Lack of aviation reject...

The screeners said that this picture has a lack of plane.

Then I appealed the picture and I got: Lacks of aviation...

To me it is pretty clear that this is a crash tender, only used at an airport.

Can anyone give me a reason why it lacks aviation?

Thanks

Attached photos:

I think its more of a motive reason

Hi Darryl,

I gave my motive:

"The fire fighters did a special watersalut because yesterday they had won an award in giving the best watersaluts in the Netherlands.

And of course because of the composite; the little kid in the right corner who operates the watercanon...

Personally, there could be some aviation interest if someone was looking for a fire appliance in action and it does say Creative Aviation Photography at the top of every page but the screeners they have to draw a line somewhere.

Though I think that if you accept JPC's landscape shots from the flightdeck with no real Aviation in sight (which are brilliant Photos in every way, don't get me wrong) you should at least accept this.

If you look at it very honestly, a photo of a fire truck has more Aviation in it than a landscape photo. The only link to Aviation is that it's something you see from an aircraft. On that matter I could upload a photo of a cloudscape saying it's aviation.

I think you need to set a standard of what does and what does not belong on an aviation photography website.

In my opinion of both these examples to make it really fit in THIS website is to find a way to combine the non-aviation (beautiful subject) with an Aviation subject to complete the image. This is what JPC already did with the flight deck + aurora's; which creates a brilliant view.

Just my opinion...

Jeffrey, we have set of standards and we reject firemen trucks on regular basis. If we started to accept them we would actually get inconsistent.

As Wallace wrote, we have to draw a line somewhere.

I understand, Martin. I'm also not saying the truck should be accepted but there are quite some topics and type of photos that are in my opinion also to question wether it belongs here. That's what I meant.

Hi Martin,

First of all, thanks for the replies!

Martin & Wallace I unterstand your point, but I think that there should be an airport overview category for airport vehicles... But that's just my opinion.

But thanks!

Jeffrey is 110% right. Not only landscapes, but trucks and dogs can be found on this website, with complete lack of relation to "airplane-pictures"...

Going along with this post since there's no sense in starting a new one, what do you guys think about the photo? It has been rejected twice for "foreground and background clutter." So basically instead of having too little aviation relevance it has too much. My view on it is that it is an airport. In this case this is at the busiest airport in the world. Of course there is going to be a lot of "clutter." Airports obviously have a lot to them. I don't feel like the clutter detracts from the aircraft, but that's me and my opinion. It seems to me like the screeners are getting more and more nit picky with these sort of things, and with a tag line such as "Creative Aviation Photography" it doesn't seem as if the creativity is being able to be displayed unless you are a full member. Just my thoughts. I love this website so much, but it's starting to get more and more frustrating.

Attached photos:

As far as I know there is no "clutter" rejection on AP and the fence (to my eyes) is not a major distraction either. I am sure that the clutter remark was a personal comment regarding the composition and not a reason for rejection.

Are you sure that was the only reason for rejection.

If so I would advise you to appeal just in case it was mistakenly rejected

That was the reason for 3 rejections. I did appeal an it was turned down for seemingly the same reason. The was on comment of over sharpening, but I re-uploaded it and the over sharpening was no issue, just the "clutter." I'm in total agreement with you Wallace. It seems like anything other than the aircraft in the frame deserves a rejection because it's not "aviation related."

@chancock where did u make this pic in ATL ?

Gabriel,

I was standing on the top level of the north parking deck. You have a decent overview of the taxiway and runway, but you need a decent lens, probably at least a 300mm, to get the runway action. Not my favorite at ATL, but not a bad spot either.

Try the park deck on the other runway u know what i mean where the taxiway is close to the park deck?

Yeah that's a spot I frequently visit. The only problem with it is that the lighting most of the time is terrible. It's only workable during the summer and then you have the heat haze. But it's definitely one of my favorite spots.

I'm going to defend the screeners and the admins here for a moment. I also fought the challenge with rejections that I seemingly couldn't understand or agree with in the beginning.

However, after some frustration I actually started listening to the advice they were giving me and started identifying with the perspective they had.

These guys have done a marvelous job helping me develop my skills.

If you think this website is hard to get accepted at, try the others out there. You will find that these guys are more than fair.

Just my 2 cents.........

Hi Andre,

Before I started uploading to airplane-pictures.net, I was uploading to airliners.net etc.

None of my photos got accepted, but then I started uploading this website... And it was great!

But this is the only website the says: Creative aviation photography.

I decided to upload my shot of the fire truck. And after a first comment of a screener I gave my motive. I thought that it was a pretty good motive, but it didn't get accepted because of aviation lack.

I know that the screeners have to draw a line in what they accept, but in this (great) picture you can only see a beach. Now we know that the beach is Maho Beach at St. Maarten, Princess Juliana Int. But there is no plane or something aviation related. You can say that the jetblast is aviation related, but then my Fire truck or crash tender isn't aviation related? The crash tender sprays water and because of that I thought that my picture had perspective...

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/379074/airport-overview-people/

I understand that the screeners have to draw a line on what they accept and I respect the comments of the screeners. And I know that this site is very fair in screening. But the title says Creative Aviation Photography. And from that on I fully agree with @CHancock and

@João Cerbaro.

I totally get the frustration my friend. However, to draw a comparison to probably the most famous aviation photography location and theme in St. Marten is a bit difficult.

I'm sure you can try to appeal it and put the link to this thread in a comment to screeners.

At some point I would move on and get ready for your next shot as I know you have good skills.

All best,

I did appealed it earlier and didn't get accepted. And of course you are right about St.Maarten, but it was just the point...

But thanks for the reply!

Andre,

I appreciate your input. I have been uploading for a little over a year and I have learned so much from the screeners and I am so thankful for all the help they have been and all of the knowledge they have shared with me. However, as of late it has seemed like the nit pickiness has picked up. They are extremely lenient but the rejections that come because our motive isn't explained, even though I fully explain it when I upload it, are what is frustrating. To me, if the photo is associated with aviation in some form or fashion, and there are no technical issues, ie. sharpening, noise etc. then I really see no point of rejecting the photo. If it is technically good I think it should be accepted.

I agree there but you also have to look at it from the perspective that all you have is a firetruck spraying water. No elements in the picture speak directly to aviation except the comments attached by photographer. In my opinion this is vague as the firetruck could be literally anywhere if you think about it. A photo has to tell a story, and this site should be telling aviation stories and I don't think this submission shows a theme that can be related directly with aviation.

I think Andre has summed it up extremely well.