Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bad Double - Do We Have To Go Through This Again?  
User currently offlineAagold From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 548 posts, RR: 50
Posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5876 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If I have any complaint at all about Airliners.Net this is definitely it as you might have guessed by the number of posts I've started and added to on the topic. I thought we'd made measurable progress back in January when Johan responded positively to the thread I started then. But, now, not quite six months later, I see we're back where we started.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dietmar Schreiber
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages



These were the two existing shots in the data base before I uploaded my recent shots from AUA. When I returned from AUA I uploaded three shots ...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett - AirTeamImages



The two above were accepted. And the below rejected (resized for display here without additional editing).



Now, the last time I went through this back in January (see the original thread at: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/116550/6/ ) Johan added the following response:

Baddouble can only be used when the photographer has similar photos of the same aircraft already in the database (or upload queue). "Similar" is not an exact word but photo screening is not an exact science. Let's all agree upon that before I go on.

Screeners can use Badcommon if you upload photos of aircraft that we already have a large number of similar shots of.

If you upload more than one shot of the same aircraft/date/location you run a high risk of getting just one of them accepted and the rest rejected with baddouble. I do encourage you to upload more than one shot if the additional photos are of very high additional "value" (another vague word). If you upload a full side view do not expect to get a close-up of the nose or tail accepted. If you upload one take-off shot, other similar take-off shots are likely to be rejected etc. Such are the rules we've decided to adopt after years of experience here at Airliners.net. Still, if the aircraft is very rare or the shots are amazing you can get a hundred photos accepted of the same aircraft. "Rare" and "amazing" are, as always, defined by the screeners. If you disagree with them (which all of you will do at one time or another), use the appeal function and I'll have a look at them (although I've understood the appeal is working rather poorly right now, I am about to fix that).

As for the baddouble rejection pointed out by Art, I am siding with the photographer on this one. It seems this can be a case of "high additional value" as the shot is clearly very good (although I haven't seen a high-res version). It is very different from the first shot and would in my view be a valuable addition to the database. I suggest the photo is appealed (or better, re-uploaded as the appeal script is working so-so at the moment).

I will discuss the issue with the screeners.

Regards,
Johan


Comparing the three shots that I uploaded for this aircraft to what Johan wrote I find the following:

  1. Definitely not bad common with only two shots in the database beforehand.

  2. Didn't upload multiple side-on shots or a nose tail shot.

  3. Did upload a rotation shot on takeoff and Johan wrote: If you upload one take-off shot, other similar take-off shots are likely to be rejected etc. Personally I wouldn't call the rejected shot "similar" in any way to the rotation shot.

  4. I'd say a 727-24C is pretty rare these days and I only tried to get three accepted not 100.


I can't believe the above while at the same time I find these three pictures taken on the same day, by the same photographer, of the same plane and, to top it all off, two were accepted sequentially obviously by the same screener. (No offense intended to you Alexander.)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Sohre
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Sohre



and


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Sohre



And, just for the record: there are 95 other pictures of that aircraft in the database ... I would say the three above are sufficiently the same ... and it's definitely not a rare aircraft by any means. Am I missing something about those shots that I should know to believe three of them deserve being in the database. If I am, please tell me what it is as I haven't a clue.

Can we fix this thing once and for all so we can eliminate posts like this. Please Smile

Art

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5795 times:

Well, the majority of us here are not crew members, so there's not much we (or, at least I) can say about it other than that you present an extremely valid case.

Unfortunately, this post and your last post (baddouble posts. How ironic  Big grin), are nothing more than futile attempts at correcting what seems to be a combination of human error and misconceptions. I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt--and a lot of it--so I think that it's entirely possible that in the case of the three nearly identical LTU A330 shots, they may have been screened by three different screeners simultaneously, hence the inadvertent acceptance of all three shots. Why it hasn't been rectified is beyond me, though.

I can't see how Johan could really fix this problem...but it IS frustrating and is definitely a sign that something has to change. Be it an amendment to the screening process, or something else.

