Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Baddouble ....... Again!  
User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1996 times:

Rummaging around in a box of colour negatives, I came across a couple of adjacent frames which seemed (at least to me) quite interesting.
I lit the burner under my trusty scanner, followed by lashings of Photoshop and TLC and sent the results down my internet connection.
Alas and alack, a rejection email eventually appeared in my in-box – it was the dreaded lurgy ….. Aaaaahhh ..... BADDOUBLE!

MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Malcolm Clarke


OK, no sweat, one to go, and in due course another email, and Bingo (without warnings, of course)
It hit the sweet spot.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malcolm Clarke


Even better, a few thousand people voted with their fingers, and perhaps it might have made the front page if it weren’t for a few other minor events taking place elsewhere.
So BADDOUBLE yet again.

“I, er, hesitate to raise this, but I’m a little disappointed.”

“Really, what did you expect, same aircraft, same location (don’t think you even moved your feet) and taken on the same day”

“Yes, but …. you see different things are HAPPENING in the two photos. It’s a sort of… well, a sequence”

“Sorry, BADOUBLE is BADDOUBLE, we’ve got rules you know, have to stamp down on these things, you’re beginning to whine like an FB54 Ghost engine now! It’s only a photo, get over it, move on”

“But the rules say, 1 or 2 photos, couldn’t you …… you know, …. make an exception?”

“It’s a thought, but like I said ‘rules is rules’. You could always appeal it!”

“Well I would but I still have the brick marks on my forehead from last time!
Um …. dare I draw your attention to these? Absolutely superb shots, but … well … there’s more than 1 of them.”

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zhao Lu
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Zhao Lu


“Not the same thing at all, we liked them, the're airliner photos, what’s your problem?”

“I think I understand, but then there’s these exceptionally well taken pics”

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Zeitler - Flying-Wings
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Werner Horvath


“Yes, but those are special. Taken in Paris weren’t they; big, big airshow, different kettle of fish altogether”

"Thought I'd ask you about these - wonderful shots .........

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Markus van de Kamp
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Markus van de Kamp


........but do'nt think I'll bother!

Ah well. Switches on desk lamp, fires up scanner, ferrets around in boxes.
Sighs … if only I had a couple of A380 photos ……

No offence intended to anyone!

Malcolm.


My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCallMeCapt From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 496 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

Hi Malcolm
I read your post. With great amusement I might add. If you have that kind of evidence of other photos in the db that show baddouble, all I can say is, appeal your photo. As has been mentioned before, screeners are only human.
Goran



Without struggle, there is no progress. (Frederick Douglass)
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1962 times:

OK the Air France photos. Same photographer yes, but a landing and departure shot. Not a sequence shot.

DC-10 tanker. 2 different photographers, must I say more? It was a huge event, we'll probably end up with a dozen photographers with that same type of shot with the water coming out.

Last one is 2 different angles.

Personally I think you picked the best one for the database, IMHO.

Best,
Justin


User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1879 times:

Thanks Justin but you may have missed the point of my perhaps pathetic sense of humour.
I have no issues, criticisms, etc over ANY photos in the database. They have been approved by screeners and are almost all there on merit alone.
But .... whilst some are privileged to have several photos of the same aircraft, others are denied, and that seems not quite fair to me.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nigel Day
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nigel Day


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nigel Day



This is what one may refer to as a GOODTREBLE.

They are superb photographs and I wish the photographer well and have no wish whatsoever to see them removed. But there are 51 shots of this aircraft in the database. More than once I have been denied a second photo of an aircraft which isn't even in the database. Sad really!!!

Incidentally I did not choose the accepted image, the screener chose; I naively thought both were deserving.

Malcolm.



My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Even the accepted one should have been badinfo...

The airline field should not contain "Untitled (Private)" nor should it contain "Private". It should be "Untitled" or "Untitled (Operator Name)", assuming the operator's primary business function is aviation.

I'm sure we've discussed this before and "Private" should not appear in that field at all.

I have submitted a correction on your behalf.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

I think you are drifting slightly off topic Tamsin. It would be interesting if the rules could be clarified around doubles. I would never attempt to get three shots of the same aircraft all departing on the same day unless there are specific rules that allow me to do so as must of been the case of those above. Could there be a quick clarification given?

Many thanks .. Jid



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jid (Reply 5):
I think you are drifting slightly off topic Tamsin.

Nope, not drifting anywhere. Just reiterating what is an extremely clearly written rule on the upload page. Before somebody says I'm being overly negative, I should add I just spent an hour correcting images in the database containing very similar errors from some of our high-volume contributors who are all regular participants in this forum. I spent the time because I want the database to be as good as possible. I do wish though that some regulars would spend a few more seconds getting their info consistent at upload time. Ok, lecture over!  Wink

Quoting Jid (Reply 5):
unless there are specific rules that allow me to do so as must of been the case of those above

Good English => "must have" not "must of" (oh sorry, the lecture was over, must have been a detention!)  Wink

I'll be brutally honest with you Jid - we messed up on the three BA shots. The rules clearly say they should not have been accepted. It was a cock-up, which we do make from time to time. I am reluctant to delete one now, given that they have been in the database for a while and it was totally our mistake rather than the photographer's fault.

