Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Puzzled About "Double" Rejection  
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Hi there,

I recently had a rejection for "double", and I would like to understand better and added my request in this existing post:
A Little Tired Of Those Rejections. (by B076 Dec 10 2006 in Aviation Photography)

my question was not really solved while I kept on thinking about it. My second thought was that it will have been rejected because I do have the same serial already in the database, although it is from a different angle:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1144163/L/

the rejected one was this one:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...060928_CRW_6540_RT8_WVB_1200px.jpg

I thought that - although both static shots - 2 shots were allowed if from a completely different angle?

Thanks for your inputs and best regards,

Walter


canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3888 times:

I would have thought that it was fine, as they are showing two different motives.

I had this happen at the beginning of the year but didn't worry about it. I really can't remember what the guidelines are for this but I hope someone helps you with this.


User currently offlineGlobalpics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 216 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3885 times:

Not that similar to that photo but I would say very similar to this one though, taken on the same day  Smile
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel



User currently offlineTomTurner From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 247 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3832 times:

Quoting Globalpics (Reply 2):
Not that similar to that photo but I would say very similar to this one though, taken on the same day Smile

Globalpics -
I believe Walter is indicating the rejected shot was a different serial # than the shot you referenced.

Walter -
IF I have read correctly, you do have a 2nd shot of the serial # aircraft accepted in the database as the one that was rejected for double...If it was the same day, then you might as well give up on this one.

While last I knew (I am not crew here) the database will accept same day shots of same reg airliner taxiing left and right, a (roughly) head on shot of a given subject is considered a double when coupled with a (roughly) profile shot -- on the same day.

I hope I read both threads correctly and helped clear things rather than muddy the waters.

Best Regards,
Tom


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3998 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3795 times:

Hallo Walter,

We all could do with a comprehensive explanation of the double rules I think - the borderline area is just too large.

However, at some point, niceness of the photos comes into play - a second photo should and will get in if it's very nice. And to be honest, I don't think yours is appealing, not because of your skills but because of that damned engine intake cover dominating the picture.

(By the way, it always beats me how the military can spend a lot of taxpayer's money to fly their aircraft to a foreign airshow, only to display it covered up. Confused)

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

Thank you all for the feedback!

Quoting TomTurner (Reply 3):
Globalpics -
I believe Walter is indicating the rejected shot was a different serial # than the shot you referenced.

Walter -
IF I have read correctly, you do have a 2nd shot of the serial # aircraft accepted in the database as the one that was rejected for double...If it was the same day, then you might as well give up on this one.

 checkmark 

Quoting TomTurner (Reply 3):
hope I read both threads correctly and helped clear things rather than muddy the waters.



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 4):
We all could do with a comprehensive explanation of the double rules I think - the borderline area is just too large.

 checkmark 

That was in fact the reason for starting this topic (and I have another Norwegian F-16 in screening, from the same location and on the same day, but another registration)!

Since I am not a collector of registrations, I don't really care about the registration itself, but I find them very useful to identify my shots (and I appreciate the people from Scramble and their database). So, when I attend an event, I try to shoot as much as possible to have photographic evidence of the aircraft present. I do try to vary the types of shots, so that my own collection does not get boring (although I don't get bored at all by aircraft  Smile...). I do try to look what is already in the database, and for this particular registration, a frontal close-up was not yet in, so I decided to give it a go.

Quoting Globalpics (Reply 2):
Not that similar to that photo but I would say very similar to this one though, taken on the same day

That is true indeed! Although I did try to vary it as much as possible  Smile and it has a different registration (so people who search for the registration, will not see both at the same search).

Was this the reason for the rejection? If this is the case, then it will become difficult to shoot military jets...

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 4):
I don't think yours is appealing, not because of your skills but because of that damned engine intake cover dominating the picture.

(By the way, it always beats me how the military can spend a lot of taxpayer's money to fly their aircraft to a foreign airshow, only to display it covered up. )

Hi Peter, you have a point! I also prefer an open air-intake (but on grey aircraft in grey, rainy days, it can brings some color into the shot as well  Smile ...). PS: It was not really an airshow, but an operational day during a TLP (where shooting time is very limited...  Sad ...).

Further comments and advice still welcome!

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3737 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Walter.

Doubles can be a tricky issue - of particular relevance to me recently  wink . There is no doubt that you should not get a double when the aircraft are different machines - even if the motive of the photo is exactly the same. So if the photo Globalpics posted is of a different serial number then it is irrelevant to the rejection, even if taken within seconds of another aircraft.