Baddouble can only be used when the photographer has similar photos of the same aircraft already in the database (or upload queue). "Similar" is not an exact word but photo screening is not an exact science. Let's all agree upon that before I go on.

...

If you upload more than one shot of the same aircraft/date/location you run a high risk of getting just one of them accepted and the rest rejected with baddouble. I do encourage you to upload more than one shot if the additional photos are of very high additional "value" (another vague word). If you upload a full side view do not expect to get a close-up of the nose or tail accepted. If you upload one take-off shot, other similar take-off shots are likely to be rejected etc. Such are the rules we've decided to adopt after years of experience here at Airliners.net. Still, if the aircraft is very rare or the shots are amazing you can get a hundred photos accepted of the same aircraft. "Rare" and "amazing" are, as always, defined by the screeners. If you disagree with them (which all of you will do at one time or another), use the appeal function and I'll have a look at them (although I've understood the appeal is working rather poorly right now, I am about to fix that).


What's bold, and especially underlined is what I believe to be the screening process's tragic flaw. There shouldn't be this many 'vague' ideas and processes involved in screening. Leaving acceptance to the screener's discretion is making this anything but Airliners.net. Now it's more like 'www.AndyMartin.net' or 'www.CarlosBorda.net.' (Sorry to have to use your names, guys. Trust me, there's no underlying connotation.) I had a shot that I privately showed to one screener who thoroughly enjoyed it and saw it as an acceptance, but it was rejected. Why? Because the screening process is an opinionated, biased procedure, and not a pre-defined process as it is essentially claimed to be.

As I said...this is the tragic flaw. Sorry for your rejection, Art...I do believe that Johan or the screeners will recognize this mishap and accept it, but it shouldn't have to be done like that.


Brian



What the FUTT?
User currently offlineFlyingColors From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 73 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5777 times:

Looks like the "double standard " of screening to me  Smile

That 727 is HOT!

Mike



Moon chaser!
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5768 times:

I think that the LTU A330 must have been an oversight / error, IF (repeat IF) they were all taken on the same date - I'm not going to open them and give them a hit each just to verify that they were taken as a sequence.

As to your LAS 727 pictures... Well, some variations in interpretation of Johan's guidance is possible, maybe even likely, as even he himself admits!  Nuts

A


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5762 times:

FlyingColors said: Looks like the "double standard " of screening to me

There are no double standards in screening, just variations in the interpretation of the same rules - see above. Such is human nature.

Andy

PS: Art, have you appealed if you disagree with the decision, as Johan suggested you should do in such cases?


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1060 posts, RR: 33
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5735 times:

G'day Andy
Don't you think this one is pretty easy to define and fix.
IE If uploading more than one photo of the same aircraft on the same date/location a maximum of 3 photo's is permitted peiod end of story sorry no exceptions.IE pick your best shots.
All three photo's must be different perspectives by an angle of at least 45 degree's regardless of phase of flight.
Easy to define,easy to understand and easy to implement.
What do you think?
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5694 times:

Regarding the LTU - Shot on the same day, 2 were accepted May 30, the other May 31. Mistakes happen, but 2 should be removed from the DB then.

User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5675 times:

Is that something going on with those photos and what is wrong with them of those photos?

User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5617 times:

Art,

It has been tightened a little bit in my recent experience. A while back I uploaded two shots of the BBMF Lancaster. One was side on and the other was three quarters (I thought both were appealing enough to upload) but the three-quarter shot was rejected as baddouble. I didn't agree with it but I respected the screener's decision and just swallowed it - and uploaded the rejected one elsewhere.

It's possible that the screeners have an eye on the burgeoning size of the database; I don't know, I can't read their minds. Andy is quite correct in reinforcing that there will inevitably be variations in interpretation, and certainly there will be occasions where images creep through when perhaps they shouldn't - understandable given the huge amount submissions.

Either way, you've got many, many great images here Art. Sure it's dissappointing that the rejected shot (it is pleasing) didn't get in but don't sweat it, other opportunities will come your way.



