Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Possible Double Rejection  
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3381 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

I'm studying the rejection reasons here, and found that I might get a double rejection for these 2 as Anet considers them to be the same, but in an old topic I found it could be acceptable if it was more than 45 degree difference and also different focal lenghts, like mine. If this is considered a double, which is a goner and which is a keeper, or are both keepers??

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/TNTSterling1000HIGHSecondtoo.jpg

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...TNTSterling1000HIGHSecondthree.jpg


5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3376 times:

Yes, these two are considered as double and it's up to you to upload the one you like best. The second one has some contrast and softness issues though.

Quoting JohnKrist (Thread starter):
in an old topic I found it could be acceptable if it was more than 45 degree difference and also different focal lenghts

Could you give a link to that topic?


User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3370 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

IL76, thanks for your fast reply, the 45 degree reference is last reply in this topic:
Double Rejection...(?!) (by Mongorat Aug 13 2006 in Aviation Photography)

Reading it again I might have misunderstood the focal lenth comment.



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 48
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

Taken from http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php

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

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. Please do not upload multiple sequential shots of an aircraft during landing, taxiing or take-off, taken only a few seconds apart. Even though these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar. Please select the best shot from the sequence and upload only that one. One shot taken during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error.

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. Examples of this are photos of stored or preserved aircraft that have not moved since you took the other photos.

For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives. So in other words the maximum number of accepted window views of the same registration on the same flight all taken by you would be 4.

Note: This rejection might also occur if you have similar photos in the upload queue that are still awaiting final screening.


User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3360 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

IL76, that was the text that brought up my question in the first place, combined with the topic I linked to. But I will remove the second image as my already poor ratio can't take any more abuse, too bad cause I really like the overall feeling in that pic  Smile


5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3343 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

I have removed the pic, and kept http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...y/TNTSterling1000HIGHSecondtoo.jpg

Thanks for your quick pre-screening too  Smile



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

http://www.horizonten.nl/ruw/PH-AOI-1ptr.jpg
http://www.horizonten.nl/ruw/PH-AOI-2ptr.jpg

Are these doubles? I'm a bit confused about the rules if close-ups are involved. Sorry if the situation is similar to Johnny's, but I can't see his second pic any more.

Thanks,

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 6):
http://www.horizonten.nl/ruw/PH-AOI-2ptr.jpg

That's a very nice shot. I'd take it of the two, if you can't upload both.


User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3231 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Peter, that was exactly the same issue as i had, as I was not aware of those kind of shots were considered doubles. And for the clearness of this thread I'll add a small version of the pic I removed from the queue.

http://www.lsn.se/televisionset/TNTSterling1000600.jpg

Regards, Johnny

[Edited 2007-06-05 08:36:20]


5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Thanks Johnny and Halcyon. I agree the nose shot is better and I'll keep that one.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3194 times:

May I use this thread to enquire about these two?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Carl J Maroney



MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Carl J Maroney



I understand the whole same side, same aircraft, same day. But why is there no accomodation on perspective?



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3189 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 10):
But why is there no accomodation on perspective?

I wonder that too, ok I can understand that they want to keeo similar images to a minimum, but these are hardly similar. Not even this one taken at the same time as my 2 above is really similar:

http://www.lsn.se/televisionset/TNTNosejob800.jpg

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 10):
You haven't flown until you've flown in a B727...

Then I have flown  Wink



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3185 times:

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 11):
Not even this one taken at the same time as my 2 above is really similar:

http://www.lsn.se/televisionset/TNTN...0.jpg

FWIW, its a great shot.

I agree completely. There needs to be a bit more common sense placed in the rule. For example, a photographer can upload 30 shots of WN aircraft landing at PHX on the same day, same side, same angle and all of which are pretty much the same shot just different reg yet someone such as yourself can catch a relatively obscure plane and try to upload two completely different shots (which happen to be the same side of the aircraft) and get a rejection for it.

In my eyes, that does not follow the common sense of why the rule is in place.

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 11):
Then I have flown

 Smile And I bet it was enjoyable. Its going to be very sad when they're all gone.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3083 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Well, it was rejected again, for motive  Sad

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...8_TNTSterling1000HIGHSecondtoo.jpg

He wants me to crop out the engine, meaning the hump will be partly cropped out, and too much dead space to the right.
I think this pic will loose some of what I like about it, and I am not sure I want to. Should I appeal, or should I just keep it for my own pleasure as I personally think cropping it will ruin my shot?



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3065 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

For the double clarification you might wanna check out this link: http://planecatcher.com/IGRR/Double.htm

If justified screeners sometimes make exceptions to that rule and in your case, Carl, you might just wanna give it a try as though the sequence, as explained in the guide, is the same it's clearly 2 different motives and in addition they're both very nice to look at.

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 13):
Well, it was rejected again, for motive

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/...o.jpg

http://planecatcher.com/IGRR/Motive.htm

John, the motive rejection clearly comes from the awkward crop on the engine but instead of cropping it completely out why not include it as a whole; that would eliminate the motive rejection just as well. In addition to that you might wanna crop in closer on the top, right side and bottom as there's no need in this shot to show as much empty sky and grass. You should aim for a 3:2 ratio when framing your pictures.
Also a little more sharpening would do your picture some good.

