I accept its the same aircraft , same kinda time due to a series of shots i took of it but there is only 13 photo's in the database of this aircraft - yeh only 13 !!
In my opinion its a nice shot worthy of addition to Airliners.net and the fact that its showing a scene which includes the A320 lining up i see the shot not entirely as a double.
I will appeal but would like to see if anyone has the same or differing opinion to me (other than that of a screener as i already have their opinion!)
AAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 546 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2060 times:
My two cents for what it's worth. Definitely shouldn't have been a bad double rejection. Another casualty of the ill-defined bad double rules on A.net. The two shots, while of the same aircraft, taken by the same photog and at almost the same time, are clearly (to me) two distinct photos that are unique. A lot more unique than two pictures of the same aircraft taxiing in different directions taken by the same photog on the same day and not considered bad double.
now this is bad triple according to the rule, there are many lancasters in the database, so a civil aircraft with 13 pics of it wont get a 14 accepted?
The bad double rule clearly is used when it suits
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1295 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
It is not a different angle though. Both of your shots are almost the same, except for the A320 in the frame. Same time, angle, color should be a bad double. The triple you posted is a whole shot, a nose shot, and a close up of the guns. 2 are B/W and 1 is in color. I agree with you that the double rule is not always clear, but in this case I have to agree with the screenrs.
Cathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
Gotta agree with the rejection, sorry mate! It's way to similar to the image already accepted. Back in 97-98, you could have got both of these and probably 3 others accepted no probs . The old bad double rule can be a little "wishy-washy" but in this instance I believe it's pretty clear why it was dumped.
As for the Lancaster......... I'd love to see more shots, the three you have shown here are brilliant.