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5603 times:

Sorry, I can't help myself stop laughing!  Laugh out loud

So again, baddouble is the same a/c from the same photographer, badcommon same aircraft from different photographers. Now if you ask me, I wouldn't care less seeing the same aircraft from different angles from the same photographer. Instead, having 10 pictures of the same aircraft from the same angle... Well, some pictures even taken 15 minutes after each other.

This is what I mean:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Janne Laukkonen / FAP - Finnish Aviation Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Janne Laukkonen / FAP - Finnish Aviation Photography




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Harri Koskinen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Arttu Laaksonen




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jussi Kettunen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lauri Huima




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mikko Pietarinen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mikko Pietarinen




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Juuso Silfsten
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jussi Kettunen




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Juuso Silfsten
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Janne Laukkonen / FAP - Finnish Aviation Photography




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jussi Kettunen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Harri Koskinen




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Harri Koskinen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lauri Huima




Sorry I'm using these photos again as an example, but this phenomenon happens really often in Helsinki.

And those who are interested to see even more of those, can do a Cross Data Search.

And I think Art's rejected picture is better than those two earlier ones. I thought that a "similar" picture can be accepted if the quality is better.

Show must go on...

-Joge



Bula!
User currently offlineLGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5580 times:

Hi all,

This is no dig at Art himself but in my view you should be allowed a couple of shots of the same aircraft from the same shoot if from different angles but its self screening thats the key.

Imagine if all of us uploaded 3 shots from every aircraft we saw takeoff! The database would send us all asleep!

As I say I think a couple of a set is fine but I just feel its down to the photographer to select 1 or 2 from a set which they like the most. If I uploaded 3 shots or more from aircraft I shoot taking off or landing I would have thousands of shots in the db.

Out of your 3 727 shots I like the rejected one the most, if it where me I would have uploaded that one first to make sure it didnt get baddouble but of course out of the 3 you may have another favourite.

Cheers

Ben Pritchard


User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5572 times:

Imagine if all of us uploaded 3 shots from every aircraft we saw takeoff! The database would send us all asleep!

That's right, Ben. Therefore, it should be implemented with the rarity of the aircraft/airline and photo quality. Say, 3 shots of the already legendary BA A319 compared to 3 shots of Air Koryo Tu-134. Anyway, there's only 1 picture of the latter...


View Large View Medium

Photo © James Fuhrman



EDIT:

Whoops, sorry, that was only one picture of that aircraft from North Korea, there are more from outside Korea. More pics wouldn't hurt, though.  Big grin

-Joge

[Edited 2004-07-08 12:30:42]


Bula!
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

That Air Koryo picture...  Wow!

That BASTARD (and I use that term advisedly) stole my picture...  Pissed

Mine on the left (photoid 191941) and the thief's on the right (photoid 559953)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Martin - AirTeamImages
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Fuhrman


His isn't even taken in Pyong Yang, as he claims - its taken in Shenyang, because I took the bloody picture!  Angry

I think 559953 as illustrated above isn't much longer for the database, and I don't think James Fuhrman has much of a future on this site! Big grin

Andy

PS: Thanks for that Joge


User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5549 times:

Talk about a coincidence Big grin

Wietse



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5534 times:

Np, Andy.

Seems like the picture has been removed already.

-Joge



Bula!
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5520 times:

Yup... Gone - thanks to whoever did that for me.

Adds new meaning to the word baddouble though, doesn't it! Big grin

Andy


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5510 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Andy

What a twat.......not you but the James guy.

Good to know that we can now use the Ban function with ease. No pissing about with the screeners any longer.

Cheers

Gary


User currently offlineZege From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5453 times:

Joge on reply 9

Sorry I'm using these photos again as an example, but this phenomenon happens really often in Helsinki.

Indeed Joge, indeed. Sometimes two or three photographers can upload picture which is taken same time, because they do not know each other and therefore there is no communication between them. That is not so bad, if plane is rare. You don't know what is uploaded before you and if it get accepted. That is not of course case on those pictures you put on your message.

So far only thing which has been a bit annoying for me is that here is a few guys who don't even bother to look from db if they already have upload picture of that plane. They can upload almost once a week, almost same kind of picture of some extremely rare plane in here like OH-LPD. And that because each time they are on EFHK they basically upload every picture on a.net. And yes, even this summer is not a good one (lot of rain and otherwise bad weather) they are here now pretty often...

