Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?  
User currently offlineA340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1981 posts, RR: 23
Posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Question...

In the past, submitting a side profile shot of a plane, and then also submitting a close up of the nose, or a nice tail only shot, was fine. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples on the site. I have at least two airplanes that fit into this category already. However, when doing this on the Retro World MD-11 N803DE, the tail only shot, vertically, was rejected as a double, and rejected again when appealed.

Has this particular practice been updated?

Just wondering.


"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWaketurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1296 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2566 times:

That's a good question. I noticed these shots in the DB.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Carter



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Carter
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Carter


While they are all great shots, I just wondered if they were a bit of overkill. This a/c had been photographed before many times. I am not knocking the photos at all, just how many of them there are. As far as your rejections for double, it would be better to post them as an example. I do know it is hard to get two shots of the same aircraft in.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

Quoting Waketurbulence (Reply 1):
While they are all great shots, I just wondered if they were a bit of overkill.

They are great shots, and are all different. Overkill? Hardly. If you read the criteria for NOA_Double, you will see that there is no issue for one person to shoot multiple angles of the same plane.


User currently offlineWaketurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1296 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

"In order to receive this rejection, the other (similar) photos in the database must also have been taken by you, at the same day and at the same airport...... Eventhough these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar."

I was just going by what the rejection says. I feel that a 3/4 shot and a side-on do not offer much of a difference in angles, and with how strict the screeners can be I was surprised to see three shots from this a/c. I do agree that the tail and one of the shots is fine, but the 2 SIMILAR photos, for me, don't offer much of a difference. They are both shots on the ground, with not much going on. Just one opinion though.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1066 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2542 times:

It has changed and yes entirely differnet angles on entirely different days are being rejected as bad double.
Hey thats life.
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 offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2539 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting Waketurbulence (Reply 3):
I do agree that the tail and one of the shots is fine, but the 2 SIMILAR photos, for me, don't offer much of a difference. They are both shots on the ground, with not much going on.

It helps that the two similar shots are at different angles (side-on vs front quarter and also distant vs closer up, changing the perspective as well as the angle) and of different sides of the aircraft (changes the exact nature of the paint scheme, especially with this scheme). Hope this helps with your future uploads. Can you post the rejected and accepted photos, so we can have a look?

I've had (fairly recently) 4 shots of the same aircraft accepted here - cockpit, frontal, rear, tail close-up. All the shots were of very different angles and the aircraft was new to the database (still is), which helped. One of the photos spent MUCH longer in screening than the other three, which I suspect shows that the screeners were having to seriously consider letting it in or not - either because of potential baddouble or possible badmotive (I would have accepted either without complaint). Fortunately, it got in as well, but I think it shows that our screeners really do think about what they are doing and don't just act like mindless robots. I was very pleased all were accepted - I wouldn't have uploaded 4 if I didn't think they were each of individual value and within the rules - but I was half expecting a baddouble. I can't imagine getting so many shots of the same aircraft at the same time accepted again, but on this occasion, the photo angles and rarity came together for my benefit.

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineA340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1981 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

Jim,

Sorry for the delay on your request...Here are the pics that were in question:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



and the one rejected:


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



Clearly different, however on the same day and airport...

Jeffrey



"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2447 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 6):
Clearly different, however on the same day and airport...

I know that this subject of doubles is contentious but, having seen them, I agree with the screeners.
Take the back portion of the top shot and you have the second shot....well almost. Yes, you have changed your position, but not by much.
I would have expected bad double on one.
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2416 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Ok, I think I see how this works. A photo of the tail but from, say the rear quarter, would have had a much better chance of getting in?

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineA340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1981 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2409 times:

Well, here's my point...These are previous uploads of mine, all in the database, no double rejections, etc...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



and even, same day, place, etc.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



and another (gees, watch them all disappear now...)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



Anyway, this is the main reason I was asking about the double rejection maybe changing of late...

Jeffrey



"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2409 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 8):
Ok, I think I see how this works. A photo of the tail but from, say the rear quarter, would have had a much better chance of getting in?

My interpretation is that they have to be substantially different, something not visible between the two or a very different angle, cockpit, close up of nose art or something like that.
However, I guess that the screening then becomes a very subjective matter rather than a much more straightforward quality/rules issue.
Can't be easy for the screeners !
I must emphasise that I am no expert, though double is one of my less frequent rejections.
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineA340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1981 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

Mick,

I agree with you, it's not easy being a screener and I'm hardly bashing them. It's just that this was my first double rejection, thought I had it all figured out a long time ago but then this one happened, had to ask if the rules had changed...

Jeffrey



"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9664 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

thats a kick butt shot, let me know when you get the K64's back, I'd love to have one  Smile

User currently offlineA340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1981 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2316 times:

Royal,

The K64s are back...email me your address...

Jeffrey



"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1296 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

I don't mean to take over the thread, but instead of starting a new one I will just add a double I was confused by. What is the deal with wing views and NOA_double? Here is one in the DB, right after takeoff, and the link is to a second shot that was a rejection.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Wallman


and the one rejected for double:
http://img391.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mattw61905n408wnwingvi3ni.jpg

To me they are different. What would make it so both could get in? If I had an airport in it, would that not make it double? What about if it were shot in another state? Or different scenery? Any thoughts on this would help me out a lot. Thanks.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
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...
Any Way To Bring These Up To A.net Level? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 09:06:33 by Flamedude707
Should Have Been Rejected Due To Not Level? posted Wed Sep 15 2004 05:46:15 by Cboyes
Salute To New Jerseys Finest Aviation Photographer posted Sun Oct 12 2003 13:22:11 by Skymonster
Please Help Me To Level This Pic posted Fri Nov 3 2006 13:01:46 by Pitchul
What To Look For When Buying A New Monitor? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 06:16:43 by FightingDingo
New Into DSLR's, What To Get? posted Sat Oct 7 2006 10:41:29 by LHB727230Adv
Not Level - But How To Rotate? posted Thu Aug 3 2006 10:39:09 by Frippe
OK To Crop And Level Like This? posted Tue Jun 27 2006 01:39:28 by Frippe
How To Level When Reality Is Sloping? posted Thu Jun 15 2006 20:21:22 by Frippe
Want To Get A New Camera But SLR Too Expensive posted Tue Jun 13 2006 03:41:15 by Joffie