canyonblue17 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 364 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4611 times:
I can't find it either, but I like the flight attendent's outfit.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8193 posts, RR: 28 Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4612 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
BadMotiv, BadCenter, BadContrast, BadDistance....
But GreatA**!
Awesome photo.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
photopilot From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4592 times:
Well, while the photo clearly has it's deficiencies, one must admire the angle the photographer chose in order to best display the "undercarriage" of the object in question.
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, RR: 25 Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4564 times:
derekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 823 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4486 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?
scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11345 posts, RR: 50 Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4410 times:
Quoting derekf (Reply 5): 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.
You're not the only one!
I wonder if my original verison of this, featuring a (fully-clothed) blonde in the left-hand seat, would now be accepted?
gocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4297 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4378 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.
andrej From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 810 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4372 times:
I hope somebody from a.net can chip in on the issue, but this topic was to celebrate very nice photo, with two nice subjects.
I thought that unless person can be recognized, then it would not uploaded. There are other pictures, where you can see people in it, here are two examples:
hrtsfldhomeboy From Djibouti, joined Oct 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4303 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.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4535 posts, RR: 26 Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4291 times:
At first, I didn't want to give any attention to the complaints in this thread. But I must say a few things...
First of all, this site could use more creativity and storytelling like this! Stop complaining, it's a good thing!
I like the story this photo tells. This is an aviation photography website. Here you have a nice young lady taking a photograph of an airplane! Person + camera + airplane IS aviation photography!
The photographer presented this story in a way that works. It's wonderfully composed and the aircraft fills enough of the frame to be the main subject of the shot.
Quoting andrej (Reply 9): I thought that unless person can be recognized, then it would not uploaded. There are other pictures, where you can see people in it, here are two examples:
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4280 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.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8193 posts, RR: 28 Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4276 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting andrej (Reply 9): I thought that unless person can be recognized, then it would not uploaded
Maybe someone can recognize her just from that backside.
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 13): The photographer presented this story in a way that works. It's wonderfully composed and the aircraft fills enough of the frame to be the main subject of the shot.
I would completely agree with that.
Quoting lh526 (Reply 11): BADMOTIF?? How can such a derriere be bad motif?
hrtsfldhomeboy From Djibouti, joined Oct 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4244 times:
Quoting clickhappy (Reply 14): 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.
You make me LOL, King. What is a MOTIVE rejection then? Earlier this year I uploaded a shot of a half naked woman on that billboard by the LAX innout and it was rejected for Motive.
I should probably go below deck and get back to rowing with the others...
clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting hrtsfldhomeboy (Reply 17): Earlier this year I uploaded a shot of a half naked woman on that billboard by the LAX innout and it was rejected for Motive.
Sounds like it should have been uploaded at billboards.net
If it was rejected for motiv it was because of the overall content of the photo, not the subject of the billboard.
Quoting hrtsfldhomeboy (Reply 17): I should probably go below deck and get back to rowing with the others...
hrtsfldhomeboy From Djibouti, joined Oct 2007, 61 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4224 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!
vishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4131 times:
Quoting FYODOR (Reply 10): Plane takes about 2/3 of the shot. Clear aviation motive. Very nice addition - 1/6 of the picure is the girl with camera.
Quoting andrej (Reply 20): but you have 2/3 of people, 1/3 plane
IMO, There's no such thing.
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.
None of the shots except the ANA T7 have the plane occupying even 1/4th of the shot & we can fathom what the ANA will be rejected for had it been shot by someone else.
Point is, there's a narrative to all of them.
And atleast its not a "on short finals for rwy xyz" or bland landing shot nonsense
I've had a few disappointments with uploading such type of photos & to be honest i've not pursued it a lot as I thought the screeners didnt seem very fond of women
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
dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 65 Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4039 times:
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 ?
