PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4146 posts, RR: 63 Posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4318 times:
As per internal discussion in the screening team it was decided that we will be more restrictice on nose shots from now on. The "waving pilot only photos" will be rejected as badmotiv as of today.
So if there should be any in the Q please delete them via
Jat74l From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4215 times:
"These are some of the most popular photos and my faves too"
So, what the viewer wants - the viewer doesn't get?
John
I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
IL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4212 times:
Quoting Mx330 (Reply 3): Will a complete shot of the plane with the pilots waving be rejected also?
There is a fine line between what's accepted and what's not. Basically, the airplane has to be the subject of the picture, not the man behind the window. So yes, when the whole plane is visible there is no reason to reject. Just the cockpitwindows with a waving pilot: badmotiv.
JAT74L From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 25 Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4201 times:
So, is it nose shots with pilot waving or just the windows with pilot waving?
John
I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
Danny From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3273 posts, RR: 6 Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4196 times:
Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Thread starter): As per internal discussion in the screening team it was decided that we will be more restrictice on nose shots from now on. The "waving pilot only photos" will be rejected as badmotiv as of today.
So close up of a window will be rejected. How about close up of a nose?
JAT74L From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 25 Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4180 times:
TS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4175 times:
So now that you got rid of "friendly waves" & "full house in the cockpit" can you clarify what kind of nose shots are actually acceptable? It seems to me like they've got accepted & rejected rather arbitrarily in the past.
Airplanepics From United Kingdom (England), joined Jun 2003, 2705 posts, RR: 54 Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4127 times:
Is there any particular reason why this rule has come into effect?
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 875 posts, RR: 44 Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4104 times:
Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Thread starter): As per internal discussion in the screening team it was decided that we will be more restrictice on nose shots from now on. The "waving pilot only photos" will be rejected as badmotiv as of today.
Why ?
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
LeanOfPeak From United States, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4063 times:
I wasn't in on the decision, but I would say it's because of a popular request from photographers to know where the line is.
This is not a statement that waving pilots are a negative for a photo. It is a statement that a waving pilot does not, for a.net, justify a crop that would otherwise be unmotivated.
If a photo would not have significance sans waving pilot, the waving pilot does not in and of him- or herself lend the photo significance as a photo of an aircraft. This does not eliminate properly-motivated photos of an aircraft nose, with or without waving pilots. It just means that, if you crop a photo in a way that, with an absent or non-waving cockpit crew, would have led people to wonder why the photo was taken in the way that it was, a.net does not consider a waving cockpit crew adequate motivation for the photo.
By all means, if you like the shot, take it for your personal collection, for myaviation, or for any other purpose you like. For submission to airliners.net, however, ignore the cockpit crew. If the photo still makes compositional sense, it's probably OK. Otherwise, it could reasonably be argued that the photo is a photo of the cockpit crew rather than of the aircraft in question.
Newark777 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 8796 posts, RR: 41 Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4047 times:
If a photo would not have significance sans waving pilot, the waving pilot does not in and of him- or herself lend the photo significance as a photo of an aircraft.
Mygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 27 Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4046 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 19): thankfully I still got this one accepted a few days ago
Florian...I'd say this is no a hand waving itself but looks like if he was measuring something. Well...in Spain means some other things better not to be commented in public
Airplanepics From United Kingdom (England), joined Jun 2003, 2705 posts, RR: 54 Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4000 times:
Quoting DLKAPA (Reply 23): Alas, another part of aviation eliminated from a.net.
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1394 posts, RR: 21 Reply 25, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4000 times:
Just a couple of other things to ask,
1) If you take a shot of a nose with a waving pilot in it, so long as it fits the general "nose shot" requirements, will it still be accepted, or will the fact it has a waving pilot null it immediately?
2) If, as I've written above a waving pilot is acceptable, would it still be OK to draw attention to the fact he/she is waving in the comments box?
Tim.
Obviously missing something....
