Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NOA_Double, Appeal?  
User currently offlinePitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

Hello all,

This picture have been rejected for NOA_DOUBLE :

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...ux_747_LX-PCV_LUX_20060131-003.JPG

After searching in my pictures in the db, i see that i have no picture of LX-PCV during a take-off :

http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...hotographersearch=Emmanuel%20Perez

THis morning, i took 12 pictures of this take-off and i have keep the 2 best.

I still have one of the two in the db :



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Emmanuel Perez



This picture and the rejected one are not similar. Accepted one is a close-up on the wing while the plane is in the air, the rejected one a 3/4 picture of the rotation.

What do you think? Should i appeal ?

Thank you very much.

Regards

Emmanuel

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNorfolkjohn From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 251 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1430 times:

Hi Emmanuel,

Two great shots you have but I do not think an appeal would be successful. If I understand the situation correctly both shots were taken of the same aircraft at the same time in the same location. Even more importantly I believe they were part of a sequence - the take-off. The NOA_Double rule is pretty clear that shots from the same sequence will be classed as doubles hence I don't think your appeal would be successful.

Still both nice shots thought.

All the best,

John



One thorn of experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning.
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1383 times:

It would probably get rejected for jagged anyway (the blue and red stripes).

Quoting Norfolkjohn (Reply 1):

Still both nice shots thought

Agreed!


User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Eadster (Reply 2):
It would probably get rejected for jagged anyway (

Would indeed need some work.

Can't see how it's baddouble if you only have that one in the db and no others in the queue.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlinePitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 3):
Would indeed need some work.

Can't see how it's baddouble if you only have that one in the db and no others in the queue.

Tim

Tim,

That means that if i remove the jaggys, i can reupload them ?

Emmanuel


User currently offlinePitchul From Luxembourg, joined Jan 2005, 121 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1349 times:

is this better ?



Emmanuel


User currently offlineJran225 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 308 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1345 times:

Hey Emmanuel,

the shot looks much better. One thing you might want to fix before you re-upload are the slight jaggies (halos) around the Cargolux titles. For me, the rest looks perfect...good luck!  wave 

Regards,
-Omar S.



Never tell your girlfriend about all the 'action' you're getting at the airport - only photogs understand that.
User currently offlineNorfolkjohn From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 251 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

Hi Emmanuel,

I agree that your revised edit looks better but in spite of Tim's comments in reply 4 I am still concerned that if you upload this shot again you may get another NOA_Double rejection. Tim is a Head Screener so I'm not going to argue with what he says but perhaps his interpretation of your original post was different to mine.

You appear to have had one shot accepted (ID 1001160) which shows LX-PCV taking off from runway 06 at LUX on the morning of 31st Jan 2006. You also had another shot rejected (the one you have now reworked) which again shows LX-PCV taking off from runway 06 at LUX on the morning of 31st Jan 2006.

I checked the NOA_Double rejection description again and it says the following :-

"Please do not upload multiple sequential shots of an aircraft during landing, taxing or take-off, taken only a few seconds apart. Even though 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 ..."

It is based on the above that I think the original "Double" rejection was possibly valid and why I think you might get the same rejection again.

Perhaps Tim can clarify on this once and for all. If I have got it wrong you have my apologies and I'll gladly eat humble pie !

All the best,

John



One thorn of experience is worth a whole wilderness of warning.
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1304 times:

This does seem to be something of a grey area. Despite of what is written in the upload text, I was under the impression that it was two shots that are more or less identical that would be subject to a 'baddouble' rejection, not two of the same aircraft that are of very different angles.

I have two shots of one aircraft (off the top of my head) taken on the same date, one a landing shot and one a taxiing shot, that had no trouble getting accepted because they are of very different angles. I would have thought this would have been the case here.

Perhaps some more of the screening crew could shed some more light onto this issue?

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1300 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 8):
I have two shots of one aircraft (off the top of my head) taken on the same date, one a landing shot and one a taxiing shot, that had no trouble getting accepted because they are of very different angles. I would have thought this would have been the case here.

That would be my interpretation as well. I currently have a similar situation in the queue, with the same plane first in an almost frontal view, and a second a minute or two later zooming into the opposite side as a side view close-up. Apart from other rejection reasons I would imagine this doesn't fall under the Double rule.

Maybe it's a bit too vague to answer in general, but indeed, a screener's view would be great here.


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 3):
Can't see how it's baddouble if you only have that one in the db and no others in the queue.

If thats the case, I got one rejected for Double a few days back.

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 8):
I have two shots of one aircraft (off the top of my head) taken on the same date, one a landing shot and one a taxiing shot, that had no trouble getting accepted because they are of very different angles. I would have thought this would have been the case here.

Seems this has changed as mine was of totally different angles, but were taken on the same day. I don't mind as the best one was accepted but would be good to get this issue cleared up.


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

Quoting Eadster (Reply 10):
Seems this has changed as mine was of totally different angles, but were taken on the same day. I don't mind as the best one was accepted but would be good to get this issue cleared up.

Have you had a 'baddouble' Martin? I agree the rules need clarifying.

To be fair, the pair of mine I'm thinking of are quite different (I might as well plug them  Wink):


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Goodwin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Goodwin



Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
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
Fourth Appeal? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 06:55:18 by CYEGsTankers
Rejection Advice - Worth An Appeal? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 14:40:47 by UA935
You Vote, Should I Appeal This Night Shot? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 18:49:20 by Atomother
Distance Rejection,Appeal? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 20:59:03 by Ranger703
In The Should I Appeal Series posted Sun Sep 3 2006 00:08:37 by DC9
Should I Appeal This "landmark" Shot At Jeffco? posted Fri Aug 4 2006 06:39:37 by Atomother
How Long Does The Appeal Process Take posted Wed Jul 19 2006 14:00:51 by Parsival
Should I Appeal?, Quality Rejection. posted Mon Jul 17 2006 22:44:19 by Yanqui67
Is This Photo Worth An Appeal? posted Sun Jul 9 2006 16:22:14 by AIRBUSRIDER