Mick Bajcar
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
49 Psych: Ron - for me another beautiful photo from your portfolio. Equally deserving of many views, in my opinion. But I do agree with Derek that the young fem
50 RonS: Of course. Me included! But, I am only disputing a portion of what he says. Refering to a man in the photograph instead of a woman: I provide evidenc
51 FYODOR: Paul, I see nobody who would like to limit Derek on his right to express the view. Opposite - I see Derek who would like to limit rights of photogs t
52 RonS: Same here, well said sir. This type of statement by Derek is an attempt to limit the photographer from expressing their desired photo: The silence in
53 Psych: Hello Fyodor. You are right, and maybe I have not expressed myself well here as I meant. I think the debate surrounding whether the young woman is pa
54 vikkyvik: I fail to see what's wrong with that. It goes back to my previous comment (where, by the way, you accused me of twisting your words, though now it se
55 derekf: Well, well. I remember now why the forum ended up the way it did. Nowhere have I said I didn't like the picture. What I said was that I don't think it
56 dendrobatid: Derek Like you I still see the site as a database rather than a picture gallery - I like to record new aircraft for the database for posterity but th
57 Silver1SWA: Again, who cares? Photos aren't only enjoyed for their technical merit! It's about the subject, the scene captured. It puts the viewer right there! I
60 Psych: The opposite - I am very flattered to hear that Fyodor. It is fascinating that you chose that example - a friend once told me that he was aware of so
61 FYODOR: I still can't get the point what is exactly making you unhappy.
63 INNflight: Derek, For what it's worth, I totally accept your point of view, and I do not feel like there's anything I need to add or hold against it. You have be
64 JakTrax: I can't be bothered to read most of the posts here but we've been wanting the 'spotter-friendly' rules relaxed for a while. Now we have just that, and
65 Plainplane: I think that the mentality behind the negative complaints here, is because if they think the rules that they want loosened appear as if they are being
66 derekf: Well I'm afraid if you can't be bothered reading the replies then how do you know what point of view has been related? If you had actually read the r
67 Dehowie: First great shot Flo.. Having recently had this photo rejected from ANET I can assure you there is no charge by The screeners to flood the site with h
68 Psych: I am finding this whole debate fascinating, and it is such a shame there are no women in our community to input to the discussion. Personally I really
69 spencer: I think Flo actually did a fantastic job keeping her wooden leg out of the picture, gggaaahhhhhh!! Spence
70 Silver1SWA: I'm curious what you think of this photo and the many others just like it. A number of photos of this particular aircraft reached the home page. I do
71 acontador: Hi Guys (and yes, it's a shame there are no Gals participating in this thread!), First let me congratulate Flo for this superb picture, one more to an
72 JakTrax: Like I said before, if you find the contents of the thumbnail preview offensive, don't open it. Of course the image is popular because of the girl, bu
73 derekf: Thanks Karl - you've reminded me why I and I suspect many others lost interest in this forum. If you had actually read all of the thread then you woul
74 JakTrax: I'm sorry that you feel this forum has lost its way Derek, but I think you are part of a minority. In my eyes it is a well executed shot (let's not fo
75 Silver1SWA: The aircraft has a giant bikini-clad woman on it, and the photo generated hits because of that. If I'm following your opinion correctly, there's the
76 INNflight: Derek, How would a site like this continue to exist if there would not be revenue from photos, traffic and ads? I'm not agreeing with you that this is
77 derekf: I might be in a minority of those that replied to this thread but I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the forum isn't a patch on what it used to
78 JakTrax: Exactly; and that's perhaps why the site is branching out into what many of us would call 'real photography'. Nothing wrong with that. The site of co
79 derekf: And without people like me there would be no site at all.
81 eksath: Am glad the picture is in. Hope we have a lot more in! Anybody remember this "directive" from the Administration more than 7 years ago? "Hello all, Al
82 RonS: Enlighten us Derek. We're all contributors, uploading our photos here for free after all. Am I missing something?
83 vikkyvik: Untrue. He can avoid taking a side-on shot of that aircraft. Take a nose shot, or an underneath shot, or what-have-you. Plenty of ways to avoid havin
84 BO__einG: It's a great shot! Subject is great, the atmosphere gives a true feeling of being in the tropics because of the purity of the Carribean Sea and the gi
86 derekf: Yes. Yes you are. Thanks for thinking that somehow I'm special though. Sorry vikkyvik, I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. Anyway, I'm bor
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 810 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 364 posts, 
From Cuba, joined Jul 2002, 2439 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3141 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4297 posts, 
From Russia, joined May 2005, 576 posts, 
From Djibouti, joined Oct 2007, 61 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined Apr 2002, 154 posts, 
From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
