Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Baddoubles - I Am Going Crazy  
User currently offlineZander From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 610 posts, RR: 4
Posted (10 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2398 times:

Hi all,

Got a baddouble rejection today which I really can't understand. http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=4R-ADF-2.jpg
The rejection must be referring to the photo below.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Jonsson


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.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Howie
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Darren Howie



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Noret
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Noret


Here are two examples, all photos are great and I am not trying to criticize the photographers in any way, understand me right here.
I don't seem to understand this rejection reason at all...

Alex

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2380 times:

Here we go again...  Insane

User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

Two photos of different angles usually get in. Reupload or appeal? It should get in.


"Here we go again... "

That's the spirit. :F



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2338 times:

"Here we go again... "

Sorry, but I agree.

Regarding the examples you show:

Darrens shots; One is a full 3/4 front shot, the other is an extreme closeup of the airplane departing.

Philippe's shots; A special colorscheme, the front shot and the rear shot together show the entire paintscheme.

I just dont think that there is enough difference between your shots to warrant having them both online. But you did pick the right one to upload first! Great shot!



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineZander From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 610 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2300 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?

Alex


User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2282 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.  Smile
E


User currently offlineAGD From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 204 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

Alexander,

Being a fan of your pictures for a while, I think the one that got rejected should make it. Angle is for me a lot different then your first image, but that's only my "amateur point of view"...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


As far as I know, now, that's the moment when I'd get a bit frustrated about the situation...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bowen Chau



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bowen Chau



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bowen Chau



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!

All the best,

Alex



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1305 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 2227 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

Both are nice and both should be in the database.


World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineCrank From Canada, joined May 2001, 1559 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

I also agree to say that both shots of the Sri Lankan 340 should be in the database. 3 shots of the same sequence however is too much, particularly when they are almost identical.

User currently offlineManBurkert From China, joined Sep 2004, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2215 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.

Cheers




Manfred Burkert (ZSAM)
User currently offlineAagold From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 546 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2190 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 ...

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/116533/4/

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.

Regards,
Johan


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:


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



I uploaded two shots I took of this aircraft and they were accepted.


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



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.

Art

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.


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

Gentleman (and maybe the rare occaisional lady that might cruise this forum  Big grin ), I give you this:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Daniel Smith



not at all the same angle as this:


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Eric Daniel Smith



User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 33
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Hi Alex
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.
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 offlineKlgaviation From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 243 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2171 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! Big grin

Chris



There is a fine line between a picture and a photo. The latter seems to be disappearing.
User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1925 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

I just had a baddouble rejection as we speak. This is the photo in the database:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Vatche Mitilian



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:

http://airliners.net/procphotos/rejphoto.main?filename=AF747BEY.jpg

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.

All the best to everyone.

Vatche

[Edited 2004-09-17 09:12:58]

User currently offlineRyangooner From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 969 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 2100 times:

Art

I love the rejected pic more than the 2 you got on the database - pretty ironic that the words on the engine state "Stage Three"! when you only got stage 1 and 2 on!

A quick question - why didn't you upload the rejected one first, in my opinion i think it looks the better angle/photo than the other 2....but of course that is only my opinion.

Ryan Hemmings



ooh to ooh to be ooh to be a gooner!
User currently offlineManburkert From China, joined Sep 2004, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 week ago) and read 2080 times:

I fully agree what Art mentioned above. If the rules are clear, the frustration would be less for all sides.
BTW great shoots.

Manfred Burkert



Manfred Burkert (ZSAM)
User currently offlineAagold From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 546 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2027 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ryan

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.

Art


User currently offlineZander From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 610 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1989 times:

Thanks for your replies guys, glad to hear that somebody agree with me.
The conclusion of this is that you have to be a little lucky to get a double through then  Big grin

AGD,
Special thanks to you, I am really glad to hear that...appreciate it a lot.

Alex




User currently offlineWERNAIR From Austria, joined Aug 2003, 164 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1946 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)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Viktor László - Budapest Aviation Photography
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Viktor László - Budapest Aviation Photography



Same day, same position, same A/C and same photographer

Cheers,
Werner



Wernair Photography
User currently offlineRyangooner From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 969 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (10 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1939 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!)

Ryan Hemmings




ooh to ooh to be ooh to be a gooner!
User currently offlineCanberra From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (10 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1928 times:

This is even the same picture I think, probably by mistake, but with the competition among the screeners to get the highest rejection rate I am surprised I got though!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bjorn Alegren
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bjorn Alegren



Great to see a aerial shot of DAM though! Thanks for sharing, Bjørn!

/Michael



It takes courage to push things forward . . (Mo Mowlam)
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...
Am I Going Crazy? posted Sun Nov 7 2004 22:26:00 by AirKas1
I Am Going To Quit .... posted Thu Mar 23 2006 10:30:14 by Rotate
How Am I Going To Do My Work Now?! posted Tue Jul 26 2005 12:01:30 by Sfilipowicz
I Am Going Digital posted Mon Jun 10 2002 01:52:15 by Flight Level
Hello, I Am Going To Go Spotting... Any Tips? posted Tue Jan 8 2002 04:30:56 by Hoons90
Going Large Format ... Linhof posted Thu Mar 8 2007 16:10:44 by LH526
Am I Losing It? posted Sat Feb 3 2007 17:01:46 by Fly-K
When Are We Going To Get Pics Of NW's A330 In HNL? posted Sat Jan 27 2007 02:08:23 by NWA ARJ
Acceptance Ratio Only Going One-way!? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 12:01:48 by ThierryD
Going To AUA, Need Photography Tips! posted Sat Nov 25 2006 18:21:46 by A388