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3058 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 10):
May I use this thread to enquire about these two?

In my experience, you would get a double rejection for those.

I had this shot accepted:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley


and this one rejected for double. I was disappointed as I considered the subject rare and the motive sufficiently different. I appealed, but was also rejected for double. Oh well.
Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 683 File size: 414kb



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3056 times:

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 14):
Carl, you might just wanna give it a try as though the sequence, as explained in the guide, is the same it's clearly 2 different motives and in addition they're both very nice to look at.

Failed on appeal. I guess the screeners disagree with both yours and my interpretation as that was also the reason I gave on appeal.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 15):
In my experience, you would get a double rejection for those.

Indeed. Yet for the reasons Thierry mentioned above, both yours and my shots should not have been rejected for a clear change in motive. This comes down to the screeners interpretation of the rule and I was a little annoyed that they didn't consider my appeal further.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3049 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 14):
John, the motive rejection clearly comes from the awkward crop on the engine but instead of cropping it completely out why not include it as a whole; that would eliminate the motive rejection just as well. In addition to that you might wanna crop in closer on the top, right side and bottom as there's no need in this shot to show as much empty sky and grass.

Thierry, thanks for your input and advice.
I might have agreed with you if it was common practise to reject photos because of that, but there are other photos with partly cropped out engines added all the time, even today. Below are some other very nice pictures that has been added today with parts of engines missing:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wim Callaert - Brussels Aviation Photography



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tomasz Janiak (EPGD Spotters)



And I do like these pics, I am pointing on screener inconsistency not bad photos. But if it is a rule it is a rule and should not depend on which screener you get as it then is a personal oppinion rather than a rule.

And if I include the entire engine,which I can't since It's shot with my 50mm prime and I was that close to the beast, there would be even more grass and sky to retain the 3:2 ratio.



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3027 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 15):
I was disappointed as I considered the subject rare and the motive sufficiently different. I appealed, but was also rejected for double.

This is a very clear case Steve; same aircraft, same reg, same position; the only thing that is different is that the first one is a close-up and the second one a wide angle shot; in contrary for instance Carl's 2 shots vary much more in angle and sequence as the accepted shot is of the aircraft taxiing while on the second one it is parked. Too bad though that you uploaded the close-up earlier as I find the wide-angle shot much more appealing.

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 16):
Failed on appeal. I guess the screeners disagree with both yours and my interpretation as that was also the reason I gave on appeal.

Sorry to hear that, Carl!

Quoting JohnKrist (Reply 17):
I might have agreed with you if it was common practise to reject photos because of that, but there are other photos with partly cropped out engines added all the time, even today.

It's a little more complex than that John. Let me give you another example that very much ressembles yours:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thierry Deutsch


As on your photo, it's a close-up of a by-taxiiing B747 on which the engine has been partly cut off. However when looking at the Korean, the eye is immediately directed onto the fuselage whereas due to the lack of eye attracting details on your TNT photo the eye is looking for something it can "hold on to" and thus wanders around and sees the unesthetically cropped engine. And in addition to that the wide overall crop with the much empty space around the aircraft doesn't help your case.
You gotta keep in mind that motive rejections are more a matter of esthetics, as understood by A.net, rather than of concrete formulas to which you may stick.

I did a quick re-crop and re-sharpening of your photo; you might wanna try something like that:
Big version: Width: 902 Height: 606 File size: 244kb

or if that doesn't work for you how about even closer crops like the following:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thierry Deutsch
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thierry Deutsch

?

If you want help with the edit of the original, drop me a line, I'll gladly have a go at it.

Cheers,

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineJohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3022 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Thierry, your crop is acceptable in my eyes as it still retains what I like in that picture. I'll try and re-edit and see what I can do.
Thanks for your kind offer, but if I don't do it myself myself I will never learn  Wink

When it comes to the closer crop they are not really my cup of tea, but the MK one is nice.
Maybe I should try and touch up the shot I posted earlier, from behind? That one will be on the cover of a mag in september, maybe will be good enough for Anet too...



5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, Metz 58-AF1
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3001 times:

Thierry's crop looks good, I think it might even live with more cropping from the engine.

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...
Chances Of A Double Rejection posted Thu Feb 22 2007 17:28:02 by McG1967
Double Rejection...(?!) posted Sun Aug 13 2006 02:12:31 by Mongorat
Double Rejection posted Mon Aug 8 2005 19:50:20 by Jdk
Double Rejection Advice Needed posted Mon Feb 21 2005 02:30:18 by Patroni
Bad Double Rejection posted Wed Jan 5 2005 23:49:44 by Ua935
Bad Double Rejection posted Wed Apr 7 2004 07:37:02 by Je89_w
Possible Rejection - 'Bad Wolf'? posted Fri Apr 20 2007 14:30:13 by Ghostbase
Puzzled About "Double" Rejection posted Tue Dec 12 2006 07:00:40 by Walter2222
"Double" Rejection posted Sun Dec 3 2006 23:47:14 by Ander
Badinsect Rejection. Possible Reason? posted Thu Jun 2 2005 11:11:32 by Thom@s