Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Let's Talk About Double  
User currently offlineSFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 398 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4203 times:

In light of recent changes on a.net, I would like to suggest we revisit another controversial subject: DOUBLE rejections.

Currently we have a set of very strict and clearly defined rules. While these rules largely eliminate confusion and arguments over rejections, in some cases they may also prevent some interesting photos from being accepted. I am not advocating long sequences of "737 landed - 737 taxiing - 737 turning to the gate".
The suggestion is to add the following to definition of DOUBLE:

Up to 3 photos of the same aircraft are allowed provided that no two of them fall into one of these categories:

- photo showing entire aircraft;
- close-up of cockpit;
- close-up of tail;
- close-up of engine;
- close-up of sticker or damaged area;

What do fellow photographers and crew think?


318-19-20-21 332 343 717 727 737-234578 743-4 752 763 772 D9/10 M11/8x/90 F70 RJ85 ATR72 SF340 E120 TU34/54 IL18/62/86/9
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2908 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4163 times:

I think the current double rule is fine personally.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

I'm also happy with the rules as they stand regarding double criteria.

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4782 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4126 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The only issue I have with the double rule is how it applies to airshows. I think the rules should be loosened for airshows, especially if the same aircraft participates in two totally different demonstrations on the same day.


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineRaedervision From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 63 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4126 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I could not agree more. Some spotting rules are written in concrete and I think they should be written in the sand. A a2a photograph of the top and bottom of an AC for example to me is not a double. Many military airplanes are not even painted the same color top and bottom. The screeners are all good photographers. Let them use some of their judgement as to what a double is. I'll throw in the centering rule too. I wish I had a dime for every time I looked at a "centered" picture only to find the interesting part of the background or foreground cropped off eliminating part of the story in the photograph. I could certainly buy some new camera gear lol. My 2 cents. Not worth much but enough of them might buy a beer or two. Jim

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4114 times:

Another vote for keeping them as they are. If you have an interesting image from an entire sequence just upload that one.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4782 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4075 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
If you have an interesting image from an entire sequence just upload that one.

But what if you have two interesting photos of two very rare situations?

Before I continue, I would like to say overall I am ok with the double rules. But I like the suggestion above that the rules not be so concrete. For example (and this relates to my airshow point) I have been very disappointed that this photo can't be shown here.



With the rules as they stand now, this photo will never have an opportunity to be featured in the DB simply because I have another shot of the same aircraft showing the same side taken on the same day. Both photos show two different situations and both show something unique and very rare in their own ways. It seems silly to me that if one of the passes had come from the opposite direction, both would likely be eligible for consideration. But since they were the same direction, this one loses out. I wish in situations like this, which IMO is very different than a sequence of a WN 737 or some common A320 doing an every-day taxi, takeoff or landing, screeners were open to exceptions.

[Edited 2009-11-23 04:19:23]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4064 times:

It ain't broke, so don't need fixin'.


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4058 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Let me give my vote for changes.

All things should have it sense and the double rule is. As I understand at the beginning the double rule was to prevent site from tonns of similar shots from the same photogs and the server abilities were limited. Nowdays, as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) - the upload space on server is not so actual problem like it was. So, the only reason is to prevent site from qualitive but boring staff.

So, I'd agree regarding limits on similar shots - no interetst to have 2-3 photos from one regular landing. However there are many cases (not only airshows actualy) there photogs are able to make wonderful different pictures of the same plane. All they can be the point of great interest and in situation with fall of views - will help to increase the site popularity. Here double rules not follows its sense on 180 degrees heading - it just prevent site from interesting staff.

I'd agree with Jims point. Screeners are good and experienced photogs - it might be an idea to keep clear double rules on side shots but to give an option for screener to make exceptions for the rest of motives. At least as a first step. If it is clear that pics are very different - nobody will loose if they will be presented. Who of us look first who is photog when we look at the pictures? We look at the subject first. And if no loosers and there are some (or many) winners - it is clear arithmetic - the point to allow some doubles has it sense.

Regards,

Fyodor


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Ryan,

I see your point but you would strengthen your argument by showing us the apparent 'double' image. If the one you show above was the more interesting of the two why didn't you upload that?

Karl


User currently offlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4049 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
If you have an interesting image from an entire sequence just upload that one.

But it happens that it is equal choice and if I have some inetersting shots I'd like to present them all. And if I can't - I have to look for opportunities on other - i.e. competing sites. Does it have sense for A.net to support them?

