Jetphotos - rejected for bad motive lol

[casper]

A Bombardier Dash 8-Q402 photographed with the Bombardier factory in the background and it gets rejected (among other things) for bad motive 

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2536359

[iCardboardRobot]

who are the people who get to make those decisions ? sometimes it seems like they are just on a power trip with the photos i have seen be rejected

[Dave]

Pretty unfortunate! The screeners do not realise the significane of the cranes and the factories in the background! I had soemthing similar rejected as they prefer to have the photo focus on the plane.

It might be worthwhile uploading it as an airport overview as the Shorts factories were considered part of the airport for a while. It would be good to see that photo on the site!

[casper]

Another one - this is brilliant

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2596728

[String]

Do they want perfect pictures all the time.

[Angry Turnip]

No interest in aircraft maintenance then? 
OK the people working on the aircraft do obstruct it a little I suppose,but I don`t see that it`s a big problem.

[Paultojo]

I have noticed it's been getting a bit tighter over the past few months, though its makes you wonder what the screeners are on when you see what makes it in and even a few screeners choices are a bit odd.

Paul

[casper]

I have noticed it's been getting a bit tighter over the past few months, though its makes you wonder what the screeners are on when you see what makes it in and even a few screeners choices are a bit odd.

Totally agree, which is why I prefer this site
www.airplane-pictures.net
The standard is as good as JP but they want unusual photos - from different angles, off centred, silhouettes etc

[casper]

Had an image rejected for 'Unlevel', so I levelled it and resubmitted - rejected for being soft. Appealed it stating that the softness wasn't an issue the first time round and got it accepted - my first positive appeal Just a pity the screeners couldn't see you previously rejected images so that they can see if it's a re-submission or a new one.

[Dave]

They can see previously rejected photos however unfortunately there is inconsistancy between screeners. However this can often be resolved with an appeal. I would personally recommend appealing shots you really think should get on to the database as in a good few cases, it will be enough for the head screener. Although don't go crazy appealing every shot 

[casper]

ffs they're at it again

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2641227

- Dark / Underexposed Ok maybe it is a wee bit dark but the levels in Photoshop look OK
- Bad Info in the following field(s): Remarks Didn't realise you had to put something in the remarks box
- Bad motive Now this takes the biscuit. How can this be bad motive when it's been uploaded as a spotting location?[/]

[Blackbird]

Too much fence in the photo,and persons obstructing parts of the aircraft (which is too high in the frame).
You have some excellent pics on the site but that gets the thumbs down i'm afraid.

[Dave]

If anything, I'd have said that some counter rotation (the horizon in the distance seems to lean to the right) and some brightening (the shot was backlit if I remember correctly) would've been fine, other than that it's an interesting shot.

As for the remarks box, jetphotos requires spotting location photos to have google earth co-ordinates, although several shots have slipped past the screeners with no google earth co-ordinates.

The motive will be fine for another screener.

Although I'm not sure if promoting plane spotting while standing on a dangerous fence is the best thing 

[casper]

Thanks for the honest comments It turns out that the bad motive was the fact that the aircraft was out of focus.

Although I'm not sure if promoting plane spotting while standing on a dangerous fence is the best thing

Would only be dangerous if you were standing on one leg

[casper]

Another good one - Watermark too intrusive

http://www.jetphotos.net//viewreject_b.php?id=2738979

[Dave]

The watermark certainly isn't too intrusive so if it were for that reason alone, I'd appeal it.

However jetphotos are unfortunately perhaps a bit strict when it comes to centring the aircraft, something I learn't the hard way over the past year