derekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 866 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6412 times:
I have to say I'm surprised by the inclusion of this image. Images with similar motives have been rejected or removed in the past. I'm not sure it furthers the "database" in the slightest and panders to a certain audience. Images with aviation related engineers, pilots etc are rejected but images like this are accepted?
gocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4314 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6304 times:
I agree with the photo, it is great, BUT
Quoting derekf (Reply 5): Images with aviation related engineers, pilots etc are rejected but images like this are accepted?
However, I remember a while ago (years back) where photos of other people (pilots, flight attendants, baggage handlers, etc.) were not allowed unless the photographer got prior permission from the person. If my memory serves this was after the Hooters Air F/A shots.
hrtsfldhomeboy From Djibouti, joined Oct 2007, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6229 times:
I'm cheering for this photo. Applaude the staff for including this photo in the database. Yah, it seems like too many photos of similar motive are rejected these days. Especially after johan checked out, but to see this photo make the database suggests a shift in reasoning by the "new a.net" management towards a more accepting & inclusive mentality.
Or maybe this is a mean tease by the staff since Jet Visuals is a long time contributor and often the "old Guard" photogs get special consideration. I mean, lets be real, this website ain't a democracy.
clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9549 posts, RR: 70 Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6206 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting hrtsfldhomeboy (Reply 12): Especially after johan checked out, but to see this photo make the database suggests a shift in reasoning by the "new a.net" management towards a more accepting & inclusive mentality.
Sorry - but this statement is incorrect. Johan constantly changed the rules - at one point purging all images that could be "misinterpreted," to avoid falling foul of his ISP's definition of "porn."
Demand Media has never provided any sort of limits on what we can, or cannot accept. If you have an image that was purged back in 2004, by all means, reupload it.
hrtsfldhomeboy From Djibouti, joined Oct 2007, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6150 times:
Quoting clickhappy (Reply 18): If it was rejected for motiv it was because of the overall content of the photo, not the subject of the billboard.
Okay, yah. The Billboard filled prob 60% of the frame. Had a Virgin A346 nicely perched on top of it with the wingspan the same width of the billboard. Looked classy, very similar to this photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtarded/4806646452/
Actually, thats the same advertisement that was in my photo.
Quoting clickhappy (Reply 18): Quoting hrtsfldhomeboy (Reply 17):
I should probably go below deck and get back to rowing with the others...
What does that even mean?
Slave Ships. the photogs propel this site forward with the content contributed, but get no compensation/say in matters?
I completely agree! The photo is very nice, and creative!
Quoting derekf (Reply 16): Some of replies here confirm that there is one reason and one reason only why this photo is liked and it has very little to do with aviation.
Derek, with all due respect the shot is really nice. I mean not only because of the girl, but I really like overall composure of it. Photographer's portfolio shows how the he knows his stuff and produces quality photographs.
And I am first to admit it, I like the girl in the photo as well.
Quoting FYODOR (Reply 10): PS. Even this shot is aviation motive, I'd say
Nice shot, but you have 2/3 of people, 1/3 plane. The pic above I would say is opposite. ...and offers better subjects!
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 13): First of all, this site could use more creativity and storytelling like this!
And these photos will tell you why, its what looks right to the screeners at that moment.
A known/reputed uploader's shot will perhaps get the screener to look at that image for an extra second/seconds before passing judgement.
dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1630 posts, RR: 63 Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5965 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
What is accepted onto the database is evolving all the time and had the woman in that shot have been facing the other way and smiling at the camera, it would not have been accepted. However, the way she is, with the camera raised creating a lead for the eye to be drawn to the main subject, the aircraft, it is more than well composed, it is superbly so ! She happens to be in the photograph but her position is not at all gratuitous and the image is a classic rule of thirds one with a lead in. I don't like the term creative for unusual motive shots here, but this one is !
However, we have a system that when an image such as this enters screening, it needs to be seen by multiple Screeners and if contentious it is referred to the Heads for a final decision. That one was seen by five Screeners all of whom saw it for what it was, an excellent photograph and it was added. If you want to try something different, then there is nothing to stop you but don't be surprised if you get rejections. A well known, very popular photographer here asked my advice just the other day as he had had a lot of rejections but by pushing the limits as he does, you probably will. But you might also get something different accepted more frequently than in the past. Jet Visuals is a superb photographer who knows the difference between what is simply different and what is good. The two are not always the same and most of what we see where something is different comes from the least experienced photographers and it is not often good. Different and good has been accepted for a long time.
