Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NOA_double: Changed  
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

Hi all!
As the NOA_double reason seems to be one of the most discussed we started to redefine it. Yes we know it's still not perfect, but see it please as a first step.
The reject reasons can be found here:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php
the one we are talking about is here
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#double

For your convenience here is the complete text with the changes outlined in red.
====
You already have photos of this aircraft in the Airliners.Net database that are the same as or very similar to these photo(s).

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. Please do not upload multiple sequential shots of an aircraft during landing, taxiing or take-off, taken only a few seconds apart. Eventhough these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar. Please select the best shot from the sequence and upload only that one. One shot taken during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error.

In certain cases you can also get this rejection if there are photos in the database that are nearly identical to the one(s) rejected here, but taken on another date by you. Examples of this are photos of stored or preserved aircraft that have not moved since you took the other photos.

For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives. So in other words the maximum number of accepted window views of the same registration on the same flight all taken by you would be 4.

For cabin views we allow 2 shots per registration, date and photographer, when they show considerable different motives. The same applies for cockpit views.


Note: This situation will also occur if there are other photos very similar to these that are still in the upload queue and are waiting for the final screening.
====

We truly hope this helps.


-
8 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 1 month 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1997 times:

That's good news! Thanks to the crew for going over the rule and tweaking it somewhat. This now gives me an excuse if a flight attendant asks me why I am bouncing between the left and right side of the cabin!  bouncy  Just kidding of course.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1992 times:

Thanks Peter for letting us know the changes. Much appreciated.

User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1710 posts, RR: 65
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Very good to see there's finally some clearification on rules of baddoubles.

 Smile


User currently offlineLGA777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1149 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

Peter, I appreciate the clarification but I think the window views part is a little strict and I would like to give and example. Every once in a while you take a flight where you have great light and interesting subjects out the window. Moving from side to side is often not possible, especially at low altitudes when much of the interesting photo ops occur, personally I would prefer 3 total per flight (same side or either side) instead of two per side for a total of 4. On this particular departure from LGA I had these two accepted
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ron Peel
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ron Peel

I later uploaded this one not aware of the two per side rule so it was rejected for NOA_double.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ections/big/N932AN_5_IF_4JUL05.jpg

I think it is a more interesting shot than the first Marina view as it has the NYC skyline and US Open Tennis Center visible. Most of my NYC window views have gotten lots of positive comments and e-mails, so I know the rejected shot would be very popular (BTW the Shea Stadium shot is my most popular on the db ! ) Screeners if I had the first (Marina) shot removed would the rejeceted shot likely be accepted ? Does the three total per flight not 2+2 = 4 total suggestion have merit ? What do my fellow window view uploaders think ?

Respectfully

Ron Peel
New York, New York


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1865 times:

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Thread starter):
For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives.

Thanks for letting us know what the postition is regarding window shots, this seemed to be something of a "grey area" before.

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Thread starter):
Please select the best shot from the sequence and upload only that one. One shot taken during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error. For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives

Why the difference? Why allow only one picture of a takeoff, and yet allow two from a window? Window shots have to include some part of the airplane in them, so fundamentally it is very difficult to achieve a considerably different motive unless you take the background into consideration. And if you take the background into consideration, then the motive isn't the aeroplane so why in that case has the aircraft to be in the picture at all?

Surely, ONE picture of a takeoff means only ONE from a window?

Andy


User currently offlinePepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Fellows, just follow the new rules ok. He wasn't asking us, he was telling us and there's a subtle difference there.The new rules are fair enough and more lenient than before,  Smile and clearer than before.

-Pepef-


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

We just tried to clear up a somewhat unclear area (together with Johan i might add here). So lets just try it and see how it works ok?
Just a suggestion.
Thanks



-
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...
? About NOA_double: Multiple Angles Of Rare Plane posted Sat Dec 9 2006 00:27:35 by D L X
How Have Things Changed? posted Wed Nov 15 2006 10:26:28 by Psych
Minimum Photo Size Changed? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 10:28:19 by ThierryD
Aviation Photography, What's Changed? posted Sat Sep 2 2006 13:01:47 by LGW
Will This Be A NOA_double? posted Tue May 23 2006 17:31:18 by Aero145
Hybrid/Special Rule Changed? posted Fri May 5 2006 19:56:19 by TransIsland
NOA_Double, Appeal? posted Thu Feb 16 2006 18:34:09 by Pitchul
Remark Changed posted Fri Dec 30 2005 02:07:43 by JAT74L
Why Not NOA_Double? posted Thu Nov 17 2005 18:43:13 by MarkJBeckwith
A Question About 'NOA_Double' posted Mon Oct 17 2005 01:49:58 by DC10Tim