Thus, in your example, I think you are illustrating the subjective element of the double rule. Whereas some will argue you are illustrating a different motive, others might choose to argue that you have just walked a couple of metres and cropped the result differently. Basically a subjective call. Then, if other factors came into the screeners mind - like the issue mentioned of the intake cover - that makes them begin to doubt the shot for other reasons, it becomes very easy to move towards perceiving the second as a 'double'.

Like 'motive', 'double' can be very difficult to clarify verbally, and I understand why it can be difficult to give very precise, concrete guidance. I am hoping that one day the suggestion will happen - from many months ago - that there is a page of illustrations for all the various rejection criteria, which will help this move forward somewhat.

All the best to you Walter.

Paul


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3730 times:

From the website:
http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php#double
Quote: 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.

It seems that indeed you can get a "double" even though the c/n is different.
I didn't know that.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3720 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 7):
Quote: 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.

Willem - I think you have misunderstood this. I quote from the line before the one you have highlighted:

Quote:
You already have photos of THIS aircraft in the Airliners.net database that are the same as, or very similar to these photo(s).

The capitals are mine. i.e. you can get a double rejection if the shot you are submitting this time round looks very similar to another shot of THAT SAME AIRCRAFT taken on another day, at the same place, by you.

So as long as it is a different aircraft, this is not relevant.

Cheers.

Paul


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3697 times:

Quoting Psych (Reply 8):
Willem - I think you have misunderstood this.

That might well be the case Paul.

Think I am puzzled by the FAQ a bit.
First it says: You already have photos of this aircraft in the Airliners.net database that are the same as, or very similar to these photo(s).
Note THIS AIRCRAFT
From which I understand that it is ok to upload several similar photos of different Reg's(c/n's)

and the next paragraph says: 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.
Note THE OTHER SIMILAR PHOTO
From which I understand you can get "a double" from similar photos even though the Reg's(c/n's) are different.

Guess and hope this is just my misunderstanding.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3696 times:

Hi Paul & Willem,
Thanks for your additional comments and views on this topic!

Quoting Psych (Reply 6):
So if the photo Globalpics posted is of a different serial number then it is irrelevant to the rejection, even if taken within seconds of another aircraft.

Yes Paul, the shot was from another aircraft (i.e. different registration, but also a Norwegian F-16AM).

Quoting Psych (Reply 6):
others might choose to argue that you have just walked a couple of metres and cropped the result differently.

I did indeed walk a few meters, because these aircraft were almost next to each other on the same ramp  Smile, but the crop (on a different aircraft) was not in the post-processing,but with the camera/lens (i.e. one was wide-angle "@35mm", whereas the other was "@50mm").

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 7):
It seems that indeed you can get a "double" even though the c/n is different.
I didn't know that.

Neither did I  Sad

Quoting Psych (Reply 8):
So as long as it is a different aircraft, this is not relevant.

... and that's what I thought as well.

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 5):
and I have another Norwegian F-16 in screening, from the same location and on the same day, but another registration

... this one has passed first screening, I am keeping my fingers crossed  Smile

Thanks for the contribution to the discussion!

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3681 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Guys - this is getting me confused now  confused . It has been a very long day.

Walter - in your thread leader, was the rejected shot taken on the same day as the aircraft that you linked already in the database? Is it the same aircraft? If it is the same one, on the same day, the double rule may apply - subjectively, that is. If they are not the same aircraft, it is irrelevant. If the angle is the same, on the same day, but the aircraft are different, it is irrelevant.

For example - and I have seen this - I could stand beside a taxiway and photograph all nine Hawks of the RAF Red Arrows Aerobatic Team as they pass by me, and upload all nine photos without fear of double. All the photos will look exactly the same, except when you take a very close look and see they all have different serials. If we were out together. you and I could take exactly the same shot of XX227, standing shoulder to shoulder, and we could both upload them without fear because we are different people. The fact that they look identical and were taken at the same moment is irrelevant.

But if I take XX227 departing and, for some reason, it taxies back past me after the display in the same direction, I could not upload that as it would be a double of the previous shot. It would look too similar. However, if it was taxiing in the opposite direction, so that the second photo showed a different side of the aircraft, I may get away with it. Also, if I took a second photo of XX227 pulling out of a loop whilst airborne in the display that day, I could potentially avoid a double because the motives are 'sufficiently' different.

