afroaviator
Topic Author
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:13 pm

Composition rejection

Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:38 pm

https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-co ... to/5161575

Hi there. I've had this photo rejected twice for the same reason. High in the frame. I fixed the photo the first time by bringing it down to try to centre it as adviced. After being rejected for the second time, I appealed it on the grounds that if I bring it down in the frame any lower, it be too low and will then be rejected again for that reason. The screener who screened the photo in the appeal adviced that I should use the tail as a measure of the centering. But won't that put the aircraft even lower in the frame? I don't understand these requirements. Please help.
 
dutchspotter1
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:24 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:42 pm

We cannot see your photo, please provide a direct link to the photo itself.
NO URLS in signature
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Composition rejection

Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:12 pm

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/ai ... 806fd6d006

And yes, the aircraft needs to be placed a little lower in the frame.
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4892
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Composition rejection

Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:59 pm

I still think centring preferences here are ambiguous - I'd personally put the subject lower in the frame but hundreds of images with similarly centred aircraft get in on a daily basis - to me, this one is certainly within tolerable limits. Here's one I found in five seconds, on page one of the most recent uploads:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Shenzhe ... AdUWKDU%3D

Going back ten years I used to receive a disproportionate amount of 'too low in frame' rejections, however looking back at my images here from that period, practically all would be considered too high now.

There has definitely been a shift in centring rules lately.
 
afroaviator
Topic Author
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:13 pm

airkas1 wrote:
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/7/5/5161575.jpg?v=v4806fd6d006

And yes, the aircraft needs to be placed a little lower in the frame.


Okay then, thank you. I will put it lower in the frame as you have advised. However if it is rejected again but this time for being "low in the frame" I will appeal it again and quote you as the head screener advising me to place it lower in the frame. I hope that will be fair enough.
 
afroaviator
Topic Author
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:19 pm

JakTrax wrote:
I still think centring preferences here are ambiguous - I'd personally put the subject lower in the frame but hundreds of images with similarly centred aircraft get in on a daily basis - to me, this one is certainly within tolerable limits. Here's one I found in five seconds, on page one of the most recent uploads:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Shenzhe ... AdUWKDU%3D

Going back ten years I used to receive a disproportionate amount of 'too low in frame' rejections, however looking back at my images here from that period, practically all would be considered too high now.

There has definitely been a shift in centring rules lately.


It does certainly seem so indeed. I only have just over 20 photos in the database so far and pretty much all of them that I shot from a similar angle have the same composition as the rejected photo, which is basically the fuselage in the dead centre of the photo. But then again, they do have the right to change the rules as they see fit and it is up to us to abide by those rules.
 
afroaviator
Topic Author
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Sun Sep 02, 2018 10:37 pm

https://www.airliners.net/photo/-/Bomba ... 16/5133565

While we are still on this discussion, this is the most recent photo I had accepted into the database which I shot from the same location at a similar angle to the rejected one. Now looking at composition with the top of the tail being closer to the top of the frame, shouldn't this photo have also been rejected for being "high in the frame"? Please bear with me, I am not trying to be confrontational. I am just trying to clearly understand the upload rules. And yes, I have read upload guidelines, multiple times, which is why I am very confused at this current rejection of my photo.
 
dutchspotter1
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:24 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:00 am

As mentioned by others, composition (high/low in frame) is not an exact science. The Mango B737 is indeed high in frame, because the ratio between asphalt at the bottom and sky at the top is unbalanced. The large patch of asphalt is too big, causing the plane to appear high in frame. A little less asphalt and a little more sky will make the plane appear more centered.

Although the Challenger is slightly high in frame as well, it appears less obvious due to the right wing covering some of the asphalt.
NO URLS in signature
 
User avatar
airkas1
Head Screener
Posts: 6943
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Composition rejection

Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:41 am

afroaviator wrote:
Okay then, thank you. I will put it lower in the frame as you have advised. However if it is rejected again but this time for being "low in the frame" I will appeal it again and quote you as the head screener advising me to place it lower in the frame. I hope that will be fair enough.

Yes, not a problem.


The CL60 looks slightly high, but passable for me.The airline was missing by the way, so I submitted a correction for that. The tail of the B737 is taller than that of the CL60, so a bit more balancing is needed.
 
User avatar
paco2k8
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:13 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:07 pm

In the past i had a lot of rejections for the same reason, i found that using the center of the window on the overwing exit door seems to be a good place to put the center of the picture since that is actually the center of the aircraft. But now i got several pictures rejected for this reason and as you guys says in your comments, this is getting an non exact science and difficult to achieve when you're not uploading a side photo of an aircraft. There're aircraft for example like the A318 who has a very disproportionate tail and get rejected often than others.
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4892
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Composition rejection

Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:53 pm

It's pretty much all about fuselage length and tail size - the windowline has little to do with it, unless you're talking lanky planes with stubby tails (a la A346 and DC-8). A380, 747SP and A318 are all good examples where the fuselage certainly needs to be very low in the frame to get the balance right. Nothing worse (in my opinion) than seeing a 380's fuselage dead centre of the frame with the tail nearly touching the top border! This seemed to be the preference circa 10 years ago and, despite the fact that I think that Mango is within limits, I'm glad that we're seeing a preference for subjects lower in frame. It kinda harks back to the slide/film days, when most people would (for some reason) put the subject extremely low in the frame.
 
User avatar
paco2k8
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:13 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Mon Sep 03, 2018 3:33 pm

JakTrax wrote:
Nothing worse (in my opinion) than seeing a 380's fuselage dead centre of the frame with the tail nearly touching the top border! This seemed to be the preference circa 10 years ago .


This is why is getting subjetive... i rather have the fuselage (biggest part of the frame) centered and don't care much of where the tail end up..i find this more apealing instead of having dead space above the fuselage.. and as you said it was the norm 10 years ago.. now i have to change my editing notes in this matter...
 
afroaviator
Topic Author
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:12 pm

airkas1 wrote:
afroaviator wrote:
Okay then, thank you. I will put it lower in the frame as you have advised. However if it is rejected again but this time for being "low in the frame" I will appeal it again and quote you as the head screener advising me to place it lower in the frame. I hope that will be fair enough.

Yes, not a problem.


The CL60 looks slightly high, but passable for me.The airline was missing by the way, so I submitted a correction for that. The tail of the B737 is taller than that of the CL60, so a bit more balancing is needed.


I can definitely see from a different perspective that it all depends on the length and height of the aircraft. I generally tend to put the aircraft in my photos in the same general centre line and always figure it will be acceptable. I will in future consider the different sizes of the aircraft when I center them. I do appreciate your feedback and it has helped a great deal. Thank you.
 
afroaviator
Topic Author
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:14 pm

Thank for all the feedback back guys. You have all been of great help. It's very much appreciated.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12343
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:33 pm

If the site is indeed trying to have slightly more relaxed acceptance criteria (as I recall from a year or two ago), then I see no reason the Mango shot should be rejected.

There are plenty - I mean probably thousands upon thousands - of similarly centered shots in the DB.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 12343
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

Re: Composition rejection

Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:34 pm

Sorry, double post.

(off-topic, why is there a "Delete Post" icon that shows up, but when I click it, it says "you do not have permission to delete posts in this forum"?)
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos