Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Baddouble  
User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1795 times:

This has happened to me once or twice so it's propably happening to others as well. I submitted 3 pictures in the queue last night and got one rejected overnight for being a baddouble.

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=20040310_162lpaw.jpg

As none of the other two have been accepted, what is it a baddouble to? Usually happens that another screener rejects the other similar shot (which isn't very similar) and then neither gets accepted.

So my point is...
The screener that decides which shot/shots should be added to the db should be the one to take the baddoubles out, and not the first screener?

-Peter Fagerström-

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKarlok From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1693 times:

A baddouble for a screener can also mean that a photo look like this is already in the database, and this don't have to be a photo of yours.

If I was a screener I would also reject it for Baddouble.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Fagerström



About the photo, what settings have you used and with what kind of equipment? I see a lot of grain and it is not really sharp. Maybe you can improve the photo and reupload it.

[Edited 2004-03-11 09:23:15]

User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

Yes that is correct.

I had the same thing happen to me last night:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=N799ANLGW070204.jpg


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Justin Wood



Do you think that I should of submitted that second one? Its a different type of shot, what do you think?

Justin  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineKarlok From Netherlands, joined Mar 2002, 839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1669 times:

Justin > No need to upload the second shot.

User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1656 times:

Karlok,

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.

Jkw777

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.

-Peter Fagerström-


User currently offlineFL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1616 times:

Sorry to interrupt topic but this is for the editors or screeners...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jose Muñoz - IBERIAN SPOTTERS
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jose Muñoz - IBERIAN SPOTTERS



Maybe a mistake so probably worth mentionning it.

Recently had this picture rejected for baddouble :

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=IMG_54689V-SFKboard.jpg

The double was this one :

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabrice Sanchez



Well I don't consider it as a baddouble as it show completely other angle of the aircraft not represented on A.net.

Should I reupload it?



Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Peter

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.

Tamsin
airliners.net screener



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineFL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1601 times:

Tasmin what about the problem mentionned on my post?


Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineGlennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Hi Peter,

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).

Kindest Regards,

Glenn Stewart



Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

When I uploaded my second AA "nose-on" shot I had forgotten about the original one in the database. Then I realised when it got rejected for baddouble so it was a school boy error/tiredness  Laugh out loud

I think its for the better we have the baddouble rule. Who wants a database full of sequential shots?!

If you upload both (and sometimes we see 10+ of the "same shot" on the same day by the same photog (not Justin though)!

That's right... I am a good boy  Big thumbs up

Thanks,

Justin  Big grin


User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1553 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.  Big grin
Just kidding. And the right photo ended up here anyway.

-Peter-


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

If you already know what the right photo why not simply select this one and upload it?
Peter



-
User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1543 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.

-Peter-

[Edited 2004-03-11 16:38:40]

User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1507 times:

Had to learn self-censorship as well, after all, I don't want to be banned .

-Peter-

[Edited 2004-03-11 18:23:40]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Puzzled By A Baddouble posted Tue Jul 26 2005 15:16:49 by Javibi
Baddouble Question ..again! posted Sat Jul 23 2005 05:18:25 by StealthZ
Baddouble Question.. posted Fri Jul 22 2005 15:12:46 by Johndm1957
Confusing Baddouble posted Fri Jul 22 2005 14:46:16 by JohnJ
Pleae Explain The Baddouble Rule posted Thu Jun 23 2005 01:38:22 by Photopilot
Baddouble ....... Again! posted Sat Jun 18 2005 22:37:27 by Malandan
A Better Idea Of Baddouble Please. posted Tue Jun 14 2005 10:52:37 by UA777222
BadDouble Question posted Fri May 20 2005 20:04:37 by WakeTurbulence
Baddouble Question posted Thu May 19 2005 23:11:31 by Gary2880
Please Read. Baddouble Amended posted Tue May 10 2005 17:02:58 by PUnmuth@VIE