26 Newark777: 2) If, as I've written above a waving pilot is acceptable, would it still be OK to draw attention to the fact he/she is waving in the comments box? Wr
27 Eadster: Hey All, I have mixed feelings on this. The people that run this site, have made the decision and thats fine. Its totally up to them. But I wonder if
28 LeanOfPeak: One more time...A waving pilot is not a disqualifying offense for a photo. The only thing this clarifies is that the waving pilot can not be the sole
29 CallMeCapt: It is, after all, airliners.net. Not AirlinePilots.net I think it's a good idea. But dont hate me for it.
30 Newark777: It is, after all, airliners.net. Not AirlinePilots.net I think it's a good idea. But dont hate me for it. I guess we should ban terminal shots and air
31 CallMeCapt: Don't give them any ideas. I can imagine Johan sitting there, going "hmmmm, Harry has a point." As far as I'm concerned, if they ban something, I'll t
32 Newark777: I can imagine Johan sitting there, going "hmmmm, Harry has a point." Haha, I can see him pondering my ideas right now. As far as I'm concerned, if the
33 Eadster: Lets hope it doesn't go that far! Airport Overviews are excellent IMO. I enjoy photographing airports and looking at other airports all over the worl
34 CallMeCapt: Yea, that's pretty much what I meant. If only I could upload ALL my photos that I have on my hard drive. That'd make me very happy...and very busy al
35 DLKAPA: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Don't adjust your photography for this site! I find that if something may be a different moti
36 PUnmuth@VIE: Sorry but thats the wrong idea here. Just adjust what you upload not what you photograph. [Edited 2005-07-12 05:41:18]
37 CallMeCapt: Ok, I misposted. I have taken literally hundreds of photos at the airport. What I meant to say was, I'll adjust my uploads. Sorry for the misunderstan
38 AndrewUber: The bar has been raised - OK Got it. Pilots waving is bad. No more of this crap: In other news, we now accept pics of gymnasiums. View Large View Medi
39 LeanOfPeak: Drew, I would suspect the second F-16 photo to still be acceptable. The first probably would not be, though the F-16 does have somewhat interesting st
42 TZ: The subject of waving pilots, and the difference between an acceptable and an unacceptable shot was discussed quite thoroughly recently here: http://w
44 Gary2880: but they are usually interesting, close ups of pilot's waving on the other hand... May just be me but there's only a certain number of times I can fi
45 Jaspike: There's always this for people who like these photos Tom[Edited 2005-07-12 11:15:58]
46 Granite: Hi all As for Tamsin's 'Gym' shot, for me it's a nice addition to the database. Once upon a time, the heart of British aviation. I bet that some older
47 INNflight: Please help me identifying the airline...
49 AndrewUber: LOL Fergul - I thought they might be Singapore Girls! DREW
50 Just_Plane_Mad: So i see no-one here has the right to freedom of expression seeing as you have delted my post ? doesnt my opinion count for anything ? and i agree "us
51 Airplanepics: This is another reason why we should have an artistic section on airliners.net, so we can acutally upload photos other than side on views.
53 TimdeGroot: You think closeups of cockpits are artistic?
54 Airplanepics: No, but we need another section for things like this. There more interesting and artisitc than boring side on shots.
55 Viv: Well good! It's about time! Let's focus on aircraft again!
56 Gary2880: I think it has been discussed quite extensively in the past that creating such a section would cause more trouble than its worth with people trying t
57 Skymonster: So if the pilot is just sitting there and not waving, everything is still OK then??? FWIW, I think that this change is a great shame. Why does A.net
58 Airplanepics: Just my thoughts Andy. Soon, the site will be so picky with what pictures should look like, I feel people will eventually stop uploading to the site,
59 Just_Plane_Mad: LOL It's already happening under your very noses ! soon you guys wont be accepting photos of planes ! :P
61 Airplanepics: Just out of interest, how has Peter's shot got motive, when this one hasn't? Rejected for Bad Motive: www.londonaviation.co.uk/FWWOWA380LBG180605.jpg
62 Ryangooner: This site needs to get a grip.... I get aircraft rejected but maybe i should take a pic of myself instead! That pic should have been a reject, now if
63 AndrewUber: Simon - Your shot is FANTASTIC. It shows how big the engine is, it is well cropped and composed, hell - it even shows the REG (not like we needed to s
64 Eadster: This man is thinking!! I like it and its something different. Any chance of this acutally happening?? Its a damn good idea! I think that we do have t
65 StealthZ: This thought has struck me before, and I do not mean a personal attack on Peter as he does great work and is a hardworking screeener. Why it seems whe
66 Diezel: That is because we love to blame somebody and usually this is the messenger (as Peter himself already mentioned). It's human nature I guess as we've
67 StealthZ: I think the screeners, especcially prolific contributors like Peter are an easy target and "transgressions" are searched out to make a point! And I gu
68 Airplanepics: Hi Drew, I did Appeal, and the shot got rejected for BadInfo by the headscreeners, bot ofr BadMotive! As far as I'm aware, the info was correct on up
70 Airplanepics: Would of been nice for someone to tell me what when I emailed the Head Screeners a few days back! Wheres the CN code in your helicopter photo? Should
71 LGW: Hi all, I don't want to get dragged into this debate as I can't see it going anywhere or achieving anything. All I will say is that the Boeing engine
