Now, I doublechecked again in PS with the grid and I really don't see the reason why they were rejected, since imo they are well leveled... I use the vertical lines in the buildings as reference, since imo such a building IS leveled
Any help is welcome.
I don't want to start appealing for fun, but if I'll see replies for the same pic like 'a bit CW' followed by ' a bit CCW', I guess it might be time to appeal
Thanks in advance for the check and a happy 2008 for all of you!
Scotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 548 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2562 times:
I think both are perfect, first to look at post and doors of building straight up 90 degree angle. Ignore the runway level. Some runways at some airports are unlevel so all the building always perfect 90 degree angle so I always do the buildings at 90 degree angle. I have heard that some screeners do runway level first. But your photos with buildings, the buildings must be the first to look at
Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" - John 14:6
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2544 times:
They both look fine to me too. If some screeners check the runway and some check the objects in the background then there's an inconsistency there that needs to be addressed. I know for a fact that at MAN the runways are not entirely level so how are we supposed to decifer exactly what a level picture is? Something I've felt for a while needs clarification.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2521 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 3): so how are we supposed to decifer exactly what a level picture is?
This rule is clear really - a photo has to look level. If it looks level then it is level, unless there is a reliable reference in the photo that is clearly 'out' as a result. Also, don't rely on focusing in on small vertical references - they can be misleading.
In your photos Bjorn, you have large vertical references and, in this context, I would argue they must look vertical (if there were no significant vertical references in a shot I would go for leveling a horizontal reference like a runway surface, even if it known not to actually be completely flat, like 23R at MAN, as Karl mentions). Your problem is that you have some significant potential horizontal references too, so focusing on one without reference to the other could prove problematic for the expert screening eye.
I have edited the photos below and drawn purple lines on the references I feel are of particular relevance here, with an initial focus on the horizontal reference, then cross-checking with the vertical references. You will see that, as a result, both photos have been rotated CCW by small amounts: 0.4 degrees for the Gulfstream and about 0.2 degrees for the MD-11. (I will purposely edit the post so that IE users will be able to see the linked photos).
Now you will have to decide whether these look any better .
All the best for '08.
Edited initial post so the photos are visible for all viewers.
Acontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2456 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Did you level according to the glider? If you open it (and I didn't see it before), it instantly strikes you that it needs some counter clockwise rotation, as everything seems to be leaning to the right...and that glider is not horizontal! It's not much though, I would say about 0.2-0.3 ccw, but due to the many lines the effect is magnified.
Hope it helps !
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!