling difference between there and here.

Neville

P.S. Dont care if it is rejected, would at least like a proper reason.

[Greg]

They didn't see what you were trying to get a picture of. I don't see why you got that reason as you seem to be "motivated" to take pictures of Helicopters. I would appeal or re-submit it. Also could you post the picture in the forum, that would help the screeners see what bad "motivation" really is/is not.

[Leftseat86]

Hi Neville,

You might excuse my newbie status as screener here. I was looking at this shot for a long while, because it was very nice, but after talking to Chris we decided that it just did not show enough of the helicopter, and was also slightly blurred near the rotor shaft hub. So I decided on Badmotive and actually went into putting a rather long comment explaining why I thought it was nice but just lacked that special something to get added. I think you could probably try a similar angle on another Helo at dusk, but try to get it sharper and maybe have a little more of the chopper itself in the shot. Also, R-22s are quite common, had it been an Mi-8 or something maybe I would have given more leeway . Anyway, Chris just explained to me, and I realized, that when you choose one of those generic rejection reasons, you can't put a comment. A comment on a rejection can only be made when the screener chooses (other reason) from the pull down and types in his/her reason. I'm a firm believer in leaving a comment on rejections to help people fix a photo or understand why theirs did not make it in, that is something I also disliked at airliners.net So now that I know how to do that correctley, it won't happen again

Anyway, hope you'll excuse my lack of knowledge with that detail of the screening page!

-Clovis

[Braniffnut]

Could you provide a link to this photo, Neville?

Thomas

[Gerry]

Fascinating...

Also, R-22s are quite common, had it been an Mi-8 or something maybe I would have given more leeway

If Clovis was Hungarian, his quote would be reversed!



Gerry

j/k

[Air2Air]

Here is the image.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=26306

Now Leftseat I take issue with a number of things you have said in your post.

I was looking at this shot for a long while, because it was very nice, but after talking to Chris we decided that it just did not show enough of the helicopter, and was also slightly blurred near the rotor shaft hub. So I decided on Badmotive and actually went into putting a rather long comment explaining why I thought it was nice but just lacked that special something to get added. I think you could probably try a similar angle on another Helo at dusk, but try to get it sharper and maybe have a little more of the chopper itself in the shot. Also, R-22s are quite common, had it been an Mi-8 or something maybe I would have given more leeway

1. The reason it didnt show a lot of the helicopter and was blurred near the hub is because I shot it that way. Dont you think if I wanted to show more I would have??.

2. I wanted to shoot the R-22 at dusk and at that angle. How can you tell me I should go and shoot a different type of helo from a different angle. You might as well tell me I should have shot it in another country.

3. So favouritism plays its role here as well, thats dissapointing. Just because its not an Mi-8 or something else that goes against it. And because R-22s are so common that is a bad thing, and if it had been something else you would have given it more leeway. Very very dissapointing.

You know what Chris it seems like JP is no different to Airliners.net. Every photographer shoots aircraft from particular angles because thats what they want to do, to have someone say we would have accepted it had it been a different aircraft, from a different angle defeats the purpose of what we all do.

You say it lacks that certain something to be added, give me a break have you had a look through some of the images that get accepted

Anyway the issue is not whether the image is accepted or not, its the comments made by the screener. Anyway its your sandpit and you make the rules. Enjoy.

Air2Air.

[SWA733Captain]

I'm no screener by i can't really tell what your trying to achieve out of that photo either. I mean...it is blurred around the edges...and very noticably. Mabye the shot would have been better off with the entire heli in the frame instead of just the rotor blade. Bad Motive is pretty much the choice rejection when it doesn't fit any other categories. All my rejections at crapliners.net are Bad Motive. That's why i don't care for a.net to much. Every single wingview from my jetBlue flights were rejected from bad motive. Hence i have no idea why they were rejected. All im trying to say is that is it a nice shot, yes, the sunset really illuminated the underside of the rotor...try talking to Chris directly he might clear up the reason for the rejection as he hasn't posted in this thread yet...im still trying to figure out myself how to self screen a "Bad Motive"

[Chris Kilroy]

Neville,

1. The reason it didnt show a lot of the helicopter and was blurred near the hub is because I shot it that way. Dont you think if I wanted to show more I would have??.

I have no doubt that the shot turned out exactly as you intended.. and it is indeed a nice shot.

The fact is, however, that we, the screeners here, are faced with many, many so-called 'borderline' decisions each day, this being one of them. I'll state up front and directly that I agree with Clovis on this shot -- I don't believe it shows enough of the aircraft to be included in the database, especially when we reject, I'd guess, 25+ similarly composed shots every day.

2. I wanted to shoot the R-22 at dusk and at that angle. How can you tell me I should go and shoot a different type of helo from a different angle. You might as well tell me I should have shot it in another country.

