Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you agree with this rejected picture?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Do you agree with this rejected picture?

    Hello,

    Talking with my friend Diego Romero, I got with a question: Do you think this picture was fairly screened?

    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1057567




    The main subject is the A319 on takeoff run, and the background scenery (the ray)

    Reason(s) For Rejection:
    - Part of aircraft cut off


    - Subject too far / too much dead space
    - Horizon unlevel
    - Bad motive




    The screener may thought about the Martinair's A319 (which is actually an A320 leased from Taca/Lacsa) I'm completely in agree that this plane is overexposed. The horizon, if the control tower was made by fake engineers, it's unleveled, or if the tripod had a smaller leg . Check for the small planes at the right zone of the shot. Also the background is an elevated terrain which has some hills.

    The motive, I don't see anything wrong with this one: Night shot

    Some night shots are very good, even Screener Choices in here, and I think this one should be in. Some great shots are more valuable for the site visitors than the editors in here, and may be rejected.

    What do you think? Just helping Diego with the forum, he had no time to write in here

  • #2
    I know the TACA A320 taking off is the subject point , but it didn't help having the Martinair 320 cut off , looks too un natural , you'll also notice that this is just a stream of light side on , most of the streaming light pics in the database are taken either head on or 3/4 angle this shot just doesn't do it for me. It just looks like a white line on the runway to me and the martinari A320 seems to distract my eye and make it the subject point

    [photoid=540782]
    [photoid=5660203]

    I'm not saying that 3/4 or head on views are compulsary but they have a better effect and motive overall.


    There are other means of going about these things such as getting your mate to appeal the rejection or contact the screeners or admin driectly.

    Comment


    • #3
      He really contacted you guys, but he got a blank mail:


      From: [email protected]
      Reply-To: [email protected]
      To: *****@hotmail.com
      Subject: JetPhotos.Net Photo Rejection Appeal Results
      Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:27:11 -0500
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Your appeal for photo id 1057567 has been processed and has been rejected.
      Admin Comments >>
      >> http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=1057567


      He's not JP Elite, so he cannot write here
      Last edited by meneses24; 2006-07-10, 04:36.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's been rejected which means the Senior Screener or Admin agreed with the rejection reasons as I stated in my first post. Sorry !

        Comment


        • #5
          In my opinion, the photo is fine, specially with the lightning in the background. I actually thought it was going to be a pretty viewed shot but well, rejected. To add a few words, I'll say it again, Jp.net is supposed to llok for good shots which will generate views and popularity, something that this shot could very well do and I think it is not fair that many other dull shots get accepted and something like this not.

          I'll even quote what it says in the "About Us Page:"

          We're people who don't believe that one should have to own a $5000 camera, and be a professional photographer, to get their photos accepted into an online airliner photo database.
          This is just my 5 cents to this, hope not to get battered as usual.

          Tomas.

          Comment


          • #6
            there you go again.

            Originally posted by tomas_cubero
            Jp.net is supposed to llok for good shots which will generate views and popularity, something that this shot could very well do.
            Tomas.
            We do look for good shots and this unfortunately doesn't fit the so called 'good shot' criteria , I've outlined everything and explained it all to you.
            It's been rejected by two seperate screeners PLUS and amin/snr screener,
            no amount of whining or moaning can change that
            I suggest you take a pill and get over it
            Last edited by Will M; 2006-07-10, 05:36.

            Comment


            • #7
              If the Martinair aircraft was not meant to be the main focus of the shot, but instead the aircraft departing, imagine looking at the same shot without the Martinair there. It would certainly be a very boring shot, showing a few background lights with a streak of light running across the middle of the shot. Nothing interesting here at all. Including the A320 opens the shot to a whole new range of rejections for not compossing that part of the shot correctly (eg cut off, overexposed).

              Originally posted by tomas_cubero
              In my opinion, the photo is fine, specially with the lightning in the background.
              Looking at that shot the first time, i didn't even notice that lightning. Just looks like a glow in the sky to me, could be anything. Using a natural effect to get a photo accepted can be used in some circumstances and this is not one of them. Take a look at some of Colin Parker's lightning shots from HKG, these are excellant examples of using the weather to create a dramatic effect.

              Cheers
              Brendan

              Comment


              • #8
                As a rule of thumb: if you have to explain the motive of a photo too long, there's something wrong with the photo.

