Mjgbtv From United States, joined Jan 2008, 43 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 714 times:
Hi,
Are there any threads out there discussing when equipment blocking parts of an aircraft is acceptable? I have seen some recent photos with obstructions, but according to the rejection reasons this is not allowed. I presume that there have been some clarifications/modifications to the requirement since the rejection page was written, so I'd like to find out the latest. I searched the forum and did not find anything. Thanks.
Scbriml From Saudi Arabia, joined Jul 2003, 8416 posts, RR: 25 Reply 2, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 669 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1): I know small mobile steps or the aircraft's own steps are OK (most of the time).
Integral stairs are OK since they are part of the plane. Mobile stairs would normally result in a motive rejection unless there is some other reason why the shot should be uploaded (e.g. only shot of rare plane or colour scheme).
WILCO737 From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 4160 posts, RR: 68 Reply 3, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 660 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Mjgbtv (Thread starter): Are there any threads out there discussing when equipment blocking parts of an aircraft is acceptable?
I had a picture rejected recently of stairs blocking parts of the airplane as well. It was a new registration to the database. So this alone doesn't qualify to losen the motiv rule on that one.
WILCO737 (MD11F)
If it ain't Boeing (or McDonnell Douglas), I am not going.
In my profile you see an MD11 which got rejected because of the stairs and the cone in front of the wheel. And this registration is not yet in the database.
But rules are rules. motive rejection because clutter blocking the aircraft.
WILCO737 (MD11F)
If it ain't Boeing (or McDonnell Douglas), I am not going.
TransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1514 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 605 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 4): I had this one accepted - there are other shots of it in the database (albeit not too many) and it has small mobile steps in the way.
In this case it might have something to do with the fact that this particular bird crashed after take off from MPB enroute to NSB Xmas 2005?
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
TransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1514 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 577 times:
Quoting WILCO737 (Reply 7): I guess this can be the reason. The screener decide individually on every picture if it get accepted or not.
Well, it was certainly the reason why this photo of it was accepted, because the quality sucks, and it was rejected previously while N2969 was still in one piece.
MarkyMc From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Feb 2005, 28 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 557 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 4): I had this one accepted - there are other shots of it in the database (albeit not too many) and it has small mobile steps in the way.
Hi Karl,
The steps, mobile or otherwise, in your shot of the Mallard do not spoil the overall image, as they are at the rear of the aircraft and are not blocking any of the undercarriage or other significant part of the aircraft. If the steps had been blocking part of the nose for instance, it would have likely received a motive rejection. In the shot of the Kam Air 737 however, the steps are blocking part of the nosewheel, which, for me, spoils the shot a bit. As Steve mentions, it did get through on appeal because of the rarity value. If it's a rare aircraft, most people will take the shot with the steps rather than not at all. If it had been a BA 737 for example, it would have been right to reject for motive.
WILCO737 From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 4160 posts, RR: 68 Reply 10, posted (2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 549 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting MarkyMc (Reply 9): If the steps had been blocking part of the nose for instance,
Hi Mark,
can you maybe take a look at that thread and tell me if that is here the case as well? Those steps block parts of the nose and lead to motiv rejection. That's what I've been told. It is a new reg in the database. And I liked it to get it accepted but doesn't look too good.
Vivekman2006 From India, joined May 2006, 268 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 508 times:
What about airport fences?
I had a shot rejected as there was a fence in the picture. Mind you, the fence was at the bottom of the picture, and was not actually blocking any part of the aircraft. It was around an inch or two below the landing gear of the aircraft. Will it be a motive rejection?
Mjgbtv From United States, joined Jan 2008, 43 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 504 times:
Quoting Vivekman2006 (Reply 11): I had a shot rejected as there was a fence in the picture. Mind you, the fence was at the bottom of the picture, and was not actually blocking any part of the aircraft. It was around an inch or two below the landing gear of the aircraft. Will it be a motive rejection?
Hi Vivek,
Was the rejection actually for motive? I recall seeing an accepted photo recently that had a fence in the foreground (not blocking any part of the aircraft) This may be another case (like the ones mentioned above) where it comes down to other considerations such as rarity of the subject, and there is probably also an element of subjectivity as to how much the fence distracts from the subject.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1427 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 486 times:
Quoting Mjgbtv (Reply 12): Was the rejection actually for motive? I recall seeing an accepted photo recently that had a fence in the foreground (not blocking any part of the aircraft) This may be another case (like the ones mentioned above) where it comes down to other considerations such as rarity of the subject, and there is probably also an element of subjectivity as to how much the fence distracts from the subject
As far as I know fences are fine unless they really drag the viewer away from the subject. Fences at a distance which are fully in focus tend not to be distracting, however if it's right on top of the photographer and is blurred (OOF) I would imagine it'd get a rejection (I'd certainly give it one!)
Vivekman2006 From India, joined May 2006, 268 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 477 times:
Quoting Mjgbtv (Reply 12): Hi Vivek,
Was the rejection actually for motive? I recall seeing an accepted photo recently that had a fence in the foreground (not blocking any part of the aircraft) This may be another case (like the ones mentioned above) where it comes down to other considerations such as rarity of the subject, and there is probably also an element of subjectivity as to how much the fence distracts from the subject.
Yes, the rejection was for motive, and the screener mentioned the presence of the fence. Now, the part about how much the fence distracts seems to be the main issue that is really subjective.
Also, the aircraft in question was the Iron Maiden B757 when it visited BOM in Feb'08. Although there were quite a few photos of this aircraft in the DB in its original Astraeus colours, there were only a couple of photos in the Iron Maiden colours. Ah well!
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 13): As far as I know fences are fine unless they really drag the viewer away from the subject. Fences at a distance which are fully in focus tend not to be distracting, however if it's right on top of the photographer and is blurred (OOF) I would imagine it'd get a rejection (I'd certainly give it one!)
Hi Karl,
The fence in the photo was in focus and was roughly in the lower 1/4th of the picture.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1427 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (2 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 443 times:
Borderline. That much fence shouldn't really be a distraction but the nature of the barbed wire (looking rather untidy!) causes the bottom 1/4 of the shot to look messy. I think if the fence was a standard chain-link and was neatly presented it wouldn't be so much of an issue. Still, I like the shot and think a little discretion could have been used. I believe I've seen worse here.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jan 2008, 43 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1427 posts, 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jul 2003, 8416 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 4160 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 1514 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Feb 2005, 28 posts, 
From India, joined May 2006, 268 posts, 
