Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
 Photo © Vik S |  Photo © Vik S |
 Photo © Allen Choi - AHKGAP |  Photo © Oleg Botov |
| Quoting len90 (Reply 1): The China Airlines I really don't see standing a chance. Even when compared to the Etihad you just don't have any stray lighting hitting the rear of the fuselage. |
| Quoting len90 (Reply 3): When you gave your appeal on the WN did you cite these examples in it to show how it doesn't differ? |
| Quoting len90 (Reply 3): Ultimately you don't have room to work with. |
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7): Is the blockage in this rejected photo bad enough to outweigh a new reg? |
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7): I did have this one accepted a few weeks ago, which wasn't a new reg: |
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7): Also, how did the DL photo get screened early? I didn't send an email to the priority folks.... |
| Quoting airkas1 (Reply 8): The first screener mentioned the pole, after which it can't be unseen and it we usually do reject for motive for something like that. The fact that it is hard to see and a new frame make it a slightly difficult decision. On one hand I'm thinking motive, on the other I'm for some leeway. In the end, I can agree with the rejection since it follows the rules. Maybe Pete can give his opinion on this as well when he comes across this thread. |
| Quoting airkas1 (Reply 8): I understand how this acceptance seems very odd in light of the above. The log for that photo doesn't have any mention of a pole, so I'm thinking that it simply wasn't noticed by the screeners who saw the photo. |
| Quoting airkas1 (Reply 8): The other day, I checked the log randomly and I noticed one of the priority screeners had screened a batch of photos that were all priority eligible. Although only they can tell you the reason with certainty, my guess is that they checked a list of recent deliveries and searched for them in the queue. Subsequently, they were priority screened. |
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11): Len - With low light low shutter speed panning, the keeper rate goes way down. And given that I'll fill up a card very quickly that way, I try not to take TOO many shots per aircraft. So I might take up to 5 or 7 shots for a typical "uninteresting" aircraft, out of which one or two may be OK (and usually one is better). I try to avoid that pole, but it's damn near impossible to see when panning in those conditions. |
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11): Long story short, I may have another good shot of those aircraft, or I may not. Probably won't check... |
| Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 11): No big deal. Just thought I'd test the limits of accepting minor obstructions that was talked about a couple years ago. |
| Quoting len90 (Reply 12): Most likely it will come down to the individual screener which is what Kas really showed in his post. |