Confusing, or clarifying?

Willem - I think the wording is the confusing thing here in what you quote:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 9):
In order to receive this rejection, the other (similar) photos OF THIS AIRCRAFT in the database must also have been taken by you, at the same day and at the same airport.

I think you could add those words I have put in capitals to clarify the meaning.

Then there is the added extra from the rule 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.


Hence, same aircraft, looking the same, but on another occasion, can still trip you up.

Of course, I may have been operating under a misapprehension all this time - I would be interested to hear a counter-argument.

Cheers.

Paul


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3673 times:

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
Guys - this is getting me confused now . It has been a very long day.

Haha for all of us Paul.
It's 01:00 o'clock and I am off to get some sleep.
Will read the thingy again tomorrow, maybe then I'll understand.

Good night,
Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3664 times:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 12):
Haha for all of us Paul.

 checkmark 

... and just while I was trying to put in my final reply for the day, my PC gave up and crashed... and that's something I cannot stand (certainly not since my Blackberry has been crashing all day  Sad ...). I guess these are all signals that I urgently need a holiday (and some sleep), but now, first this final reply (hopes the PC holds it!):

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
Walter - in your thread leader, was the rejected shot taken on the same day as the aircraft that you linked already in the database? Is it the same aircraft? If it is the same one, on the same day, the double rule may apply - subjectively, that is.

The rejected one (reg:665 - cn:6K-37) is indeed the same as the one in the database, but the one in the database is almost a side-on to show the special markings on the tail (a tail shot of this aircraft was rejected earlier for motiv, but that is a complete other story  Smile...) whereas the rejected one is a front close-up (which I thought was sufficiently different from the one already in the database, certainly since there were less than 20 shots of this registration in the database and none of these was such a front close-up). The somewhat similar shot - referred to by Globalpics - is also from a different registration (reg: 288 cn:6K-17).

The one I have currently in screening is also similar (same angle) to the one in the database, but this one has a different registration (reg:682 - cn:6K-54).

I guess I will have to be more carefully next time with uploading (but the shots have a place on my own website, these "sunny" conditions are rare during a TLP...)

... and now time to go to sleep, at least for me (before the PC crashes again)!

Regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3647 times:

Quoting Psych (Reply 8):
you can get a double rejection if the shot you are submitting this time round looks very similar to another shot of THAT SAME AIRCRAFT taken on another day, at the same place, by you.

 checkmark 

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 7):
It seems that indeed you can get a "double" even though the c/n is different.

 redflag 
This should not happen.

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
photograph all nine Hawks of the RAF Red Arrows Aerobatic Team as they pass by me, and upload all nine photos without fear of double

 checkmark 

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
you and I could take exactly the same shot of XX227, standing shoulder to shoulder, and we could both upload them without fear because we are different people

 checkmark 

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
it taxies back past me after the display in the same direction, I could not upload that

 checkmark 
Well you could upload but it would be double.

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
However, if it was taxiing in the opposite direction, so that the second photo showed a different side of the aircraft, I may get away with it

 checkmark 
replace: "I may get away " with "it should be accepted".

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
Also, if I took a second photo of XX227 pulling out of a loop whilst airborne in the display that day, I could potentially avoid a double because the motives are 'sufficiently' different.

 checkmark 

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
Hence, same aircraft, looking the same, but on another occasion, can still trip you up.

 checkmark 

Quoting Psych (Reply 11):
I would be interested to hear a counter-argument.

As far as I have understood it you hit all the nails on the head. But things might have changed. Maybe the headscreeners can clear this issue up.



-
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thanks Peter for confirming my understanding of this issue.

Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 14):
But things might have changed

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, why should we think things have changed? That would not be right.

I think our thoughts here should not be deflected by Walter's other shot, linked in Reply 2, due to the fact that it was a different aircraft, and so not relevant to the debate. This issue boils down to the subjective assessment of whether the rejected front on close cropped shot is perceived to be too similar to the accepted photo No.1144163 - as these are the same aircraft on the same day.

The fact that they are the same aircraft gives the screener grounds for considering the double rejection. It seems in this case they decided there was not a sufficiently different motive to warrant both being accepted. It's subjective.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3607 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The "double" rule is (or should be fairly straightforward)...

Both (or all three, four or five...) shots have to be shot on the same day, by the same person, of the same airframe. The shot rejected could be a "double" with another of yours in the db or of one in the queue.

