Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Double Reject - Not Happy  
User currently offlineRyangooner From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 969 posts, RR: 23
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2142 times:

I dont do too much whingeing when i get a reject, I accept it and carry on but there are a few occasions where its healthy to voice my opinion and use this forum as a tool for which its here for..

Bad double rejection for this shot

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ns/big/LGW250903BRITFGRJIGOOAR.jpg

The double is in relation to this pic i already have on line:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Hemmings



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!)

Ryan Hemmings


ooh to ooh to be ooh to be a gooner!
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1490 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2130 times:

ciao ryan,

as it is shoot on the same day , I think the rejection is reasonable.

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

Ryan

You asked for opinions. I'm an admirer of your work on a.net, but I agree with this rejection.

Charles



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineRyangooner From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 969 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

Thanks for your feedback Robin and Charles.

Are there any acceptions to this rule?

Ryan



ooh to ooh to be ooh to be a gooner!
User currently offlineAdamwright From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

13 is more than enough photos of a CRJ in my opinion  Wink

User currently offlineAAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 545 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Ryan

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.

Sorry for the reject. It's a nice shot.

Art


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2021 times:

Looks like a double to me.


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1995 times:

I agree with Art here. They are both lovely shots and i think they both deserve coverage in the database.

They have different motives and although are of the same aircraft both show a arty and interesting image.

Bad luck Ryan!

I would much rather see these two shots in the DB rather than say 10 shots of the same BA319 27L approach all taken by a diff photog.

Chris



5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineSyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2018 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Adamwright (Reply 4):
13 is more than enough photos of a CRJ in my opinion

Ha! Don't you wish!  spin 

Sorry to hear about the rejection Ryan, they are really great shots and you may or may not be happy to know that the one in the d/b is now my wallpaper.

Thanks for sharing!

-Charlie


User currently offlineVIR380 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1936 times:

This really is one of those rules that really does need claifying ... exact precise and point for point ..

There are still examples getting through which according to the "rules" are clearly baddouble !


I very recently viewed a photographers images that contained AT LEAST 2 of the same aircraft, same time frame and same day if i remember correctly they involved 4 different examples too.

Can we please have this rule set in stone now by the Head Screeners complete with any exceptions that everyone may not be aware of.

regards Tony


User currently offlineRyangooner From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 969 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1900 times:

Im thinking the exceptions to the rule must be airshows, because these 3 went on all at the same time...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Hemmings
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Hemmings



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Hemmings



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

Ryan



ooh to ooh to be ooh to be a gooner!
User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1888 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.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineCathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1790 times:

G'day Ryan,

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  scratchchin  . 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.

Keep up the good work mate.


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

Was this done before the above rules were set??


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Watts



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Torin Wilson



Martin


User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

Quoting Eadster (Reply 13):
Was this done before the above rules were set??

Different photogs, but that wouldn't probably fly either anymore.

Ivan



Contrails Aviation Photography
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...
Double Reject. posted Sat Sep 3 2005 21:07:10 by Paulinbna
What Am I Doing Wrong?NOT Related To A.NET Reject posted Mon Apr 24 2006 21:50:10 by Deaphen
Quality Reject - Can It Be Saved? posted Mon Dec 4 2006 00:11:46 by Walter2222
"Double" Rejection posted Sun Dec 3 2006 23:47:14 by Ander
Perplexed By A Quality Reject posted Sat Dec 2 2006 23:53:32 by San747
Canon 90-300 Lens Not Sharp Anymore posted Sun Nov 19 2006 11:35:48 by Numloxx
Reject Reason: Colour Help Me Please posted Thu Nov 16 2006 18:19:37 by Andrei
Soft Reject: Can I Borrow Your Eyes? posted Mon Nov 6 2006 15:29:44 by D L X
Reject Whinge And Advice Welcome posted Sat Nov 4 2006 20:50:04 by G-CIVP
Double? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 11:07:10 by Azza40