Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Grass And Tires....what Is The Consensus?  
User currently offlineTopGun3 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 263 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 2 months 9 hours ago) and read 4434 times:

I got a few very nice pictures of airliners taxiing along a taxiway with a bit of longer grass protruding and reaching the tires. About 1/4 to 1/3 of the tires are obscured by grass. Just wondering what is the consensus on uploadability?

here is an example. NOT FIXED...so don't tell me about dark or level rejections.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3028/2727817531_15fd4abc17_b.jpg


I'd rather be flying.
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 4421 times:

I've seen worse on here. Personally I don't like ANY obstruction of the wheels, no matter how slight, however I reckon you'd get away with that.

Karl


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 8 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

While I was always under the impression that this is a big no no on this website, I've noticed quite a few pics lately with grass in the way - albeit not quite as much as in your example.


I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineAnglo2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4243 times:

TYRES not tires should be completely visible.

User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4228 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi,
As a general rule, nothing should obstruct the full view of all parts of the aircraft. We do make some exceptions, but it will depend on each picture.
Regarding the wheels, they are treated as any other part of an airplane, thus they should always be fully visible. You can find some examples of pictures accepted in the DB with a small part of the tyres obscured (exceptions), but usually the grass will not reach the rims.
In the example shown above, the grass goes way above the rim, and it's not a particularly rare aircraft/situation, thus I would reject it for motive.
Again, if there is ANY obstruction of the aircraft (including wheels), the rule is to reject, but with some exceptions.



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4220 times:

Andres, can you elaborate on these 'exceptions'? I have seen a very common 747 at MAD here with not only the front wheel obscured by a bush but also part of the forward fuselage - and it's a fairly recently accpeted image, i.e. not from the days when the acceptance criteria was of a lesser standard.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 4):
thus I would reject it for motive.

I must admit I agree with rejecting straight away ANY image where ANY part (no matter how tiny) of the aircraft is obstructed - however the 747 mentioned above isn't the only recent photo I've seen where unacceptable amounts of the aircraft are obscured. Does this mean that an acceptance is down to which screener you get on the day? And if so, doesn't that indicate some sort of inconsistency?

On a final note, the only thing I find acceptable (in my own images at least) blocking part of an aircraft is a (small) set of mobile stairs; although in the long run I'd rather they weren't there. They do, however, kinda look as if they 'belong', if you see what I mean.....

Karl


User currently offlineSpoogle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4212 times:



Quoting Acontador (Reply 4):
Again, if there is ANY obstruction of the aircraft (including wheels), the rule is to reject, but with some exceptions.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeerm ... ok ... thats as clear as mud  Yeah sure

Ok the there is a huge draft from the door thats left open  Confused

Can you please be a little more specific or show examples of whats GOOD & whats BAD as it seems right now your statement gives free rain to how you feel at the time

thanks


User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4212 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Karl,
I just made a quick search for 747+MAD, and all I found was an older pic with a truck blocking the nose landing gear. Could you pls IM me the link?



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4195 times:



Quoting Spoogle (Reply 6):
it seems right now your statement gives free rain to how you feel at the time

Basically what I've said above. I do agree with Andres however that there should be certain exceptions (which are pretty obvious to me) which may need explaining in more detail. Having said that, these exceptions need to have a uniform pattern and much less screener discretion. It's either or, not both.

Exceptions I think should be for very old images (provided there's not hundreds depicting the same aircraft already), extremely rare aircraft (that are unlikely to be photographed again in the near future), very unique motives and - possibly - when the obstruction seems to fit into or somehow add to the image (e.g. a discreet set of airstairs or an attached tug). I don't think new or newsworthy aircraft should be exceptions, unless as already mentioned the obstruction seems to 'fit'.

Basically, if it's old, extremely rare or an amazing motive I don't think the screeners will mind a bit of grass or the top of a shrub covering a small part of the subject. If the subject doesn't fall into any of those categories, however, then any intrusion, no matter how slight, should be cause for an instant rejection - and that should include brand new stuff which will no doubt be photographed again soon after.

Quoting Acontador (Reply 7):
Could you pls IM me the link?

Sure thing Andres - on the way.

Karl


User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4171 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Hi Karl,

I had a look at the links you send me, and I think these are all correctly accepted (I won't link to these pics).
At distance (and with a big aircraft like a 747), a wire fence looks transparent, so it doesn't really block anything. And poles are very thin (and in this case dark), so in this case I would tend to give the uploader the "benefit of the doubt".
The other one is just a few thin bushes barely obstructing anything (full landing gear is still visible), so again I would tend to give the uploader the "benefit of the doubt".