72 Eadster: As they say: "If it ain't Boeing, it ain't going!!!"
73 Granite: Hi all Peter, what brand of watch is that you are wearing and is that a dust spot on your shirt Regards Gary
74 Atco: The photo referred to by Andy in reply #60 makes a complete mockery out of this site. If anyone else had uploaded a photo like that it would have been
75 Kukkudrill: I don't like to be controversial unless I really have to ... and this time I really have to. For me a photo like this gets right at the heart of the m
76 Skymonster: I don't think that its blatant favouritism - in fact I actually like Peter's photo. However, I do think that this example illustrates a severe case o
77 Gary2880: To be a tad (a lot) hypocritical I do enjoy closeup cockpit shots of military/fighter jets as they are interesting and have detail in them. compared t
78 Atco: Sure Andy, I actually agree that it is quite a nifty photo, and whether there is any favouritism or not, I'll still stand by my assertion that if any
79 Ryangooner: Atco I couln't have said it better myself - Instead of flaming a photographer of whom you cannot blame (unless he screened it himself!) you have const
80 APFPilot1985: Not to mention the fact that the face of an army guy is visible in the right hand side glass. I dont see how the motive is any better than this rejec
81 BREmer: Why can't we make a popular vote for artistic shots? Create an Artistic Appeal Forum where people can post their shots that don't fit into any of the
83 ChrisH: " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...5.jpg Engine shots are badmotiv too now?
84 PositiveClimb: I have mixed feelings about the topic... I can see where the screeners are coming from. Closeups of cockpits are - normally - not that exciting in my
86 Clickhappy: Hey Harry, trying reading the thread before you "contribute"
87 Flyfisher1976: ANET is slowly but surely looking for new methods of conserving space on their ever expanding server. It seems that they are acccomplishing this by ta
88 Skymonster: Indeed, but would you care to answer the question though Royal? A
89 Newark777: Hey Harry, trying reading the thread before you "contribute" I've been following this whole thread since it was started. Harry
90 Airplanepics: Hey Royal, try giving us an answer to all the question in this thread!
91 Danny: I'm affraid I'm missing the point of this photo as well
92 Clickhappy: Rather than give you an answer, I will give you my feelings. First, it is alarming and frustrating that so many people are upset. I am worried that to
93 Airplanepics: Hi Royal, Thanks for your comments. I think the thing that most photographers are annoyed about is that a.net photographers are not consulted before s
94 WERNAIR: I am really sad that the "pilot pics" won't be accepted any longer as there have been a lot of interesting pics in the last years. Especially on milit
95 Fergulmcc: You know when I joined A.net about 9 months ago it was a great site and I enjoyed it. I browsed A.net for about a year before I joined and loved it th
96 Newark777: There is no question that had any of the non crew members uploaded a shot like that Peter it would have been rejected for Bad motive. That is exactly
97 Bruce: As for Peter's shot of himself & the Apache, I too don't find the motiv in it. From the thumbnail I could barely tell what it was and when I opened it
98 Clickhappy: Bruce, I personally emailed you and told you that the shots were not newsworthy. The only mention of this incident is from your several emails and thi
99 WERNAIR: So that's really an absolutely useless comment...
100 Flyfisher1976: (In reference to above) Also against forum rules... No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
101 Just_Plane_Mad: Geeez I'm really sorry I just don't see many shining happy people here thats all !
102 Atco: Royal, Thanks for a nicely thought out post. I think it might miss the point slightly in that I don't think anyone who contributes regularly here woul
103 Jaspike: Hmm.. You haven't been able to have your say on the waving pilots issue? Anyone was free to add their comments. Tom
104 Bruce: Ummm, I never received such an email. And I check it frequently every day. bruce
106 APFPilot1985: It really cant be argued that Peter and to a far lesser extent Tasmins shots are very boarder line badmotiv and can with out a doubt would have been r
107 ChrisH: A.nets biggest priority atm should be to increase screening consistency. If only we had that people would be less aggrovated. Currently there is none
108 Flyfisher1976: I firmly beleive that a screener will use a really subjective rejection reason when he/she can't think of a real reason to reject the photo. i.e. this
109 TimdeGroot: Any evidence to back that up?....then stop making accusations. Tim
110 Danny: They would rather use badcameraangle in this case [Edited 2005-07-13 20:36:18]
111 APFPilot1985: sure Tim, how about you respond to Danny's post.
112 TimdeGroot: I don't see what Danny's post has to do with it. We don't use badmotiv to cover up any other faults of the image, that's complete bullshit. Tim
113 APFPilot1985: Sorry about that Man I didnt read the whole post of FlyFishers and I do disagree with him about that. Now how about you respond to dannys post.
114 Clickhappy: Danny, are you saying that in order to reject an image, in light of there not being a "real" reason we will reject it as badlevel?
115 Danny: Tim - my question was why shot no.1 was good motiv while shot no.2 was bad?
116 IL76: I feel that I need to respond here, but I also feel that it's no use, because I'd be talking to a brick wall... You can argue all you want, there are
117 BREmer: Picture 1 shows the fans as well. Therefore it is more interesting. Guys, as long as this bitchfight goes on, there will never be a good solution to t
118 Flyfisher1976: Maybe I should clarify my POV: No, I don't have evidence to back up my previous comment. However this could be another method of thinning out, or redu
119 Flyfisher1976: Frown was a typo...not intentional...
120 Airplanepics: That's not the point were trying to get to Eduard. The point is, us the photographers want to be included in such descisions.
121 PUnmuth@VIE: Just read the thread starting at reply 60. Then you see what happens when someone tries to do so. With all respect but that this comes from you, I wo
122 Newark777: Digging out pictures that you think were mistakenly added doesn't help here. It's not digging out a picture when it was one of the tops of yesterday,
123 TimdeGroot: There are 12000 photographers on a.net (ok maybe not all are active), to just hear the people on this forum would not only not be a good enough repre
125 Skymonster: I just KNEW the subject of my photo would crop up. Yes, I uploaded it and didn't think it'd get in, but it did. But Peter, with all due respect, you
126 Ryangooner: Peter, please re read my response, you have taken it out of context and twisted it inferring that i had made an assumption that you had screened the
127 Newark777: No it's not. My bad, must of mis-read. I still stand by the rest of what I said, though. Harry
129 APFPilot1985: and what is at the center of that helicopter nose, the photos with the waving pilots have just as much of the frame filled with the A/C.
130 SA006: My God , politics on an aviation photography site. Why can't we all just get along? Hey , you may find my opinion complete bogus being the age that I
131 Xpfg: If only it was pointed out. Again, read this post. And, as mentioned, I do appreciate the screeners work...
132 SA006: Xpfg: Continue reading my post and you see I have addressed the reason being pointed out. Rejections like badcontrast , badangle are vague yet they do
133 United737522: You know, it is not the fact that a shot like that gets in that makes us mad, (this is restating what everyone has said so far, but the crew just does
134 Atco: Reply 125 of Andy............. Absolutely perfect, thanks Andy. Ignoring the snide sarcasm can you please point to some evidence of where I have criti
135 Fiveholer: Come on, it's obvious. I think if the helicopter nose was the TRUE intention of this shot, you would have made an attempt to NOT have yourself as a r
136 Icebird757: Hahaha.....you make me laugh Peter. You sure seem to be running a.net more that Johan himself. Maybe you should just buy him out. Andy...well said on
137 Skymonster: " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...5.jpg Great shame that's not on the database Danny, great shame! Andy
138 CallMeCapt: Wow, what a thread. Last time I read the original post was a few days ago and now I come back to see this. If things keep going like this, we will los
139 Newark777: CallMeCapt: So we shouldn't have these discussions because it may offend the screeners and cause them to leave? Doesn't seem very mature on their part
140 Xpfg: Problem is...half the time our point doesn't matter..anger ensues...sucks, huh?
141 Fergulmcc: Well I guess I was speculating, apologies for that, but I felt that I had good reason to. Sorry I posted. Take care Fergul
142 CallMeCapt: Certainly not. I am a firm believer in having discussions and making points in a freedom of speech society. But some of the comments I have read are
143 JeffM: Help us fixing photographs? When did that become part of their job?
144 CallMeCapt: Not part of their job. Just courtesy. But I'd say they will help us whenever they can. I've had 3 screeners in the past help me out.
145 United737522: Why does everything have to be 'bash the screeners'? Can't a dialogue ensue without everyone having to call it a 'screener bashing'?
146 Atco: As far as I can see most of the bashing seems to be coming from the screener to the photographers and not the other way round. The process is under sc
147 NonRevKing: First of all, it's not a "copysite". JP is NOTHING like how it is here. Second, if that's the worst you can say about it, then we're going great! If
149 Qantas744: Well said Brian:D And before the next obvious comment comes along I'll save certain people some hassle and make it clear that I do not screen at the o
150 Newark777: If we are talking about the centre of attention being the aircraft as oposed to pilots I don't see why it didn't get badmotive. Funny, I was thinking
152 QANTAS077: maybe some think that the name will get them everywhere....if it doesn't get them what they want it's time to pack up and leave?!? maybe the photogra
153 StealthZ: Not sure where this thread is headed but the issue of consistency seems to have taken it over. Screeners are the judge, jury and executioner as far as
154 APFPilot1985: Is that all you have to say Royal, nothing about the acceptance of Peters Photo, or any of the other points brought up in this thread. Or do you just
155 APFPilot1985: I really really hope you arent talking about Sam Chui
157 QANTAS077: that's bullshit! i think you'll find that it's not as cut n dry as you make it out to be!
158 APFPilot1985: Ha, no loss at all. You quoted the wrong post.
159 AGD: I'm not a regular contributor to this forum, althought I read it every single day. But now I have to say, wow...what a load of crap this thread had be
160 Sulman: This is all getting rather hostile isn't it? Get things on track and be sensible, and reach a constructive, intelligent solution - that's what this fo
161 Ryangooner: This thread has gone off track a tad with about 4 or 5 last replies attacking certain fellows. I shall re-iterate the obvious in my eyes.. This thread
162 ChrisH: Well put Ryan. It's unfortunate that the shots debated _both_ happen to be screener's shots.
163 Psych: I'm pitching in now - though I had thought it best not to do so. I fear that the key issues we should be debating have got lost in what has ended up i
164 Skymonster: No, the picture should have been sent to Johan for his decision. There was a very clear directive passed down in public, after my shot of Royal was a
165 APFPilot1985: We know thats not true Florian, you will be right there as soon as someone says something bad about a policy with your "life outside of anet" or how
166 Qantas744: Got any of Sam's photoshopped and manipulated pictures that you want to show us? I don't recall having seen any, unless you are talking about over-zea
167 ChrisH: Or recropped and uploaded as a second picture.
168 Timdegroot: What has Sam got to do with the subject of this thread? If you have a problem with his photos email him. Tim
169 Skymonster: It is a great shame that this discussion, like many others, is degenerating into a slanging match of sorts. This issue is not about personalities, it
170 Qantas744: My reply to APFPilot may be misinterprated-it wasn't an accusation that Sam had done anything wrong just that there is a fine line between cloning out
171 DerekF: I've read this rather sad thread and wasn't going to comment but after some of the recent replies I think I have to comment. I know it is drifting awa
172 Psych: I'm feeling a bit p**sed off here, as I spent some time trying to articulate some of my (hopefully) reasoned points in Reply 164, but I feel already t
173 Sulman: Paul, You touch on some interesting points there, but ultimately, you've identified one of the biggest challenges a.net faces at present. I actually l
175 TimdeGroot: Ok, now we are letting something different into the database, a closeup shot of an APU outlet, shot from a rare angle, and it's still not good enough.
176 TZ: Derek... Even though I didn't work in that building, just being around the area stirred up a lot of emotion for me. The very sad loss of a strategic
177 Willo: Flyfisher edit Thankfully this thread was locked just as I posted. Having got back on track with replies 170-174, it was denigrating in to mudslinging
178 Pilot kaz: WOW :O what a debate! I have to say (sorry for comming in late here) That im not happy with the main dessision made on "ammending" Badmotive. And now
Sponsor Message: 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4146 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1394 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Oct 2002, 805 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 2004, 618 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2152 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3273 posts, 
From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jun 2003, 2705 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 875 posts, 
From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 1692 posts, 
From United States, joined Dec 2004, 8796 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
