Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Would This Be Considered Double?  
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1293 posts, RR: 28
Posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3656 times:

Hi there,

Assuming it would be accepted, would this close-up be considered as a double:

http://walter2219.fotopic.net/p41406014.html

with this one already in the database:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel



No need to click on the thumb, I just want to know whether a close-up (almost similar angle) would result in a double-reject.


PS: Since most of my close-ups have been rejected in the past, comments on the crop of the close-up are also welcome!

Thanks and regards,

Walter

[Edited 2007-05-18 19:45:41]


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 - ...
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3647 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Yes, would be rejected for being a double.

User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1293 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3614 times:

Thanks, Royal!

That's clear!

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 offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3597 times:

Walter I hope you don´t mind if I use your thread for a similar question.  cheerful 
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.  alert 

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gaston Labougle


Thanks! Big grin

Cheers
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3598 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

yes would also be a double and rejected

User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3593 times:

OK, thanks!  thumbsup 

Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineEK20 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3545 times:

Are these not considered doubles? Same photographer, two taken on the same day and one taken the day after, all of the same aircraft.




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James P Matthews
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James P Matthews




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James P Matthews


[Edited 2007-05-20 08:16:49]

User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5692 posts, RR: 44
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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!
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1293 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3518 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!

Hope this helps.

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 offlineTopGun3 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3492 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?



I'd rather be flying.
User currently offlineLanas From Argentina, joined Aug 2006, 978 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

Quoting TopGun3 (Reply 9):
How can it be "Duplicate" when there is no other picture in the DB?

Hi Mark

It would be nice if you posted the shots in question. You´ll get better feedback that way, IMO.

Cheers!  Smile
Lanas.-



"Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens." J.R.R. Tolkien
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3483 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.

User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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!
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1293 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3461 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 11):
Thoughts?

This is mentioned in Thierry's document (IGRR):

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.

and for completeness, the link:

http://planecatcher.com/IGRR2.htm


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.

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 offlineTopGun3 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3432 times:

Quoting Lanas (Reply 10):
Hi Mark

It would be nice if you posted the shots in question. You´ll get better feedback that way, IMO.

Here are the links to the rejected photos.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ctions/big/20070520_DSC09333b2.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ctions/big/20070520_DSC09335c1.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ctions/big/20070520_DSC09362b2.jpg



I'd rather be flying.
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3426 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

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!
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3412 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).


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...
Would These Be Considered A Double? posted Wed May 2 2007 15:42:20 by Acontador
Will This Be Considered Double? posted Thu Sep 28 2006 14:03:42 by N178UA
Would This Be Bad Double posted Wed Apr 26 2006 11:28:15 by CallMeCapt
Would This Be Double? posted Thu Aug 24 2006 00:45:34 by JumboJim747
Would This Be Allowed? posted Tue Feb 27 2007 01:16:49 by Fiveholer
Would This Be Acceptable? posted Sun Oct 15 2006 23:24:42 by Walter2222
Would This Be Rejected For Motive? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 20:47:41 by San747
Would This Be An Acceptable Motive? posted Thu May 25 2006 16:28:47 by Walter2222
Would This Be "bad Motive"? posted Fri May 19 2006 19:15:32 by AIRBUSRIDER
What Paint Scheme Would This Be? posted Mon Oct 10 2005 03:44:34 by Vasanthd