We do try very hard to apply rules fairly and consistently, and we concede there is a small percentage of images in the database which one could argue contradict our rules. Please understand that one may be able to expose a few dozen dodgy decisions but we're screening 6000 images every day, so as a percentage they are insignificant. It doesn't stop us trying harder but remember that one swallow does not a summer make.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineJid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1792 times:

Why thank you for the grammar lesson Tamsin  Smile

There is nothing wrong with saying that there was a cock-up, as you say we all make them from time to time. I think there is more to be gained by admitting the odd mistake now and then. There would be nothing what so ever to gain by deleting any of the shots already accepted.

Integrity of the data in the database IS a separate matter BUT an important one, I know I work with them all day!

I shall go off and do my lines now … Cheers Jid  drunk 



G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1739 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

If Malcolm had moved position, say another 90 degrees (to make a side shot) or 180 degrees (for a front shot), would this have made a second shot acceptable?

Basically, I am interested to know if there is a basic 'rule of thumb' we should be using for uploading multiple images of an aircraft that is acceptable. I know it can't be cast in stone, there will always be exceptions and the shots will be considered on their own merits by the screeners. I'm not trying to hold the screeners to something that they can be bashed with later. I just want to make sure I don't get future baddoubles myself (just had one, sorry!) - I might very well have done the same thing as Malcolm in this instance, for example. I'm thinking that while a 90 degree angle difference may count as a suitably different shot, a difference of say 45 degrees is obviously too little. While not so important for frequently shot aircraft such as airliners (where most angles have already been shot or will be in the future), it becomes a more interesting question for those rarely, if ever, photographed aircraft. Not only may you be the first a.netter to photograph the subject, you may well be the last!

Best regards,

Jim

PS, Tamsin, for those indoor museum shots you've taken, did you use a tripod? What settings did you use?



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1709 times:

I have no intention of labouring my point of view but coincidentally I have come across a 180 degree side-on shot of one already in the database, but with my luck it will probably be rejected for other reasons!

Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 8):
Not only may you be the first a.netter to photograph the subject, you may well be the last!

Jim raises an interesting point. Many of us have shots in the database which are the only ones of their particular reg. I have received quite a few rejections of such photos over time on quality grounds and these I have accepted.
But should more latitude be given for such unique photos or do screeners take a "hang on, we'll probably find a better one in the future" attitude to these?
Despite Johan's declaration that standards will continue to rise (which I have no problem with), isn't a photo not up to standards better than no photo at all? As we know, aircraft are scrapped, rot away in the corner of fields and, sadly, crash. Do we shy away from uploading unique reg shots because of a belief that they may not be accepted?
Airliners.net is well on the way, if not already there, to becoming the definitive reference aircraft photo site on the web and the breadth of 'reg coverage' is to my mind just as important as 'more of the same but better'.

There is a limit to how much the quality of old photos can be improved without adulteration. Believe me, it not easy!

Malcolm.



My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Malandan (Reply 9):
isn't a photo not up to standards better than no photo at all?

Yes it is, and believe it or not the screeners are all devotees of aviation photography and we love to see old and particularly rare stuff. If I see (for instance) a shot a Lightning flying in 1970s, and that aircraft is now scrapped, I am desperate to see that included in our database.

As you know, big concessions are made to allow rare and old shots into the database, and the quality standards for an ultra-rare 40-year-old shot are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from (say) another shot of the Airbus A380 from Paris 2005.

That does not mean that we'll accept anything if it's old. We'll consider the rarity and value to the database, but we'll also look at the scope in the image for surther improvement, and also the capability of the uploader. For instance, and old and rare image may be excellent but contain a few dust and hairs from the scanning process. There is no reason why those could not have easily been removed at the processing stage. Similarly there is no reason why an old shot should be accepted if it is badangle when it's easily fixed.

Uploaders with hundreds of photos in the database are expected to be able to remove simple stuff like dust, etc even from old scans. As such you may see rejections for very old and rare images. That doesn't mean we don't want the image, it simply means we know how good you are, and how much better that should could be.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineTameteora From Netherlands, joined Oct 2004, 231 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1673 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR

Hi Tamsim,

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 10):
As such you may see rejections for very old and rare images. That doesn't mean we don't want the image, it simply means we know how good you are, and how much better that should could be.

Fair enough. But I think these kinds of rejections should - if at all possible - always include a personal message from the screener. Do they?

Aad.


User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1658 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Aad

There is no cast-iron rule on that but as a general rule, yes we do. Like I said we (screeners) are all here because we're seriously into the business of aviation photography. Consequently it's in our interest to guide the uploaders of rare images to make them as good as possible and onto the site. That includes personal messages on rejects but also extends to assistance via email over weeks and months to help.

