Don't tell me you are only able to upload one photo from each sequence, because that can't be true. I have seen many photographers lately which have managed to get more than one photo accepted from the very same sequence.
Zander From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 611 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2490 times:
"Here we go again... "
Unfortunately I had to, but I really think this is a problem even if you (IL76 and Wietse) don't have that kind of problem probably!?
I can't really agree with your arguments since I have had a lot of baddoubles during the last year so this was just the final cut.
And yes, I have had both special liveries shot from the front/rear as well as closeups etc. but that doesn't really help.
There is a lot more examples of baddoubles in the base, but I just took the time to show those two this time.
That's why I really can't understand this rejection but I am not expecting any good answer on this because it doesn't seem like there is one or am I wrong?
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2239 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2472 times:
The reason why I said that is because it's been brought up a few times already. I can understand your frustration, I have multiple shots of same aircraft myself that I would like to upload too. But I force myself into picking only one to avoid the dreaded 'baddouble' rejection.
We know there is such a rejection reason possible, so one should keep that in mind when uploading and not be surprised when a shot gets rejected as baddouble. It sucks sometimes, but this site just has this screening policy. And of course the borders between baddouble and not-baddouble is a bit vague and depends also on which screener is screening you photos; so consider yourself lucky if a pair makes it through, and a 'nice-try' for those who didn't.
Just make sure you upload your best shot first.
Not that it isn't of good quality or that they should be rejected or anything like that, but I think Sri Lankan should get more attention than AC 333s. But as the others previously said, the best thing is always to upload your best one first. And you did it perfectly with your wonderful 3/4 rotation shot!
ManBurkert From China, joined Sep 2004, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2405 times:
I recently expierenced a bad double rejection of a just delivered plane. So only 1 picture in the Database exisitng. The first one was rotating aircraft from the front. Rejected=> Baddouble, because I upload a second picture, picture which was slightly from behind but allready airborne. The second picture was rejected by another screener badquality.
So finally both rejected and no picture in the Database. And for sure I will not upload a second time.
Aagold From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 550 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2380 times:
I really hate replying to this thread because, sadly, it's beating a dead horse. We've been through this countless times before to no avail. I really thought some issues were resolved in a bad double thread I started in January concerning a friends bad double reject. The original thread is located at ...
if you'd like to reference it. Johan responded to this thread by stating:
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.
I walked away reading that statement and felt we had made some genuine progress along the lines of resolving the bad double issue. That is until July when I uploaded a shot that got rejected for bad double. Sorry to bore you by restating this as it was in another thread, but there were these two pictures in the database of the aircraft:
I later uploaded a third shot, granted taken the same day, but totally different from my two previous shots and from those existing in the database.
Andy (Skymonster), one of the screeners suggested I appeal the rejection in the thread I started about this reject, and let Johan make the final decision. I did just that. The two months it sat in the appeal queue I felt confident that it would make it onto the database. I mean there aren't many photos of that aircraft in the database and I would say it qualifies as being pretty rare. How many 721's do you see in service today? I looked back at my original bad double thread and reread what Johan wrote before appealing it. That also made me feel confident that the shot would make it onto the database.
I was wrong. Johan, to my total shock and surprise, rejected the photo stating bad double. I felt the progress I thought we'd made in January was just thrown out the door. But the bottom line is that it's his database and he can accept/reject whatever he wants for whatever reason. I just wish he'd publish guidelines we could clearly follow to avoid these disappointments. Something like: A maximum of one shot per aircraft per day, or one shot per operation (takeoff, landing, taxi, ramp, etc.) per day, or even a maximum of 'x' photos of any single aircraft. Some rule we could follow before we upload and know what we are uploading isn't a bad double. Sadly that never seems to come. In his response he actaully encouraged us to upload more than one shot if we thought the shot had "high additional value," which I thought this shot, when compared to the others, did.
I was disappointed enough in that bad double appeal rejection that I uploaded it to another site. The first time I've uploaded to another site. I, for one, am tired of beating a dead horse when, obviously, nothing seems to change.
PS: I'm not complaining about the screeners in this thread. The fact that different screeners apply different rules is not their fault or responsibility to fix. The lack of definitive rule leaves them as much in the dark as we are.
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1083 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2361 times:
I am with you on this one as i thinkn the angle is sufficiently different and the photo is good quality that it would not warrant a reject.
I am also with Art in that obviously there is not guidline as to what exactly is a baddouble.I personally use the if its the same day and same angle thing then don't bother.
Works most of the time.
Klgaviation From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 243 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2361 times:
Not sure about you guys but the photos above are all excellent and I think it's foolish to reject a photo judging by another one. I'm not the type of person to find a photo by "Photographer A" and be angry to see he has another photo of the same aircraft on the same date. If they're not Identical, they're good enough for me!
There is a fine line between a picture and a photo. The latter seems to be disappearing.
I took 6 or 7 excellent shots of this 747 landing and after looking to each one carefully, I picked the one which I thought was the best and it got accepted. Later though I thought there was more detail in the sequence so after giving some thought, I uploaded this one:
I was almost sure that it will be rejected but I kept some hope because there's no other photo in the database of this 747 that gives the detail of the sticker. I don't mind for the rejection, I won't be appealing or re-uploading it. I guess there will be another chance, maybe next summer since the AF 747s won't be coming here till next year.
I know it's a long time but this is the way it is. Keep shooting. Have fun like I'm having.
Aagold From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 550 posts, RR: 47
Reply 17, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2217 times:
Good question. First I looked at the photos on the database to see what was there and noticed just the two straight side on shots. I have them as well, but I chose the taxi forward shot and takeoff shot as the first two to upload. They were both different angles of the aircraft and different from what was in the database.
Based on what I thought was resolved by Johan's response in the previous thread I saw absolutely no problems with that third shot getting on the data base. I agree, it is the best of the three and definitely the one with the most impact. That's why I saved it for last.
WERNAIR From Austria, joined Aug 2003, 164 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2136 times:
I agree that two perfect shots of one and the same A/C should be in the database, but within the last days there are some 99% similar shots added directly in a row... (as I browsed through the latest additions)
Ryangooner From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 969 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2129 times:
So obviously a few do get through the net so to speak.
the above 2 shots are very nice but quite clearly baddouble - only one should have been accepted in this instance.
But Art's 3rd shot of that 727 is no way a baddouble and its quality of composition makes us the viewers want to see it on Anet. Baddouble? no, Badtreble maybe but hey i want to see the photo's, and Art did say he saved the best to last! (I believe him!)