Well, granted, they're different angles, but the photographer didn't even change the caption. The plane looks the same on both sides, and was shot on the same day.
I say it's a double.
"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3144 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1830 times:
Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 7): I'd like to know what was written... you can PM me if you'd like.
I guess something like that it's not OK to "blame" other photogs in the forums. If you see such a "double" send a mail to the crew instead of bashing the photographer in a public forum.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2024 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1793 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
This ain't the way to go with discussing accepted pics in the forum but while we're at it...
Quoting Bubbles (Reply 4): I have explained what I should explain. And also please check out how many shots of this plane are currently in database.
You did Hongyin but unclarity still remains; though there weren't yet any shots of the Il-14 in the db both shots are nearly identical, only like 180° reversed with the port side of the aircraft showing nothing that the starboard side wouldn't have covered and in addition it's of lesser quality as it's backlit. Even if this point isn't clearly covered in the acceptance rules ( http://planecatcher.com/IGRR/Double.htm ) it's of common sense to believe that such pictures would qualify for a double rejection.
Then on the other hand you reject pictures for double that clearly do NOT go against acceptance rules as they show 2 different sequences (see here: Why Double? (by Javibi Aug 23 2007 in Aviation Photography) ).
So for everybody's sake I'd urge you (the screeners) to give some input concerning that rule and it's applicability.
DeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1754 times:
Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 8): I guess something like that it's not OK to "blame" other photogs in the forums. If you see such a "double" send a mail to the crew instead of bashing the photographer in a public forum.
I know, apologies for even starting this thread.
Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 8): EDIT: Found another double... The photo didn't even changed the caption.
Well, the first pair of photos is clearly different, as one's portrait and one's landscape. Not even considering that the two are totally different motives. On the second pair of photos you've listed, the only reason I uploaded the other side was because of the brown paper covering a large portion of the nose.
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 9): So for everybody's sake I'd urge you (the screeners) to give some input concerning that rule and it's applicability.
IL76 gave me a good response via PM, which I am not going at liberty to post. Maybe he (and others) can elaborate.
Again, I regret starting this thread. My intent was not to bash the photographer or the screener, but to seek clarification.
Thanks to everyone for the replies.
"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 64 Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
Quoting DeltaAVL (Reply 3): From the A.net Rejection Reasons page:
"Even though these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar."
The quote from the rejections page is not quoted in its entirety and is being taken out of context...the full quote is :-
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.
So that reference is evidently to sequences (and we get a lot from less experienced contributors).
Yet again it is a situation where it should be possible to write a hard and fast rule but due to other factors that is difficult. I will try to not show any particular bias towards the beautiful, magnificent, stunning Il-14 that started this thread but the photos do show different sides of the aircraft, similar, yes, but different and so, within the rules, they are not double. They are admitted very close to that mark and a decision then has to be made based on the numbers of photographs on the database and the rarity of the type. Suddenly, there is no contest and they had to be added.
I will not comment on the other images used to illustrate this thread as it is unfair to do so. For this reason I have not commented on the other thread to which Thierry refers as a decision was made by the Head Screeners and it would not be proper for me to do so.
Mick Bajcar
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2024 posts, RR: 51 Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1673 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 11): I will try to not show any particular bias towards the beautiful, magnificent, stunning Il-14 that started this thread but the photos do show different sides of the aircraft, similar, yes, but different and so, within the rules, they are not double. They are admitted very close to that mark and a decision then has to be made based on the numbers of photographs on the database and the rarity of the type. Suddenly, there is no contest and they had to be added.
Hi Mick!
Thanks for taking the time to clarify this issue! I think this reasoning is understandable for everyone and can easily be lived with.
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 11): For this reason I have not commented on the other thread to which Thierry refers as a decision was made by the Head Screeners and it would not be proper for me to do so.
I understand your motivation for not commenting on the mentionned thread but maybe a short explanation either from the Headscreeners or in agreement with them could be brought forward to clarify the issue!?
Jorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3144 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1551 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 11):
I will not comment on the other images used to illustrate this thread as it is unfair to do so.
With showing this pics I didn't wanted to say they are doubles. It's OK that hey are in the Database, was just to show the threadstarter what he did wrong with this thread (in my eyes) and that he also has such pics online while complaining about others pics. No intention to blame him or his pics.
DeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 11): I will not comment on the other images used to illustrate this thread as it is unfair to do so.
Please, if you would like to comment, I welcome it. I am a fanatical supporter of criticism, whether it be kind, constructive, harsh, and even rude.
Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 13): With showing this pics I didn't wanted to say they are doubles. It's OK that hey are in the Database, was just to show the threadstarter what he did wrong with this thread (in my eyes) and that he also has such pics online while complaining about others pics. No intention to blame him or his pics.
Again, this thread was not a bash aiming towards the photographs, as they are both wonderful works of art. It was merely meant to clarify a topic that has never been entirely clear in the past.
Thanks to everyone for their thoughts.
"We break, We bend, With hand in hand, When hope is gone, Just hang on." -Guster
Javibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, RR: 46 Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1413 times:
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 12): I understand your motivation for not commenting on the mentioned thread but maybe a short explanation either from the Headscreeners or in agreement with them could be brought forward to clarify the issue!?
Stop dreaming Thierry, that is never going to happen. My thread will go unanswered, your questions will go unanswered. And we will reach yet a new record of impoliteness at the A.net forums, which, if I may point it out, is not always the fault of non-crew members.
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 50 Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
I can understand if you have something rare or "the shot", you want to have as many shots as possible online!
Still it is the photographer in the first place who has to decide if they are worth to be added.......
One recent addition made me go hmmmmm..............maybe they slipped thru.
BrianW999 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 310 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
Quoting Jorge1812 (Reply 8): I guess something like that it's not OK to "blame" other photogs in the forums. If you see such a "double" send a mail to the crew instead of bashing the photographer in a public forum.
DeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1291 times:
Will we now start searching for doubles of Photogs participating in this thread which aren't ones? Just to make it clear. I didn't wanted to say that the pics I posted here from the thread starter are doubles, I just wanted to show him that he did wrong with his thread and posting the pics of the other photog which he understood and for what he apologized.
DeltaAVL From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1212 times:
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 50 Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1197 times:
Sometimes it's hard to get it right here if it's just fun/sarcasm or if one means it seriously. I think the fun has gone when the new Queue limts were introduced last year (attention - just joking!)
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1893 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 157 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1193 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2235 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3144 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2024 posts, 
From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1370 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
