However, there's one occasion where there are no less than six shots during the same flight (if you don't believe me, search for B744, SQ, window views and check the bottom of the first page of results). There was a thread some time ago discussing this and a screener (sorry, I can't remember who it was) said that more shots might be accepted if they have radically different motiv. OK, the rules don't state that; but let's go with it.
So, I decided to chance it with three shots from the same flight, as I thought that all three were very good (at least motiv-wide), My opinion; you don't agree, good for you. The shots were the following (you can also click on (b) and (c) for a larger version):
(b) (my personal favorite out of the three, I fly out of BOS a lot and I never got this view before)
(c)
I actually put a note to the screeners to explain that I think the motiv is radically different (again, my opinion), but if they didn't think so, I would be happy if they rejected (c) (I do have to admit that I think I forgot to add the comment to one of them; my bad; but two definitely had it).
Much to my surprised both (b) and (c) were rejected for double. Well, I protest! First, why were they both rejected, and not one (given that I'm allowed to upload two per flight)? Second, how, say (b) be considered a double of (a) (sure, they contain some wing, but on one you can see HPN, on the other BOS and downtown Boston)? Or, how, say, can (c) be considered a double of (a) (one shows BOS on the ground and the nice Boston skyline, the other shows HPN)?
If anything else, these two look much more similar than the last round I submitted (they are both mine, so I'm not slagging off anyone).
So, I would like some clarifications. First, when is it OK to submit more than two window shots taken from the same side and on the same flight (and please don't tell me never)? Second, why was only one of my shots accepted and not the two I was expecting?
If I'm say I'm gutted, it would be an understatement. Thanks for reading this.
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
WestJetYQQ From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2986 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2467 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 1): what is the big deal with those images? I don't see what's so worthwhile.
The deal he's making is the lack of consistency. He posted 3 images that were of completely different places that got rejected for double, but two others that both got in being nearly identical.
Personally, I LOVE the skyline shot, and I strongly hope an appeal would get that on the DB. You're right that it is completely different. Appeal it. If that one gets it, appeal the other as well.
Cheers
Carson
Will You Try to Change Things? Use the Power that you have, the Power of a Million new Ideas.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, RR: 48 Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Quoting 747438 (Reply 3): Quoting SNATH (Thread starter):
The rules state that you're allowed 2 windows shots of an aircraft per side per flight.
Quoting SNATH (Thread starter):
I decided to chance it with three shots from the same flight
Exactly, bitching about consistency all the while stretching the rules yourself!
Whilst I did see something of interest in all your shots the six from Hong Kong you mentioned (bad form even if in disguised manner!) were very interesting and I am glad they are there.
My unsolicited advice.. stretch yourself, expand your subject matter, this isn't A319-320wings.net
Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
I won't bother; whenever I appealed, they told me to piss off...
Quoting JeffM (Reply 1): but honestly, what is the big deal with those images? I don't see what's so worthwhile.
Quoting WestJetYQQ (Reply 2): Personally, I LOVE the skyline shot, and I strongly hope an appeal would get that on the DB.
Jeff, as you see, people have different opinions. I personally love such wing shots. I find them more interesting than the usual 'taxiing 737' shots. And, I don't think it's just me; they usually get a lot of hits (the one over HPN is already in the top 15 of the last 24hr, which is usual for similar shots I got accepted in the past).
Quoting WestJetYQQ (Reply 2): The deal he's making is the lack of consistency
Quoting WestJetYQQ (Reply 2): You're right that it is completely different.
Thanks, Carson. I'm glad at least one person agrees with me here.
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4):
Exactly, bitching about consistency all the while stretching the rules yourself!
Hey, I knew that one of them could be rejected and, as I said, I added a note for the screeners to that effect. I just didn't expect two of them to be rejected.
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4): (bad form even if in disguised manner!)
With all due respect, but how else could I illustrate my point. I, of course, have nothing against the photographer, given that that series was indeed very interesting and a worthwhile addition to the DB. But, the screeners are usually very quick in pointing us to the rules. And I don't see anywhere in the rules that says that you can have more than 2 pictures per flight per side, if they are very interesting.
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 4): My unsolicited advice.. stretch yourself, expand your subject matter,
Most of my pictures in the DB are window shots. And, for such shots, you're very limited in what you can take due to (a) where you sit, (b) what the flight path of the plane is, (c) the weather, and (d) where the sun is (and usually you don't control more than (a)). The day that I took those pictures I think (again, my personal opinion, you don't have to share it) that most of the above conditions were perfect and I did the best possible job for that flight. I can't see how I can "expand my subject matter" further under the above constraints.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2379 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 5): I can't see how I can "expand my subject matter" further under the above constraints.
