Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wouldn't This Have Been A Bad Double?  
User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

Hi.

I'm not really sure if I should bring it up but finally decided to do so as we all got pics for double rejected.

I came across these two pics


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carsten Hoffmann
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carsten Hoffmann



Both pics show EC-JDU and have been accepted on May 21, 2005. To me they look really the same and one pic shouldn't have made it in the database at mid 2005. A different thing would be the beginning but only 10 months ago the standards were against such doubles already. The photo-id is also only one digit away from the other.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for "listening"

Georg

P.S.: I decided to post it here after I read this thread.

Bad Double? (by Rotate Mar 29 2006 in Aviation Photography)

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineVasanthD From India, joined May 2005, 450 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

Maybe the same script error?

Since this isn't a high hit pic...no one actually realised it I guess at that time. But good catch though Georg.

--Vas



One Lucky shot deserves another!
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2043 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3370 times:

It looks to me as if they are of two different landings, as it appears to be different times of day and different weather conditions (different runway even?).

I believe that, as they are the same plane but on different flights, the rule may not apply as strictly as if they were two pictures out of the same sequence.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3337 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 2):
I believe that, as they are the same plane but on different flights,

I wish someone would clarify this rule for everyone here .
I too am confused about this rule i have some great shots of the same planes that i already have in the database.
But i don't upload them because i have the same reg with the same motive in the Database already.
I'm not a big fan of uploading the same motive of the same reg over and over but a clear cut explanation would be nice.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3308 times:

This is defenetely a DOUBLE!

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3281 times:

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 2):
It looks to me as if they are of two different landings, as it appears to be different times of day and different weather conditions (different runway even?).

No, if you look closely you'll see a white line behind the plane. Definitely the same rwy. And I've been to LEJ last week. It's the same spot and rwy. If you know LEJ, you would know that it's almost impossible to have more than one Futura at one day.

Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 3):
I wish someone would clarify this rule for everyone here .

Yes, I got once one pic rejected for double which showed the right side of the plane while the accepted showed the left side...

Georg


User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3272 times:

Quoting Jorge1812 (Thread starter):
I'm not really sure if I should bring it up

Nope. Would be better to mail the screeners about such issues. Not nice against the photographer to do it in public.
Peter



-
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3262 times:

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 6):
Nope. Would be better to mail the screeners about such issues. Not nice against the photographer to do it in public.

We are only saying that it is a double, not complaining about quality or whatever so I dont think the photog would have a problem with it, addiotional -even better: he gets extra exposure ...

anyway, would like to hear what screeners think, cause I ve found a lot more baddoubles ....

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3217 times:

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 6):
Nope. Would be better to mail the screeners about such issues. Not nice against the photographer to do it in public.
Peter

So I should've mailed this issue to screeners@airliners.net ?

Georg


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...
Does This Rate As A Bad Double? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 21:14:43 by Malandan
Should This Have Been Rejected? posted Sun Nov 30 2003 20:40:46 by RayPettit
Should This Have Been Rejected? posted Tue Nov 25 2003 04:51:35 by AvroArrow
Rejected: BadPole! Would This Have Been Accepted? posted Fri Jul 18 2003 23:36:52 by PW100
Bad Double - Do We Have To Go Through This Again? posted Wed Jul 7 2004 23:08:44 by Aagold
Would This Be Bad Double posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:28:15 by CallMeCapt
This Must Have Been A Mistake... posted Fri Mar 3 2006 15:30:08 by Flyfisher1976
Confusion With This Bad-double. posted Wed Sep 21 2005 22:15:55 by Mx330
Is This "bad Double" ,"bad Common" Or Non? posted Wed Oct 13 2004 02:03:02 by Eksath
Johan Needs To Fix This Bad Double Thing posted Fri Jan 30 2004 08:18:39 by AAGold