                Originally posted by tomas_cubero
                In my opinion, the photo is fine, specially with the lightning in the background.
                Well, in the opinion of at least 2 screeners, one senior screener and more crew members the photo simply is not fine enough.

                Gerardo
                My photos on Flickr www.flickr.com/photos/geridominguez

                Comment


                • #9
                  Some points.

                  1. horizon is unlevel
                  2. Matinair cut-off and overexposed is very distracting
                  3. the line of light from the TACA is just a line of light. It could have been a car for all that matters. Those line of light shots do only work in shots like Will showed
                  4. if he would have used a shorter shutter time, whith the TACA appearing ghostlike (but visible as a plane) and the Martinair not overexposed and cut-off, then it would have been a very good shot. Anoter option would have been to make the Martinair the subject (not overexposed not cut-off) and have the light line from the TACA as an interesting background effect
                  Last edited by seahawk; 2006-07-10, 08:44.
                  My photo editing guide - updated and improved Feb. 2010
                  My Nikon D100,D200,D300, D800, D7200 basic spotting settings guide
                  ACIG - the best resource for military aviation information

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Will, Brendan, Gerardo and Stefan, you do have your points. I have seen Colin's lightning shots before, which are really amazing. I have done lightning photography before and it is really exciting, its easy since you get a lot of time to get the lighning, dificult thing is to focus and setup the camera properly. My best shot of lightning is this one:



                    Getting back to topic, I guess if the plane would have rotated before, it would have been much better and if he would of not cutoff the MPH A320 or overexposed it, it would look much better.

                    I have done streaming photograhpy also, it seems that this applies too. My accepted shots show the aircraft climbing and not just a straight line, furthermore not so long ago I uploaded three similar "straight line" shots and they got rejected, some accepted ones are:

                    [photoid=5648681]
                    [photoid=5695884]
                    [photoid=5761127]

                    Regards,
                    Tomas.
                    Last edited by tomas_cubero; 2006-07-10, 08:19. Reason: Added Night Shots

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      First thing to note..... Out of 9 responses, 4 were from JP crew. That's a better ratio than the other site by miles and tells me that JP crew do indeed take an avid interest in members posts.

                      As far as the picture is concerned a school teacher would probably say "A nice try, but must try harder". I walked away and came back to the pic several times and each time I looked it still said "Two white lines on an uninteresting background with a distracting, out-of-focus, overexposed and cutoff plane in the foreground".

                      Night photography, with the long exposures that it entails, is probably one of the most difficult ways to use the photography medium. It is something that, in my old days of monochrome film photography, cost me an absolute fortune in materials to get right. We're talking about sometimes 1 in 500 shots being good enough to display at competition level, the kind of level that JP requires. A good night photograph was once described to me by a highly respected photography judge as being a picture "That stops me bang in my tracks and makes me say WOW! "

                      Tell Diego to keep practising and experimenting, don't give up and he'll get a picture that makes screeners choice one day, probably long before I do.

                      To get back to the original question....Yes, I do think the picture was fairly screened.

                      ......Oh, and by the way Tomas, That's a cracking lightning picture.
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'd have to agree with the screeners on this one. It's a neat photo and it's great that you're putting in the effort for night shots (I've spent many hours on it myself), but the overexposed aircraft at the bottom certainly takes away from the appeal of the photo.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yeah, I agree with what have already been said. Its too bad about the cutoff A320. It would have been a nice shot if it was out of the frame or not overexed !
                          Inactive from May 1 2009.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That photo was screened perfectly fairly. When you open the photo your eye is directed towards the plane which is clearly cut off. Regardless of where you intended the eye to look the subject is clearly the cut off plane.
                            Last edited by tommyalf; 2006-07-11, 02:33.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was one of the screeners who rejected this photo. I'll stand up and just give my opinion on it. I rejected it for the reasons as stated above. Had the Airbus in the frame been included, that may have made the shot much more interesting. Hence, cut off. As far as motive goes... what’s the sense of a streak of light, no offence? A takeoff shot, or landing/touchdown with a streak would be more amusing than streak of light from left to right, right to left. The aircraft in the frame take away from the picture when not properly centered. In addition the horizon appears unlevel. Sorry for the rejection, I however wasn’t the only one who rejected it. I stand by my decisions, respectively.
                              Ryan Davis
                              Admin, FlyerGuide.Net
                              www.flyerguide.net

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X