..your inability to "expand" isn't a reason for rules to be changed. Thousands of us have our own external limitations and we live with them. As mentioned, appeal if you think you need to.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1721 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
I agree, I would appeal if
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 6): Take a walk out to the runway.
If only it was that easy, Peter...
I would appeal if you feel that strongly about it.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3234 posts, RR: 24 Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2322 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 7): ..your inability to "expand" isn't a reason for rules to be changed.
Ah, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were encouraging me to take different window shots. I now realize that what you meant. Nah, thanks. I'm happy to take pictures from inside planes.
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 6): Take a walk out to the runway.
Quoting Dvincent (Reply 8): If only it was that easy, Peter...
What Dvincent said. I live in the US and, with the usual paranoia around here, if I go to the runway, I'll probably get arrested. I've even got hassled by straqngers being on a public path and trying to take pictures of landing planes. It got very old, very soon and I gave up.
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 6): Some of your Castle shots are nice!
Thanks. But, right now, I'm not very motivated to edit them to be honest...
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3234 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2322 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 7): isn't a reason for rules to be changed.
Sorry, I forgot to address this. I'm not trying to get the rules changed in any way (please, point me where in my original thread I claimed this). I'm only asking for the rules to be applied consistently.
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1721 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2318 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 9): What Dvincent said. I live in the US and, with the usual paranoia around here, if I go to the runway, I'll probably get arrested. I've even got hassled by straqngers being on a public path and trying to take pictures of landing planes. It got very old, very soon and I gave up.
Tony,
Give me a PM sometime the next time you want to go around BOS, I'll be glad to give you some backup. I find you get less harassment as the numbers go up. Funny how that is...
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3234 posts, RR: 24 Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2011 times:
Quoting Eadster (Reply 17): Really when looking back, this was really a slander fest and not much was gained. Well done!
Thank you for your constructive contribution to this thread.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 18): Getting? Now I can sleep again...not having to wonder......
I am delighted to hear that my previous post was able to help you with your current case of insomnia. If it comes back, by all means, please get in touch. I will be more than happy to share with you the excitement of which photos I have in the queue and tell you later which ones were accepted. It will be no problem at all.
Regards,
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, RR: 48 Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1990 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 13): Do you think it's worth appealing the skyline picture too.
No, if that was your preferred image you should have appealed it first
Quoting SNATH (Reply 13): Or will I be pushing my luck?
Yes, is there any part of ...
Quote: For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives
... you are having trouble with?
Having said that if I was a screener, and the reasons I am not are many and varied, I would have rejected your appealed shot as too similar in motive to the original despite the different location. Your cityscape is a significantly different motive and would have appealed more to me.
Rgds
Chris
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Quote:
For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives
... you are having trouble with?
I would (still!) like a clarification on when more than 2 shots per flight are accepted. That's all. I'm not trying to change the rules, I'd like to get them clarified.
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 20): Having said that if I was a screener, and the reasons I am not are many and varied, I would have rejected your appealed shot as too similar in motive to the original despite the different location.
I personally feel the motiv is different, due to the different location. We can just agree to disagree on this.
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 20): Your cityscape is a significantly different motive and would have appealed more to me.
Yes, but you see, I fly out of BOS a lot and there's a good chance I'll be able to take a similar cityscape shot in the future (depending, of course, which runway you're trying to get to). However, the shot I appealed might be more difficult to get again, given that our take off pattern that day was quite unusual (at least, I hadn't experienced it before). This is why I decided to appeal the one I did.
Regards,
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, RR: 48 Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1968 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 21): I would (still!) like a clarification on when more than 2 shots per flight are accepted.
You started off by insulting the screeners all the while pushing the edges of the rejection rule envelope but you still feel they owe you a clarification.
My guess is they will stretch the window view rule when they, the screeners, consider the additional photographs wll add value or interest to the DB.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3234 posts, RR: 24 Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 22):
You started off by insulting the screeners
How did I insult the screeners?
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Michlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1910 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 21): However, the shot I appealed might be more difficult to get again, given that our take off pattern that day was quite unusual (at least, I hadn't experienced it before). This is why I decided to appeal the one I did.
Then just appeal it and don't make a big dog and pony show out of it. It really dismays (and annoys) me to see that more often than not it is the photographers who have a large number of acceptances are the ones who make a huge stink in the forum with the perceived intent of pressuring an acceptance. Very unprofessional IMHO.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
25 SNATH: You know, you don't have to read the thread... Me? A large number of acceptances? I wish... Tony[Edited 2008-01-24 05:57:45]
27 TZ: SNATH - I can categorically state that no appeal has ever used such foul language, so you are wrong. Furthermore you said you would not bother to app
28 SNATH: Piss off? Foul language? Come on... Maybe I spent too many years (11+) in Glasgow... Tony
29 TZ: There is simply no call for abusive, impolite and downright rude language here. TZ
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3234 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2986 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 824 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5448 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