But hey, I don't say that even photographers know each other there can not be "communication failure" Big grin


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Janne Laukkonen / FAP - Finnish Aviation Photography


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © E.S. / FAP - Finnish Aviation Photography



But we try to avoid that...


User currently offlineJormy From Finland, joined Jan 2000, 231 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5438 times:

Yeah, but that particular plane is rare enough to have at least two "baddoubles"  Big thumbs up

-Janne


User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5385 times:

Indeed Joge, indeed. Sometimes two or three photographers can upload picture which is taken same time, because they do not know each other and therefore there is no communication between them.

So that's why we should take those guys first for a beer which after they know us and can start asking for every picture if they can upload them here or not.  Big thumbs up

Yeah, but that particular plane is rare enough to have at least two "baddoubles"

That is true, but even then I would like to see different angles, let's say, one of you had upload a picture of the plane from a bit front angle and the other like it is now.

Oh sorry, the other IS a bit more from the front!  Wink/being sarcastic

Another point is, that people upload pictures too quickly to this site. For instance, 10 guys all take pictures of the same plane, upload the same day the pictures were taken... Checking for existing pictures won't help in this case, the responsibility is now on the screeners, will they spot the badcommons or not.

Zege, is this what you mean?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Harri Koskinen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Harri Koskinen



Well, the angle is different again...  Big grin

-Joge



Bula!
User currently offlineJormy From Finland, joined Jan 2000, 231 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5388 times:

So that's why we should take those guys first for a beer...

What if these guys are something like 15 years old? Big grin Anyway, I'm affraid this "tactic" won't work in long run but just for some occasional uploads...

That is true, but even then I would like to see different angles

That's true and that's what we're trying to do within FAP if we upload pics of same planes. Anyway, as Zege pointed out, those HS-SEB pics were a "communication error"  Big grin

-Janne


User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5270 times:

Anyway, back to the original topic:

Art, please let us know if your appeal/re-upload will be accepted. Really like the last picture!

That's true and that's what we're trying to do within FAP
But I'm not in FAP...  Wink/being sarcastic

-Joge



Bula!
User currently offlineZege From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5250 times:

Well, Joge I don't want start any naming here. Maybe he has that kind of attitude or maybe I was talking about someone else.  Insane But sometimes it get a little bit annoying if photographer's pictures are also uploaded to the Other Site as well. And I mean exactly same pictures and over and over again.

Anyway that kind of thing I meant. But hey, who am I to decide who and what can be upload here. That screeners and admins business.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy And we critically look Mr Koskinen's pictures shown on your message, both of those got more hits than for instance this one of mine
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © E.S. / FAP - Finnish Aviation Photography

.

So rare or not, it doesn't always tell is that something people want to see.

And what comes to the original subject, I like that picture which got rejected. Even (sorry to say) I personally like more to see whole plane and not just a part of it Big grin

Zege from HEL


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5191 times:

I think 3 shots of the same aircraft is too much. However, saying that why was the most interesting angle of the aircraft rejected? Thats what really gets me, it happens so often that maybe you have 2 or 3 shots where 1 is a bit special and 2 are good quality but boring and the 2 boring shots get accepted, whilst the special one is rejected for one reason or another.

User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5187 times:

it happens so often that maybe you have 2 or 3 shots where 1 is a bit special and 2 are good quality but boring and the 2 boring shots get accepted, whilst the special one is rejected for one reason or another.

Maybe the blame should be on the photographer. Why not upload the special one by itself?


