FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 4523 times:
While I agree that the background in the second shot is indeed more spectacular and interesting I find the reflection on the aircraft quite disturbing. And it's not only a small reflection, but running over the whole fuselage. I would perhaps upload the first one if I was able to produce such great images!
Nevertheless, both pictures are absolutely stunning!
Jogales From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 437 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 4356 times:
I'd go with the first one. I like how the colorful fuselage stands out from the grey runway and green grass. And as others have mentioned, it doesn't have the distracting reflection. Either way, great shots!
N178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1730 posts, RR: 64
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 4349 times:
Thanks, I have a couple more without glares, but for some reason i prefer that shot with glare overwater better...i know how weired i am but out of those 2 pics, I think I agree with Craigo on this one ! If they allow 2, i would go for 2 of course!
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2102 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4143 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Well Peter, I'd say that would be a double rejection as it's a preserved a/c so the sequence - if you wanna call it that way - is exactly the same but shot from another angle.
And I don't like the 2nd shot anyway the grey background ruins it for me.
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4068 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4123 times:
Well, the thing is that there are three preserved aircraft of which I have a second photo, shot on the same day, in the database. I don't think these were accepted in error, so it seems to be acceptable sometimes. Admittedly, in these cases the difference in angle was greater.
When I started editing this Il-28 shot I didn't realize that it was the same a/c I already had in the db. I'm happy to pull it if it's felt to be against the rules or even the ethics of the site, but I could do with some clarification.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)