Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_photography/read.main/221918/

Topic: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: PUnmuth@VIE
Posted 2006-03-01 13:05:25 and read 3686 times.

Just out of interest, did the double rule change?
As far as i can see it it is:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#double
==
.
.
For cabin views we allow 2 shots per registration, date and photographer, when they show considerable different motives. The same applies for cockpit views.
.
.
==

Are there any changes not yet announced?
Peter

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: Rotate
Posted 2006-03-01 13:13:21 and read 3668 times.

 Smile  Smile

Nice to see you on the other side Peter ..... - asking in the Forum.

Robin

Ps: Did you have the chance to test your new baby sofar?

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: Jorge1812
Posted 2006-03-01 13:29:32 and read 3655 times.

Interesting you started this topic as I came across this
one whilst browsing the the TOP 24h pics.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



which reminded me of this one


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



Just for interest and not for complaining for me they look all very similar.

Georg.

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: ChrisH
Posted 2006-03-01 13:36:30 and read 3648 times.

Had the same thought, felt a bit Deja Vu

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: StealthZ
Posted 2006-03-01 13:44:25 and read 3642 times.

An approach to BKK

An inflight Thailand

A Ramp BKK

An approach to KLL

Don't see a real issue here!!

Oh OK the pedants may point out 4 shots same A/C, same date but 4 very different motives.

OK .. perhaps not absolutely in the spirit of the guidelines but has been thrashed out before!

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: PUnmuth@VIE
Posted 2006-03-01 13:44:43 and read 3642 times.

Can we leave pics of photos already in the database out of this thread please?
No good style.
This was intended as a simple question from me not as fingerpointing to anyone.
Thanks

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: ChrisH
Posted 2006-03-01 13:47:49 and read 3637 times.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
same date but 4 very different motives.

Huh??

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: TimdeGroot
Posted 2006-03-01 14:05:28 and read 3616 times.

No changes that I'm aware of Peter.


Tim

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: Rotate
Posted 2006-03-01 14:11:28 and read 3610 times.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
An approach to BKK

An inflight Thailand

A Ramp BKK

An approach to KLL

Don't see a real issue here!!

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

The accepted shot from Sam today had difficults earlier to enter the DB, cause of BadPeople I think ...

Robin

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: INNflight
Posted 2006-03-01 14:19:09 and read 3595 times.

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Thread starter):
we allow 2 shots per registration, date and photographer, when they show considerable different motives. The same applies for cockpit views.

That's the thing Chris and Georg refer too I guess.
Still, nice approach shot.

Topic: RE: Did The Double Rule Change?
Username: Administrator
Posted 2006-03-01 16:24:36 and read 3526 times.

Why the hell should we ever reject an amazing shot? The rules are there to serve us not the other way around. A very fundamental rule for Airliners.net that stands above everything else (and seems very easy to forget for some) is that rare / old / artistic / otherwise fantastic photos have lower rejection standards.

If that shot from Sam Chui had been a normal cockpit view when the aircraft was on the ground and without the great angles, yes - one or more would probably have been rejected for being double.

Enough said.

/ Johan


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/