Lanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 977 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1948 times:
Walter I hope you don´t mind if I use your thread for a similar question.
It´s regarding this pic:
I was wondering if I´m allowed to submit the photo in question, since there´s already picture of the same aircraft, but parked in a nearby position, not taxiing. It´s not the same photo sequence, but it´s the same depicted side of the a/c, so I wanted to know if it would qualify as 'double' or not.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5431 posts, RR: 49 Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1880 times:
Quoting EK20 (Reply 6): Are these not considered doubles?
I would tend to call the first 2 double as the date and side of aircraft are the same, I also believe the screeners reserve the right to reject multiple similar photos from the same location as "double" even if the dates differ.
Another curious thing about these is that one is listed as RAF and the other 2 as Saudi Arabia, Air Force, whilst I accept that this airframe is 6613 of the RSAF and is in the UK for upgrading it is clearly carrying RAF markings and serials.
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Walter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, RR: 31 Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1869 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 7): I would tend to call the first 2 double as the date and side of aircraft are the same
Althoiugh they look similar at first glance, the first one is a landing shot, whereas the second is on take-off (so two different sequences), that is acceptable according the rules. The third one shows the other side of the aircraft, so that is also OK!
TopGun3 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1843 times:
Just wondering.
I had 3 pictures of same aircraft (a helicopter) in for screening. One was an outside shot, one was an instrument panel and one was a close-up of the tail. Unfortunately none of them got in due to some inconsistent screening criteria....but what really got me hot under the collar was a rejection for "duplicate" when none of the other pictures got in. How can it be "Duplicate" when there is no other picture in the DB?
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1834 times:
This has me curious. I have two in the que of the same A/C(not currently in the DB) on the same day. But they were both on two seperate approaches. One picture taken from head on has the A/c comming directly at me, the other one focuses on the front part of the Aircraft but notably from the side. Thoughts? My opinion and train of thought was that it's two VERY clearly different views of the A/C and definatley two seperate approaches so not exactly the same time.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
Hi Ted,
Post them to have a look, but I can tell you I have had my fare share of doubles if they are same day and same side, whatever the aircraft are actually doing - to have them accepted it must be different sides.
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
A small note concerning sequences: you may distinguish 3 different sequences: landing, on the ground (taxiing) and take-off; as a 4th sequence you might add fly-pasts but apart from airshows you'll rarely have one of those. According A.net rules you may only upload ONE photo from each given sequence and rarely you'll get more then 2 shots from the same a/c at the same airport and date accepted even if they are all from different sequences. For the "on the ground" sequence you might get 2 photos of this sequence accepted if they show really different motives like a close taxi by and some interesting (un-)loading action.
PS: What I also learned - from inputs from Royal - is that a close-up (from a similar angle/side, during the same sequence) and a standard shot will also be classified as double.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, RR: 33 Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Hi Mark,
Well, it would have been even more helpful if you could have posted the full rejection reasons for each one, along with the order in which they were rejected.
Quoting TopGun3 (Reply 9): what really got me hot under the collar was a rejection for "duplicate" when none of the other pictures got in
I suspect that none got in is the end-result of the screening. Let's put it this way: If I was looking at your pics for the first time as a screener, I would have also rejected either the full side-on or the tail right away for double, as they show same side/same day/same rego/same photog. Then, maybe even another screener might have found a different fault in the other picture, thus reject it at a later stage of the screening process. You see, at least a reasonable explanation, so no need to get
[Edited 2007-05-21 00:26:46]
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1763 times:
Quoting Acontador (Reply 12): to have them accepted it must be different sides.
This re-assures me as the perspectives are definately different, and definately on seperate passes (either that or I'm in a lot better shape then I thought).
Sponsor Message: 
From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1272 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, 
From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 977 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5431 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 224 posts, 
From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1392 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}