I don't think he is saying that. I believe he's saying that had you done that, the photo would have had a greater chance of being accepted (obviously the case, as judging from your other photos in the database)

3. So favouritism plays its role here as well, thats dissapointing. Just because its not an Mi-8 or something else that goes against it. And because R-22s are so common that is a bad thing, and if it had been something else you would have given it more leeway. Very very dissapointing.

Of course, we provide more leeway for rarer subjects. In my view, this is not a bad thing.

You know what Chris it seems like JP is no different to Airliners.net. Every photographer shoots aircraft from particular angles because thats what they want to do, to have someone say we would have accepted it had it been a different aircraft, from a different angle defeats the purpose of what we all do.

I don't think such a blanket statement such as the one you make above is fair, nor accurate.

I believe that we have quite a lot of things going for us which the other site doesn't, including a commitment to really recognize creativity and 'interesting-ness' of a shot over technical perfection.

I do agree, however, that perhaps Clovis could have left out the part about 'had it been a different helicopter and angle.'

You say it lacks that certain something to be added, give me a break have you had a look through some of the images that get accepted

Agreed, bad choice of words.

Anyway the issue is not whether the image is accepted or not, its the comments made by the screener. Anyway its your sandpit and you make the rules. Enjoy.

Please remember, Neville, that the screeners are not the be-all, end-all here. If you disagree with a rejection, by all means, please use the Appeal function. I, alone, screen appeals, and I endeavor to explain exactly why I don't believe a shot fits in our database if the appeal is denied. You may not agree, but you shouldn't be left with questions as to where we're coming from.

You're a hell of a photographer -- I think we all recognize that -- and you have uploaded some absolutely astounding and amazing photos to JP.net. If no other way, this is reflected in the amount of views your images receive.

As I said above, though, I do agree with this rejection, for the stated reason (Bad Motive), as do 6 other screeners with whom I've conferred over the image. I appreciate the artistic nature of the photo, but I just don't think it 'fits' in our database.

Best Regards,

[JeffinDEN]

Ahh well.... It was bound to happen.....

Neville, it is a wonderful shot if you like it. Others may too. It would be great on Photosig.com or Pbase...

But I agree witht he others, but maybe not Bad Motive, how about "not enough aircraft"?

It would be excellent at poster size...

v/r
Jeff

[andyhunt]

Nevllie

My thoughts as a screener.

We always try to give a comment where possible on a rejection to help the photographer improve the photo to allow it to be uploaded after a fix. But:
1) Sometimes we don't have the time.
2) Some uploads are "unfixable" and therefore do not require a personal message.

I personally think that this photo falls under (2). The thoughts from the screeners are concurrent, and if I read the views mentioned in the thread here from some j.net members, then they also seem to concur that the rejcetion was correct.

Honestly, it is one rejection. It does not "set a negative screening trend", you have so many wonderful images here (look at the top views last 24 hours, I think you have the top 10 photos ) and we all get rejections from time to time that we probably (no definately) don't personally agree with, due to the personal stake we have in that image. I would smile, put it down to one of life's little mystery's, and move on with the next batch of stunners!

Andrew

[Air2Air]

Andy

Have a look at the screener comment in my latest post, that I was obviously not intended to see. Looks like this place is certainly no better than Airliners. Please dont screen anymore of my images as I request them to be deleted.

Neville

[SWA733Captain]

Neville, one rejection out of how many dude...big deal. Nobody's perfect. Note the newbie screener part of Clovis' post. I personally find you to be acting quite childish about this...

For you...

[atco]

SWA don't stress,

Neville has gone and thankfully won't be back.
Yup, he took nice pics, but the attitude and arrogance were too much.
Te way he handled one rejection was just a microcosm of his whole attitude........remember the undignified slaughtering of Serge a few months ago?

Good riddance I say, now lets get on with more important things.

[egll]

This is an unfortunate turn of events, but I have to admit that when I opened up the picture I couldn't see what it supposed to be about-it's a rathe dark picture of a helicopter blade and whether it is a rare helicopter or not makes no difference to me as I can only see the blade. It was a fair rejection in my book.

So Air2Air has removed all his pictures because he doesn't understand what 'badmotiv' is and didn't get a personal message with the rejection....seems very short sighted to me



Matt

[atco]

Matt,

There are other things going on with Neville, basically the screeners became so "afraid" to reject any of his pics because of the attitude and fallout we would get, we started to pass anything borderline on to Chris.

It became unfair because he was getting special treatment in a way, because we knew what the reaction would be if we rejected one of his shots, which he then demonstrated by acting the way he has.

Anyway Matt, why aren't you out shooting att the 'row in this Sun?
I'm working today

Cheers

Garry