Let's take a look at two recent rejections:
Rejection Number 1
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 434951f9bf
Original rejection: Dark and Soft
Appeal rejection: Blurry, Personal, Quality, Underexposed with the comment of "sorry Len but quite some of your shots suffer from a slight blur like this"
Anybody want to point out the slight blur... especially when the site has a tendency to accept such examples as this: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Ai ... /4156055/L Not to mention there are also accepted images that I have in similar conditions here: http://www.airliners.net/search?datePho ... user=39305
Rejection Number 2
http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 5979063555
Original rejection: soft and underexposed
Appeal Rejection: Blurry, Motive, Personal, Quality, Underexposed with the comment of "motive for clipped stabilizer"
Motive? But how can that be a motive rejection when the airliners.net acceptance guide rules on Motive states:
In this image the horizontal stabilizer is also clipped. However since there is equal space in front of the nose and to the right of the tail this is allowed
Let's take a look at the numbers: The nose to the edge of the frame is 7 pixels. The tip of the antenna on the tail to the edge of the frame is 8 pixels. So how again is this not balanced and therefore NOT a motive rejection? The original screener actually had it right in not putting this as motive. As for the exposure this goes back to a prior statement and topic of how the site wants you to overexpose and alter the appearance of the image from how it appeared when you actually shot the picture.
Input would greatly be appreciated.
And while we are at it, if the "blurry" police wold pay half as close attention to color casts maybe, just maybe we will have some consistency. Just utilize N304JB's arrival into JFK on 2/21 as a clear example.