Ryangooner From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 969 posts, RR: 25 Posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1484 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..
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, 542 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1367 times:
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.
Syncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1322 times:
Quoting Adamwright (Reply 4): 13 is more than enough photos of a CRJ in my opinion
Ha! Don't you wish!
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.
VIR380 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2002, 616 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1278 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.
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, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1230 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
Cathay111 From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 1132 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 . 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 969 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, 
From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 55 posts, 
. 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.
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
