Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bad Motive (again)

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

  • Bad Motive (again)

    is this photographer's terminology or do I stand accused
    of taking this picture with mal intent? LOL

    JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

  • #2
    It's badmotive due to:

    1. The chopped off nosewheel

    2. The ugly airbridge

    3. The photo is not centred

    Basically badmotive is a photo that doesn't say anything, looks generally unappealing or suffers with clutter, obstructing objects or is poorly composed.
    Garry Lewis

    Air Team Images - www.airteamimages.com
    Air Traffic Controller - Toronto ACC (West Low)

    https://flic.kr/ps/AAWk8

    Comment


    • #3
      It's "bad MOTIVE" - as in "bad subject" or so - and not "bad MOTIVATION" - as you understood it.

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

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by atco
        It's badmotive due to:

        1. The chopped off nosewheel

        2. The ugly airbridge

        3. The photo is not centred

        Basically badmotive is a photo that doesn't say anything, looks generally unappealing or suffers with clutter, obstructing objects or is poorly composed.
        Garry,

        I almost always agree with you when you post in this area of the forum concerning rejects, but in this case I'd suggest you look at this photo again.

        1. Yes, the nosewheel is cut off and that's not good.

        2. Never saw an airbridge that was very attractive from the outside, they are all pretty utilitarian, not much can be done about that but cropping it out.

        3. The photo was obviously off-centered to include the other aircraft in the background, which I feel adds to the shot.

        Normally I would agree that the cut off nosewheel alone is sufficient to reject the photo. It has a bit more grain than I would care for as well. However this is a 12 year old photo and represents an aircraft/color scheme combination that is no longer available for better shots. As such I think it should be held to a less stringent standard in order to document the aviation world of the past. Most other sites do the same with older photos for that reason.

        Just my opinion, but I would have accepted it for the database.

        Comment


        • #5
          no offence but thats an ugly photo.


          next trips
          USA/DXB August.

          Comment


          • #6
            to address Atco's comments:


            the original pic has the nose gear, I've seen so many rejects due to ramp clutter ( an un-cluttered
            ramp is not an airline employee's friend) so I tried to eliminate some of that .. so I'm getting a
            mixed signal on that and I'm hear to learn.

            if it were up to me there still would be no airbridges... I always liked stairs better anyway..
            but they exist. The photo was taken to include the aircraft in the back as well as the
            one at the gate so, in essence, the photo really is centered.

            Freightdog, thank you for your support on this one.. you are spot on with the points
            you brought up.

            if you feel it is beyond acceptance than we'll just let it be.. I've got many more crappy
            photos where that one came from to send to you anyway!

            in all seriousness though, the bulk of my photos include a variety of subjects such as old logos,
            old aircraft and dead airlines. They were also taken on a Kodak 110 too.. and you guys have
            accepted some of those too! (and I thank you) Ma and Pa just would not give a 14 year old
            a 35mm camera back then

            Longreach, no offence taken, your OPINION is always welcome I'm sure.

            Comment

            Working...
            X