The rule of thumb is not one of the "motiv" of the shot, but quite simply whether the screened image(s) shows anything substantially different from the other image.

For instance:
A full-frame side-on followed by a tail close-up (of the same side, from the same location, same day, same photog) are definately doubles.
A front 3/4 shot followed by a square side-on (same side, same location, same day, same photog) are definately doubles.
A front 3/4 shot followed by a square front-on (same side, same location, same day, same photog) are definately doubles.
An approach shot followed by a taxi shot (same side, same location, same day, same photog) are definately doubles.

What we look for is how much content of the "second" image is also showing in the first one. If there is a large amount of common content, then it's a double.

Images of the left-side then the right-side are not double (almost no parts of the aircraft are visible in both images). The same goes for a balloon which may rotate as it flies.

Of course with every rule there is ambiguity and a grey area. If there were no grey areas in life, then there would be no lawyers, so that's just the way it is.

A wheels-up fly-by followed by a taxi shot (same side, same location, same day, same photog) would probably not be a double.

A day-shot followed by a night shot (same side, same location, same day, same photog) would probably not be a double.

I would say that the image brought up in the original post shows mostly the same content as the already-accepted one. While it is clearly a different crop, it's not showing me something wildly different. Perhaps it would have merited its place if we could see some additional nose-art and a UV-coated head-up display and a nice sunset or something more. As it stands they appear to show much the same content.

The second image is quite an uncomfortable crop too, and with the similarity of content and no obvious "exceptional circumstances" content, that's why it is a double.

If you have a second shot which mostly shows the same as the first, and you are concerned about a double rejected, then simply put - don't upload it.

I have a dozen lovely images of the recent take-off / taxi / landing of VH-XBA, but I have uploaded only one (of each side) because my others (no matter how nice I think they are) would be doubles of those accepted.

TZ



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1302 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

Quoting TZ (Reply 16):
The "double" rule is (or should be fairly straightforward)...

Thanks, TZ!

That's indeed a clear explanation (certainly with these good examples), and makes the thread really worthwhile!

PS: One final point that I would like to have clarified (and then it will be fully clear for me) is the similarity with other registration (as pointed out by Globalpics in reply 2):

Quoting Globalpics (Reply 2):
Not that similar to that photo but I would say very similar to this one though, taken on the same day

Should we add this to the rule (although Globalpic's remark was with a smilie)?

Best regards,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlineTZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3572 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 17):
PS: One final point that I would like to have clarified (and then it will be fully clear for me) is the similarity with other registration (as pointed out by Globalpics in reply 2):

As a general rule, your images of other aircraft (registration) are not even examined when screening your latest submission. It is therefore almost impossible to get a double rejection for a similar image (by you) of a different registration.

I have left room for some very unusual circumstances whereby you may get a "double" with different registrations. One example may be a nighttime trail-of-lights image. You could take 5 or 6 such images one evening, all with different aircraft flying through the frame and indeed with a different pattern of lights, but it would be highly likely that we'd accept only one and not all 5 or 6.

Similarly we may apply the double to different regs if (for example) you uploaded three different Southwest 737s, which might be different a/c but all have the regs hidden and they are all listed as N****. In that case we may call into question the value of three near-identical images which cannot be told apart due to the lack of an identifier.

For completeness I must fully explain these caveats, however I imagine they represent a very small percentage of all "double" rejects. The general rule is that a different a/c can never contribute towards a "double" rejection.

TZ



TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
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...
Questions About The "queue" posted Wed May 14 2003 04:35:05 by L1011Fan
Was Wondering About This Bad Motive Rejection posted Fri Nov 4 2005 05:16:53 by ElpinDAB
Is This "bad Double" ,"bad Common" Or Non? posted Wed Oct 13 2004 02:03:02 by Eksath
"Dark" Rejection - What To Do? posted Sun Dec 10 2006 02:07:33 by Walter2222
"Double" Rejection posted Sun Dec 3 2006 23:47:14 by Ander
Will It Get The Dreaded "Motive" Rejection? posted Mon Nov 13 2006 07:43:59 by Cosec59
A "level" Rejection posted Thu Sep 14 2006 20:24:38 by Cosec59
Another "motiv" Rejection... posted Mon Sep 11 2006 00:56:26 by Walter2222
"People" Rejection.... Where Are The People? posted Tue Jul 25 2006 00:36:02 by PipoA380
Rejection - "Soft" posted Sun Jun 4 2006 21:51:51 by LukasMako