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 8):
Having said that, these exceptions need to have a uniform pattern and much less screener discretion.

Sorry but I disagree. Thanks to this discretion we have many wonderful and stunning pictures in the database, which may not comply 100% with our requirements but that we screeners think should be accepted anyway. I agree that this may make the uploader's life a bit more complicated, but if we do not have this discretion than better change us all for a computer program!



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4168 times:



Quoting Anglo2 (Reply 3):
TYRES not tires should be completely visible.

TIRES, TYRES...

You may dislike how they spell it in North-America as the English there is simplified in many ways, and this is one of them. I think you should know that!


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4134 times:



Quoting Acontador (Reply 4):

Have a look at some recent additions from STR... Before this thread, I thought this rule must've gone bye-byes.



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineAcontador From Chile, joined Jul 2005, 1421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4128 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 11):
Have a look at some recent additions from STR...

Sorry, you mean Stuttgart? If so, besides a few with some loose grass that doesn't cover anything I cannot see what you are taking about ...
Anyhow, I tried to explain how it works, and sincerely hope most of you understood it. Most of the times we are trying to apply our guidelines in the uploader's favour when in doubt, but it seems some of you don't like that. Well, if we wouldn't then we would have a thread about the too strict rejections because of some loose grass or a bit of wire blocking the gears...



Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4122 times:



Quoting Acontador (Reply 12):

I guess the rules aren't as strict (for once) as I thought they were...



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1669 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4107 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 13):
I guess the rules aren't as strict (for once) as I thought they were...

Motive rejections are often not cut and dried rejection and the obstruction of tiny parts as questioned here is always totally subjective.
I cannot be too precious about a few strands of grass spoiling an otherwise good image but I will add motive if I am rejecting for something else. I add another test before adding or rejecting - is it avoidable ? If I feel that it is unavoidable then I am far more likely to accept.
Blurred grass on a nicely panned shot ?
I would not dream or rejecting for that alone !
A day or two ago a contributor must have screamed at one of my rejections where a sign covered a tiny part of a subject, but that was a very important part of the subject. However it was so obtrusive and, importantly so avoidable with a shot a second or two either side of the rejected one that it had to go......with a personal that I hope softened the blow.

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12573 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here are two examples of the same plane that were accepted

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jakob Dahlgaard Kristensen
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley



These shots show an Il-86 literally dumped between two hangars at Vnukovo. In the two years between the photos being taken, the grass has clearly never been cut, thus, in my shot the undercarriage is completely obstructed (I was also unhappy about the large shadow from the hangar, but this was the only angle I could shoot from). There is no way the shot could be taken without obstructed undercarriage.

In support of the screeners, I would also point out these are the only two shots of this plane in the database. Although my shot was accepted, it was clearly a borderline case since the screener felt compelled to add a personal comment to the acceptance email!

One example that was rejected for motive (the stairs), but accepted on appeal as it was the only shot in the database of this plane in these colours.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley



Finally, an example where the stairs are acceptable (because they're an integral part of the plane):

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley




Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
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...
Cyeg - What Is The Problem With Security? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 23:06:26 by Psyops
With A Limited Budget What Is The Best SLR? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 19:43:11 by COEXpilot
What Is The Meaning Of "motive" Rejection? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 09:35:44 by Walter2222
What Is The Problem!? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 14:46:56 by Martin21
What Is The Meaning Of F/4-5.6 In A Lens? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 14:21:08 by TACAA320
What Is The Difference? posted Thu Dec 8 2005 15:19:41 by Nirmalmakadia
What Is The Latest On The FRA Observation Deck? posted Sun Oct 2 2005 13:41:25 by F4wso
Baddistance? What Is The Standard? posted Fri Sep 2 2005 17:39:57 by J.mo
What Is The Lens Of All Lenses? posted Mon Aug 1 2005 15:37:32 by FlyingZacko
What Is The Biggest Lens You've Seen? posted Thu Oct 21 2004 17:05:27 by MADtoCAE
What Is The Meaning Of "motive" Rejection? posted Wed Apr 5 2006 09:35:44 by Walter2222
What Is The Problem!? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 14:46:56 by Martin21
What Is The Meaning Of F/4-5.6 In A Lens? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 14:21:08 by TACAA320
What Is The Difference? posted Thu Dec 8 2005 15:19:41 by Nirmalmakadia