Bad angles?

[Geoffrey]

This is my first time encountering this kind of rejection on Jetphotos.net

It says bad angle..

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=76866

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=76867

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=76873

Any comments and advice? I thought the first one is good!


And I need help with these too. Says bad cropping.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=76853

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=76855

I've just realised trip photos are the hardest part to get them uploaded!
Any help appreciated!

[SWA733Captain]

The first three shots, really don't show the 747 to it's advantage, not to many people are fond of the rear end shots.

The first bad crop is because the cockpit only takes up half of the photo, and the camera is focused on the cockpit, which gave the windscreen that really white look, what is really irritating to the eye.

The second one you just chopped off the entire nose, plain and simple.

[JeffinDEN]

Geoff,

Bad angle = Ass end shot on the first three. No one really finds the angle you took those attractive in that situation. Maybe on a smokey landing, but being pulled from the gate? No.

Bad Crop on the other two?
Just too much over exposed windscreen and not enough panel.
And not enough airplane.

[gbasco]

Hi, I was the one who rejected the last two. Thanks Jeff, you pulled the words out of my mouth. Actually, I almost used the same words in the screeners comments on the panel shot.

Cheers

Gabe

[atco]

Geoffrey,

It should be noted that the first badcropping shot (The 757 flightdeck), I had rejected it earlier as "Similar to Previously Accepted photo", as its almost identical to one I accepted, so I'm curious as to what your explanation is for uploading it again?

It gets really annoying seeing rejections uploaded time after time without being changed, it wastes eveybody's time.

Constant offenders at this will have their account suspended, so be warned...........I'm looking out for you now

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=76853

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=76534

[Geoffrey]

Gary - I ain't that stupid, am I? I do things with a proper reason (in my mind, my opinion).

If you'd notice, my first shot was showing the full panel, but it ended up not showing any detail at all, only layouts. You read what I said for my appeal reason - This shot clearly shows more detail. I don't think photo readers only see the layout, don't they? They want to know more! (That's the way I think! This is why I always click on cockpit photos) And I did have changed (tried to crop more to show my actual motive - the first one was for a layout, and this constantly being rejected one is for more details, esp. the autopilots) for every new upload.

And may I ask where can I read the comments? I often don't see it but I do see the reason for rejection.

What makes a rear shot attractive? What are the criterias? Sunset/Sunrise light? Or a
taxying one (I don't think there is much difference between a just pushed-back and a taxying one)? I do have some rear shots accepted recently.
And I thought there are a lot of tail shots here?

Thanks to every of your comments. I have just realized this trip is very useful - I've been through a lot of challenges (tons of rejections) while trying to upload photos I THOUGHT they were good! Great time to learn an experience and improve my photo taking skills. I can still have a lot of time to improve my "rush shots" before I graduate secondary school

[fallingeese]

Badangle is given to shots that tend to not be attractive to the view. I must say the Cathay Pacific Shots, are more than Bad Angle, but Bad Motive to me aswell.

It's not a flattering angle, and also it appears to have been shot through glass maybe?

[Geoffrey]

What about the screener comments? I still don't find them.

And yes, I shot through the window (No other ways!)
What's a flattering angle?