Pepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1246 times:
The other photo was also considered a bad scan, so I'm not talking about these two photos specifically. I'm thinking generally.
The grain thing might be explained by lack of flash at dusk holding the camera free-hand. There's not enough light/aperture for a perfect shot. Grain is what you get when it's dark. Well, grain is what I get anyway.
It's just a different crop from a slighty different angle. But a nice shot. If that was accepted, you could get 24 shots of the same plane accepted, just by walking around the plane. Err... walking around it with a camera.
TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 54 Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1202 times:
In an ideal world it should NOT be the job of the screeners to pick which photos are, and which are not, baddouble. Photographers should be able to self-screen down to just one or two of their best pics from each "session", then determine whether they "add" something to the d/b by being added. Only then should they be uploaded.
Maybe we need to do a better job of educating the photographers on what constitutes a baddouble? This could be something we can learn from and improve.
Justin's example is (in my opinion) very comfortably a baddouble. This is a perfect example of where we expect the photographer to pick the best of the two shots, and upload only one of them. If you upload both (and sometimes we see 10+ of the "same shot" on the same day by the same photog (not Justin though)!), then you run the risk that you will not get the result you hoped for.
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 56 Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1163 times:
Generally the bad double rejection can be employed at any point in screening. Generally I'll weed out the obvious doubles before they get to the high quality queue, unless they're both so good, I can't decide.
If you only have one photo by the time it gets to the HQ queue (because the other's get rejected bad double), then it's at the point it should have been anyway (with one shot uploaded - or in extremely rare cases, 2).
If this shot is rejected for reasons other than double, then it's being treated like any other shot.... just because the partnering shot was rejected prior, only for bad double means little at this point.
There are not many people out there uploading doubles. It's unfortunate that the minority who do may the long task of screening (some screeners are screening 8+ hours daily), far longer than it should be.
If after all the rejections, you beleive your shot has been fixed as per rejection reasons, then feel free to upload with a comment to screeners as to what was done to improve the shot.
(I find it useful to know that you've tried... not simply uploaded a shot for a second chance, in the hope it will hit another screener).
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
Pepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1143 times:
Ok Glenn, that was a good argument. I've uploaded baddoubles, but will refrain from it in the future. I was a bit unclear about the rules though.
One photo was taken in ambient lighting with a view of snowcovered ground out the windows, the other one, using a flash on final. So I didn't realize they were going to be treated as baddoubles. I at least try to self screen, but I'm new to this hobby (18 months) and still learning.
I would have thought that seven (or was it 9) people standing shoulder to shoulder and uploading the same pic of the same plane taken at the same time and place would constitute for a bad-double, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
But a photo of a flight deck at snowcovered Helsinki at dawn and 11 hours later in Bangkok with a view of palm trees outside the window is a baddouble.
See, I'm learning.
Just kidding. And the right photo ended up here anyway.
Pepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 1133 times:
I would, but there is a great chance it wouldn't have been accepted once it was screened after three weeks of waiting, and then I'd have to upload another one, wait another three weeks to see what happens. Maybe after the third try and 9 weeks I might get lucky.
But another reason is, that I really thought that taxiing, climb, cruise, descent, approach, and landing were sufficiently different to be treated as separate phases of flight. I didn't realize people were only interested in the dials and breakers.
I thought dumly that the view outside the window and different lighting conditions might be of interest to someone. Now I know better. I have one picture where everything is crystal clear, except everything outside the window, which is a blur, course we were hit by a jet blast at 50ft. Badscan, badblurry. I self-screened that one.
I don't view myself as God's Gift to Aviation Photography. The screening times have just been frustratingly long. I'm glad you people have noticed it too and have done something about it. I'm perfectly willing to only upload one shot, see what happens and after that upload another one, providing the waiting times are days, not weeks.