Regards,

Fyodor


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4046 times:



Quoting Viv (Reply 7):
It ain't broke, so don't need fixin'.

+1


User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4019 times:

I agree, I would like some small changes, maybe just "tweaks" to the double rule. The double rule works, but could be improved to allow for some even more interesting and quality images into the DB.

Ryan has a good example. His shot above, while from the general same side is completely different due to foreground and framing of the shot (not to mention the other two AC). It is not a duplicate and would generate a ton of views for him and the site


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino




I have a few examples as well. I simply want to display a photo for the enjoyement of the Anet viewers / community (and myself of course).

My two accepted shots (some might say I'm lucky to have even two, but the 3rd is completely different and just sitting on my hard drive not doing anything).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ronald J Stella
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ronald J Stella





Quoting FYODOR (Reply 10):
And if I can't - I have to look for opportunities on other

Agreed, for me I want them on here, and don't want to look elsewhere simply cause I want them hosted.

Thanks,

Ron

[Edited 2009-11-23 05:53:51]


All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4012 times:

Quoting SFO2SVO (Thread starter):
photo showing entire aircraft;
- close-up of cockpit;
- close-up of tail;
- close-up of engine;
- close-up of sticker or damaged area;

What do fellow photographers and crew think?

This would be a disaster, along with the fact that acceptance ratio means nothing now the queue would spike like crazy with people uploading 3 times or more of the pics they do now. Only thing I could see with the double rule is maybe relax it on a case by case basis for very rare aircraft which I think they do anyway. Otherwise leave it be.

[Edited 2009-11-23 06:57:13]

User currently offlineJalap From Belgium, joined Oct 2007, 355 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4007 times:

Although I largely agree with the rule as it is rigth now I do feel that some more slack should be given to the usually stringent application of the rule.

But that in turn would be very difficult to put in writing. While, in practice, there are exceptions. A very extreme case to illustrate, I'm sure everybody here will agree that a multiple breach is fully justified because of the documentational value of this sequence.

Then, where to draw the line and should that line be carved in stone? Are the current rules sufficient to exclude discussions?


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © J.Laporte
MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © J.Laporte



Maybe double rejection is justified, especially because of the similar atmosphere. And allowing them both may open the door to an overload of closeup/sideview combinations. But then again, is that really such a bad thing?


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5689 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 6):
I have been very disappointed that this photo can't be shown here.

Did you try?

I think that the acceptance ratio/Upload slot issue stopped people attempting shots like this because they feared the "double"rule.

At the expense of small increase in screening load, we might see more exceptional "doubles" get in the DB

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineFYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3998 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jalap (Reply 14):
Then, where to draw the line and should that line be carved in stone?

It should not. As we trust screening team in other rejections with rather tangible subjective factor like general quality, motive etc. why can't we do same with double? I think guys easely determine ability for exception. If it will be clearly stated that the exceptions can be.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3934 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3994 times:

The double rule is fine.

Ryan's two 747SP shots are indeed exceptional and the screeners should simply allow themselves some freedom to make exceptions to the rule, if they don't curently do so.

In Jalap's shots, the aircraft is rare I'm sure, but that doesn't make the left photo worth an exception IMHO, sorry.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4782 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3958 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 15):
Did you try?

Yes, I tried twice. On the second attempt I uploaded it with the registration of one of the other aircraft in the formation as suggested by another photographer. It didn't fool the screeners and they kicked it again for double.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineSFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 398 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Well, thanks all for joining and expressing opinions.
It clearly looks like most of us believe current rules are working fine. Majority rules!  Big grin



318-19-20-21 332 343 717 727 737-234578 743-4 752 763 772 D9/10 M11/8x/90 F70 RJ85 ATR72 SF340 E120 TU34/54 IL18/62/86/9
User currently offlineEksath From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1300 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3865 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
ARTICLE EDITOR

While the double rule may have been put into place for certain things, there are frustrating times that it does not work.

Case and point,I am using a recent example in which the double rule was skipped by "mistake" (according to a headscreener in a communication to me). So if the double rule was diligently applied by the screeners, the database would not have these fanatastic different views of the same object at the same location taken seconds apart. ( SIDENOTE: My follow on images of the same event where rejected as doubles by both the screeners and headscreener because I had one already accepted image).

So, here is a recent case and point to highlight the need to adjust the double rule for special events etc.

Here are the images below. Please give them some clicks,too! Great work Ben!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Cooper



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Cooper



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Cooper



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Cooper




World Wide Aerospace Photography
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

Ben's photos here clearly have very different motives - and are from very different views/locations. This, in my view, doesn't (or should not) represent a double.

