There were numerous photographers present and a number of uploads to the site are now visible.
I appreciate that accidents/incidents are different but come on if I or anyone else had uploaded the image would it have been accepted?
Every other image of the incident is in focus and within accepted Anet standards or close to them given that it is an incident.
This is so far OOF that it is a joke that it was accepted even though it is of an incident.
The aircraft was not going anywhere, even my now returned EOS 1D MK III could have focused on this!
Day in, day out the majority of us get rejections for soft, blurry, contrast, centered etc but all of a sudden an image which probably even the tabloids would not print is top of the day. Would this have been accepted if I or 99% of the other photographers on this site had takn the image?
I appreciate that acidents/incidents are different but come on, look at all the other images uploaded of the event.
Maybe this image would be best served in the new rejection guidelines, not as top of the day.
I think this site has serious issues and is incredibly hypocritical if standards can be allowed to drop this low for one image, which at the end of the day was uploaded by a screener.
I do not wish to be seen as heartless towards the passengers and crew of Speedbird 83 Heavy, all did a fantastic job but this image is a prime example of Anet politics.
Anet and the screeners go on all the time about this place being the worlds premier aviation photography site and that the high standards make it what it is but then this occurs.
The same rules should apply to one and all with some flexibility for incidents/accidents/newsworthy but not to this extent.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2311 times:
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1769 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Back when I screened, I used to hate these types of shots. You have to judge quality vs newsworthiness. I know in the race to get the first photo up, we'd put stuff up that wasn't 100% up to standards.
It's a newsworthy image, and it looks like it was the first one submitted to the site, therefore it should have been posted. Besides, how do the screeners know there were multiple photogs there? It's easy to see that after the fact, but you don't know that when all you see is one picture from a breaking news event.
AndyHunt From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1294 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2283 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
At the time, it was the first upload. The fact that it was a screener is irrelevant.
If that was anyone else, it was have also have been added as it was so newsworthy. The screeners had no idea that other shots would be uploaded. This shot was uploaded to the queue only an hour or so after the crash.
It is easy to have hindsight, after the fact. The picture was in fact debated for a while whether or not to add it. In the end it was decided to upload it, and the decision to do that was the correct one.
UA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2275 times:
Quoting AndyHunt (Reply 5): If that was anyone else, it was have also have been added as it was so newsworthy
Quoting AndyHunt (Reply 5): The picture was in fact debated for a while whether or not to add it. In the end it was decided to upload it, and the decision to do that was the correct one.
Thanks very much Andrew, a straight answer was all that was required, something that is quite rare around here nowadays.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Jan 2007, 820 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1294 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