25 Post contains links and images ExitRow : Maybe the blame should be on the photographer. Why not upload the special one by itself? I agree Chad. Blame the photographer: View Large View MediumP
26 Maiznblu_757 : Thanks, that was a series of shots.. HAHA. Thanks for plugging my shots, taint! And you plugged them backwards, its supposed to go 1-3 not 3-1... Nice
27 Post contains images Rotor1 : I totally agree. Photographers really should pick the technically and asthetically best shot (or two) and upload them rather than dumping the entire m
28 Maiznblu_757 : Mike, Should I explain my signature to you in person? Maybe bad double should also mean getting kicked out of the same area near an airport more than
29 Jan Mogren : Chad, I'll interpret the above response as you having trouble finding any argument giving validity to your previous statement. /JM
30 Maiznblu_757 : Say what? I had some shots rejected from that upload for baddouble. Lots of haters here, I must go. Thanks for plugging my shots folks.[Edited 2004-07
31 Jan Mogren : Only it's been said here over and over that is not the way to do it. /JM
32 Post contains images Rotor1 : -Mike
33 ExitRow : I uploaded them and left it in the hands of a highly acclaimed, talented screener to choose which ones he thought should be uploaded. Wow. An admissio
34 Maiznblu_757 : Well, maybe Ill remember that on my next flight, or two, or three.
35 ExitRow : Chad... The boom operator could have taken those same shots. All your talent is in your camera's processor. Boast away about your access if it's all y
36 Jan Mogren : >Lots of haters here
37 Maiznblu_757 : All your talent is in your camera's processor. Wow, that was harsh! I guess I should stop shooting then... But, since that is what you want, I must ke
38 ExitRow : Quit editing your posts Chad. It's an admission of wrongdoing.
39 Clickhappy : lol Chad, the emotional tampon of the Airliners.net Aviation Photography Forum. What a dick.
40 ExitRow : This little tantrum by Chad illustrates two problems with this site. 1.) While Art is getting his very good and interesting shots rejected for baddoub
41 Maiznblu_757 : He bitches about another photographer's ability to self-edit, and yet he's one of the worst offenders. I should have better explained my statement. My
42 Maiznblu_757 : Mike, I shot many more photos that day. It was far from card dumping.
43 Post contains images JeffM : All I can say is I don't think there are enough Phantom shots in the database period. I would like to ask everyone to go out and shoot at least one. I
44 Maiznblu_757 : Exitrow, Jan Mogren, Your arguments go right along with the idea that airliners.net should not focus on the photographer's abilities or the artistic c
45 ExitRow : Your arguments go right along with the idea that airliners.net should not focus on the photographer's abilities or the artistic characteristics of the
46 Post contains images Wietse : I was meaning to stay out of this, but with this remark: Your arguments go right along with the idea that airliners.net should not focus on the photog
47 Maiznblu_757 : If there are 2 people on this site that are in absolute favor of the artistic image instead of a side on database, it would be William and Jan! Well,
48 Wietse : It was a reaction to your "Dont hate; Appreciate" line. Surely the shots are artistic, but they are that way more by you simply being there than by an
49 Futterman : Oy veh. I have not once hyped up my photos or my abilities, but, now I must say, if he had an eye for style, artistic shots, he wouldnt have said that
50 Post contains images FlyingColors : If this forum was a toilet..... I'd say its was over-due to be FLUSHED. Pee eewu! Mike
51 Post contains images JeffM : Please, Let us get back to the important things... Phantoms.... !
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...
CIA/RedSox.Do We Have This Photo? posted Mon Mar 21 2005 15:11:03 by Tappan
Wouldn't This Have Been A Bad Double? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 00:25:19 by Jorge1812
Johan Needs To Fix This Bad Double Thing posted Fri Jan 30 2004 08:18:39 by AAGold
I Have To Try To Save This One...any Ideas? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 00:21:07 by AIRBUSRIDER
Would This Be Bad Double posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:28:15 by CallMeCapt
Do You Think I Will Have Any Luck With This Pic? posted Wed Apr 19 2006 21:04:01 by Deaphen
Does This Rate As A Bad Double? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 21:14:43 by Malandan
Confusion With This Bad-double. posted Wed Sep 21 2005 22:15:55 by Mx330
Aerial Views , You Have To See This! posted Fri Jul 29 2005 23:34:46 by VIR380
IBZ- Ibiza Spotting This Summer, Places To Go? posted Sun Jul 17 2005 16:46:15 by AIHTOURS