I have to take exception with you Vishaljo for this comment and I do not like the fact that four (Head) Screeners images are then used to try to make his point when there are thousands of images on the database where the aircraft is a far smaller part of the image - the ANA 777 is a standard side-on image that could be any one of probably a million images like it. So why refer to it other than to take a shot at Screeners rather than being balanced?
Quoting vishaljo (Reply 23): A known/reputed uploader's shot will perhaps get the screener to look at that image for an extra second/seconds before passing judgement.
Images are only judged on their merit something that you can only appreciate when you see how things are done and that is something that surprises most trainee screeners when they join.
As to Vishaljo's last comment
For e.g., i had made a fleeting tongue-in-cheek reference to the excited/curious girl seen here exiting after spending a minute in the cockpit of the Rafale.
Check its remark now
We reserve the right to remove comments that are seen as hit seeking, waving pilots, check out.... etc and, whilst I do not remember precisely what the comment was I do remember it was a comment about how attractive you thought the girl was to get the pilot's and your attention. What could be more hit seeking than that, drawing attention to the girl, less than 10% of the image, rather than the aircraft?
Yes, the comment was removed as it was very clearly a hit seeker, but some people seem more bothered about the hits than the aircraft (I am evidently not one of them) and, even now ' Check its remark now'
Click, click, click
Still doing it Vishaljo ?
25 vishaljo: Mick you have TOTALLY Misunderstood my post. Nowhere am i slamming Paul, i clearly mentioned how well he presents an image with a story/a narrative wh
26 derekf: And the 50000+ views are checking out the excellent composition and the adherence to the rule of thirds ? Yeah right.....
27 INNflight: G'd afternoon all, I don't have much to add as Mick has made most points very nicely, just to elaborate on the motive and "preferred uploader" argumen
28 derekf: No bitterness here. I hope you don't see a problem with who dare to take an opposing view to the majority. I'm not keen on seeing the "database" ruine
29 Silver1SWA: It doesn't matter if the viewers are concerned with the photo's techincal merit, the fact is it's a beautifully composed image and shouldn't be rejec
30 derekf: The site may have accepted it for its photographic merits but the hits are for an another reason and hits are very important to this site. The obsessi
31 vikkyvik: Well, what are your rules for shots that add value to the database, versus subtract or simply maintain value? Does another shot of an AA 738 really a
32 FYODOR: People like it. What is the more important value? Does this photo creates any troubles, problems, etc? Who is the victim of its presense on Anet? Who
33 derekf: Photos where the subject is the aircraft rather than a person would be a good start. You are twisting what I'm saying. The screeners accepted the pho
34 vikkyvik: Well, to me, the subject is the airplane. Obviously that can be a subjective thing. I'm not twisting anything. That's precisely why I said "To me, it
35 Silver1SWA: For which stated reasons? The screeners'? Or yours? What about photos of say, the LAX In n Out? People view those because of the location depicted an
36 RonS: Derek, I think you need to have a Corona on the deck of the Sunset Beach bar, put the camera away for a few minutes and look at the scene around you.
37 waketurbulence: That better be your fiance or your fiance better not read this website Ron! -Matt
38 vikkyvik: What girl? I only see an AA 757. Wait a minute Ron....why is "girl" in quotes?
39 sulman: It's a great photo. It should be here. As long as a.net keeps this formula of using arbitrary, published metrics with subjective exceptions (and if th
40 derekf: It seems to be that it is popular because it has a female in it - that's all. I would guess the vast majority of vistors to a.net are males aged 15 to
41 Silver1SWA: Who cares about what makes it popular with visitors?! And I'm sorry, but a shot showing anyone standing under a 747 that low over their heads will at
42 slideman: I think the shot is a worthwhile addition, it is not only well shot and beautifully composed if sums up what SXM is all about in a very different way
43 andrej: Hey all, idea for making this thread was to share really nice photo. I was never *really* complaining, on contrary, the photographer has done an excel
44 derekf: It seems to me that disagreement is not particularly well-received among some. Interesting that a similar and, I think, much better picture receives m
45 Psych: I can't help myself (just like the old days!) so here I go: I have enjoyed following this thread, and can identify with Derek's comment re livening up
46 FYODOR: Many people have tried to explain it but I not sure you care about their arguments. You stated you don't like it. Ok. It is your inalienable right. R