Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2975 posts, RR: 60 Posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3095 times:
I had a very frustrating couple of hours out at MAN this morning, topped off by a cold north east wind . It had looked like the clouds would lift and break, but they steadfastly refused to so do, leaving all the photos flat.
One of my problems these days it that when I am able to get a trip out I often end up seeing aircraft I have previously uploaded, in similar positions around the airport. Even though taken at different times, this leaves me vulnerable to getting a double rejection - in effect, they look too similar. I quote from the double rejection definition:
Quote: 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.
This got me thinking how motive and attempts to be 'creative' might affect this, and what exactly counted as the 'motive'. My question is.... would this photo below taken today be as vulnerable to the double rejection, even though here the motive is specifically a panning shot? Does the panning motive somehow override the other elements of the images that are 'too' similar'?
Here is the photo already in my portfolio that I think would cause me the problem:
I think I have my answer to this question - they look too similar and that is the end of it, irrespective of one being a panning shot and the other a 'normal' one - but am interested to hear what you think.
In my experience a lot of the screeners do not give a rat's ass if it is a panning shot or not nor have any consideration about the difficulties involved; others do think the opposite, so I do wish you luck with the screeners that get to screen that picture.
Nice one, BTW.
"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3079 times:
Personally, I don't think "panning" is the motive, but the means to the end. If you've already shot an A/C from the same angle, at the same airport, unless it is significantly different then the previous, what is your reason for uploading it?
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3076 times:
Although with 40 pics in the DB I am still far away from your problems, from what I have seen in the forum it looks like it really just comes down to the particular screener(s) that eventually do screen your picture. Personally, I think the very different nature of both pictures would warrant their inclusion, but hey, I am still far from a screener
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3144 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
Quoting Psych (Thread starter): One of my problems these days it that when I am able to get a trip out I often end up seeing aircraft I have previously uploaded, in similar positions around the airport.
So you only shoot for Anet and not for the joy of your/our hobby anymore
Anyway, I would say this cool picture is a double, but if I would know it like a screener I would have a few more pics here
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2975 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3048 times:
Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 5): So you only shoot for Anet and not for the joy of your/our hobby anymore
You interpret my words too literally Georg .
Of course you are right - taking photos simply with the aim of uploading should not be one's motivation. When I referred to my 'problem', I meant it in terms of having a nice photo that I think others would be interested to see, but finding that it is too similar to a previously uploaded shot.
The experience has taught me to think carefully about what to upload. Many is the time I have taken a photo in lovely light only to find that I had a lesser quality shot already on the database from some time ago that now prevents me uploading it. This is a key 'symptom' of being a relatively new uploader - trying to get everything and anything accepted . For me, the lighting of a shot has become one of the key factors to consider - no point sabotaging future uploads simply to get a shot accepted.
LOCsta From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 306 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3022 times:
can't you remove/delete an old lesser quality shot from the DB, and replace it with a new one if the "double" is a concern? If not that seems pretty silly, as one would hope that even if the planes at your local AF don't change your photo skills will certainly improve. (or you get a better camera )
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2975 posts, RR: 60 Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2893 times:
Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 12): For some reason I was under the impression that two similar shots taken by the same photographer, but on different days, could be classed as 'double'.
You, me and many others Tim. In fact, possibly due to my own 'emotional involvement' with this particular rejection criterion, I would have changed your words above from 'could' to 'would'.
My interpretation of the section of the rule that I quoted at the outset in this thread, together with subsequent conversations here on the Forum, was that a shot on a different day, but looking very similar to a previously uploaded photo of that aircraft, would very likely be rejected for double.
Thus, when I read Tim's response in Reply 8, I initially thought that this was a genuine error. Certainly Tim's comment seems at odds with the quote from the 'double' rejection criterion copied in the thread leader.
But then my mind went back to a similar discussion in this thread. I am particularly referring to the posts from Reply No. 12 onwards. Here Royal also implies that the above interpretation - double rejection if it looks similar - may not be so cut and dried.
So it seems the degree of similarity is the key factor that the screeners are assessing when trying to decide whether a photo is a double or not. Thus, in my example of the BMI 330 above, the question is to what extent these photos are 'too' similar. Ultimately this is a subjective assessment - as I have seen from responses already here.
I think there are two options here: to say they are too similar, because they are photos of the same aircraft, of the same side, in the same angle of climb, departing from the same runway, taken from the same spot. Looks like a potential recipe for 'double' there.... Unless you prioritise the panning motive as key, in which case you could argue that they should not be considered doubles.
Maybe it is too much to hope that this degree of subjectivity can be more concretely defined. But this does raise a very interesting debating point for me. Many thanks for your contributions so far.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2975 posts, RR: 60 Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2837 times:
I interpreted Royal's use of the phrase 'in play' as meaning that this particular issue relating to doubles is always under discussion within the screening team - i.e. there is no hard and fast 'definition'. But I could have got that wrong.
Both taken the same day, but showing, in my eyes, different motives.
Thanks for your help.
EDIT: The other thread was indeed deleted for linking to the other site, but the mail arrived late on my account. Just to say to the moderators that it's OK and I agree with your rules. Thanks for clarifying with your mail.