Having said that, there is expectations on uploaders with a high number of images (some 1000+) to be able to remove dust, make images level, etc without too much personal interaction.

Tamsin



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1654 times:

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 10):
Uploaders with hundreds of photos in the database are expected to be able to remove simple stuff like dust, etc even from old scans.

At times my clone stamp tool is smoking!

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 10):
it simply means we know how good you are, and how much better that should could be

You old smoothie you - sorry, you smoothie you!

To be serious. It helps enormously to read your reply, Tamsin, but I wasn't thinking so much of the rare or even the old. As you may know, most of my images are mostly 80's and early 90's and it is usually a problem with grain (ASA400?), less than desirable definition, hazy rainy weather, etc.
But I personally have every reason to be thankful for screeners good intentions - just wanted others who may have some apprehension to understand also so that we may hopefully see and enjoy more of the old stuff.

Malcolm.



My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 10):
it simply means we know how good you are, and how much better that should could be.

That's one way of putting it, I guess.  Smile

Quoting Tameteora (Reply 11):
But I think these kinds of rejections should - if at all possible - always include a personal message from the screener. Do they?

Some do Aad, I have had a few rejections and its nice to get the odd message saying where the problem is. If not you can always reply to the rejection e-mail, most times they do reply telling what you did wrong. I for one have benefited from the personal message, e-mails from screeners and editors helping me on some of the uploads as I have photographed a few new aircraft in Ireland that are not on the drop down menues.

Thanks

Take care

Fergul Big grin  sun 

PS Malcolm!, you, Mick and the others, keep those old photos comming, it's a joy to view them.



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineTameteora From Netherlands, joined Oct 2004, 231 posts, RR: 40
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1616 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 12):
There is no cast-iron rule on that but as a general rule, yes we do.

That's good enough, I think. I asked because if there is no such personal message, the uploader of the image will probably get the impression that standards for rare (old or not so old) shots are the same as for aircraft with 40+ shots already in the database... Which will put her/him off. Which doesn't help anyone.

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 12):
but also extends to assistance via email over weeks and months to help.

You're a sly one Tamsin... Silly I know, mylady, and I thank you for that! But I was not asking the question from personal experience. Except for one particularly strange one, all my rejects were justified, and some did include a personal message. So I'm not complaining!

I was merely wondering if there is a policy among the screeners regarding personal messages with rejects of rare shots. From what you say I understand there is, but it's not a rule, and it's left to the screener's discretion.

Quoting Tamsin (Reply 12):
there is expectations on uploaders with a high number of images (some 1000+) to be able to remove dust, make images level, etc without too much personal interaction.

Of course, very rightfully so. I even think 1000+ is a bit high for that. How about 50+? But even then, a personal message for such rare uploads goes a long way in not alienating the uploaders.

Aad.


User currently offlineTameteora From Netherlands, joined Oct 2004, 231 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1604 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 14):
I for one have benefited from the personal message

Me too, Fergul. Not too long ago I got a rare 16 year-old shot of a flying Connie rejected, but it came with a very friendly personal message from Gary. It made all the difference.

As I told Tamsin, I was not asking the question because of personal rejects. My personal feeling is that for rare shots, it's justified to go a bit further in trying to make sure the uploader is not put off too much by the reject. In the ideal world the screeners would do that for every reject, but that's totally impossible of course. But here we're talking about rare shots. Logic dictates that the rejects should be rare too then, so I wondered if a personal message should perhaps be sent in (all?) those cases. Tamsin answered that nicely.

Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 14):
PS Malcolm!, you, Mick and the others, keep those old photos comming, it's a joy to view them.

Amen to that! Keep up the good work guys! Nostalgia rules...

Aad.


User currently offlineBeechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 41
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

Hm, i�ll just take my latest baddouble rejection here:

I have this photo of the SAA 346 in the DB for roundabout 1,5 month,

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Denis Roschlau



this shot from the same day was rejected today. 3 shots of that reg. in the database and i figure i got two different angles....
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/sa-f-wwcg2denis.jpg

Denis



That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
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...
Baddouble Question ..again! posted Sat Jul 23 2005 05:18:25 by StealthZ
Blemishes, Blemishes And Again Blemishes posted Wed Nov 22 2006 19:20:45 by Aero145
Spotting At YSSY....again posted Fri Nov 17 2006 23:25:58 by Brett
Rejected... Again... posted Thu Nov 9 2006 00:29:29 by D L X
Screening Queue Is Rising Again.... posted Wed Oct 18 2006 17:16:18 by LIPH
A Few Shots In Need Of Advice..again posted Tue Sep 19 2006 22:39:49 by Pavvyben
And Again Some Prescreening Advise Please? posted Mon Sep 18 2006 15:20:08 by Acontador
Rejection Help Requested (again) posted Tue Aug 22 2006 13:41:08 by DerekF
Rejection Help... Again posted Mon Aug 14 2006 00:55:51 by Eadster
Manipulation... Again. posted Sat Aug 5 2006 02:45:57 by United737522