But the old B707 freighter sequence above would represent a double in my opinion.


User currently offlineRonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 762 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3853 times:



Quoting Cpd (Reply 21):
Ben's photos here clearly have very different motives - and are from very different views/locations.

Ben's photo's are incredible. BUT, they are of the same rocket on the same day.

Do you mean that I can set up cameras in all 4 quadrants of the airport, and remote release them on one particular aircraft and then get all four accepted in the DB. As long as I show a different motive, and different view? Actually, this sounds like an awesome idea.  Wink Really it does...hhhm, anybody have 3 cameras I can borrow?

My C-5 is a decent example of a different Motive on all three, different shooting location, different view.

I get Suresh's point. He's glad and we probably all are that all of Ben's shots got in, but there was a very good chance that they could have been rejected, at a loss to the anet viewers and community.

So, a little tweaking and expansion of the double rule is good in my opinion. Ryan's shot above is a perfect example of a shot I would love to see and want to see. Plus, the Site is missing those thousands of views that would have been generated if he got that shot in.

Hope I don't sound like I'm complaing, simply debating. I have nothing to complain about, Just my  twocents 



All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
User currently offlineRaedervision From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 63 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3851 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Rules have always been broken because they can't cover every situation. Rules should be used as a guide strict or loose. That's one of the reasons why we have screeners so they can use their judgement and reason to take care of those situations. I too...Great work Ben to the 2nd power. Jim

User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3828 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just a thought... Why not allow the screeners make exceptions in certain cases, when they see that the photo in question could be a great asset to the database due to its outstanding qualities? Kind of like with the 'motive' - call it artistic, and it becomes acceptable  Smile .

I'm pretty sure that sometimes screeners reject some photos with regret. As a loose example - a side shot of a rare type and a good artistic shot of the same aircraft in interesting light but showing only part of it could present a dilemma. The artistic photo could be outstanding, but if the photographer opted for it, there could never be a photo of the whole aircraft in the DB.


25 StealthZ : Well there could, just not by that photographer that day!
26 Jalap : Well, they can, and they do, as shown by the C5 higher and the Joe Pries sequence of the crashed DC8 I linked to. Well, I guess so too, but I can't c
27 Post contains images FYODOR : Could I be a bit bore   but WHY are they not? If we look at pictures not at photogs? What is the bad point in double for viewers? Who will lose then
28 Silver1SWA : Exactly. If some of the other rules can be relaxed under certain circumstances, why can't the same happen with the double rule?
29 Post contains links and images Walter2222 : Well, sometimes they do! But it is not easy for them, because there are always people that start complaining when their own shot has been rejected fo
30 Chukcha : Walter, this is exactly my point - if the right of the screener to accept doubles he considers worth accepting is put in writing, say in the 'Rejecti
31 Walter2222 : Hi Andrei, I understand what you are saying, and I would also welcome more freedom from the screeners to wander off track, but then it will become mo
32 Silver1SWA : I think a lot of great points have been brought up in this thread. Could we maybe get a screener's opinion or input? Or is the silence from anyone fro
33 Chukcha : Walter, the screening have always been subjective, and always will be. When you receive a 'soft' rejection, just search in the DB - you will almost c
34 Philthy : I recently received a 'double' rejection for a shot showing the other side of an aircraft for which I already had a shot in the database on that day!
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...
Lets Talk About Fill Flash posted Mon Oct 20 2003 21:18:37 by Clickhappy
What I Always Talk About And People Think Im Nuts posted Thu Nov 28 2002 16:36:17 by Joe pries
I Guess They Dont Want To Talk About It... posted Tue Jul 30 2002 21:36:31 by Flygga
Question About The Double Rule posted Sun Oct 25 2009 19:19:42 by Plainplane
Puzzled About "Double" Rejection posted Tue Dec 12 2006 07:00:40 by Walter2222
Contacted About Getting Photo posted Wed Nov 4 2009 13:53:47 by Astro777lover
What About This Sunset Shot? posted Wed Oct 28 2009 16:25:34 by JakTrax
Double Rejection: Question posted Tue Oct 27 2009 09:52:10 by Domjan
Pre-Screening - Question About Crop (Silver1SWA) posted Sun Oct 25 2009 12:09:12 by Silver1SWA
Would This Count As A Bad Double? posted Sun Oct 25 2009 04:27:14 by JakTrax