AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
Like many of us I suppose, I've taken quite a number of close-ups of USAF nose-art over the years, but if I was to try to up-load them they would be rejected because the whole of the nose is not shown. They are close-up obviously in order to show the maximum detail possible of the art. This also applys to the artwork often painted on the inside of the doors on A-10's which cover the entry steps. Is there anyway I wonder that the whole nose rule could be relaxed in the circumstances described so that examples of this art-work could be shared between us?
A slightly different example I have is of some quite outstanding art-work applied to the tail of a Stearman that I saw at Oshkosh last year. I took a close-up which was rejected because the whole tail was not shown, but if I'd taken the whole tail the detail of the art would not have been fully visible therefore destroying the reason for taking the shot in the first place.
I see that this subject has been raised before some time ago, but think it's worth mentioning again as things may have changed?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4121 posts, RR: 9 Reply 1, posted (5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
I'm of the opinion that such nose art is a step too far from aviation. Unfortunately A.net isn't an art gallery and if the photo illustrates just a piece of artwork it's not aviation related.
AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2414 times:
I've got to say that I completely disagree with you on that Karl. The sort of art that I'm mainly referring to has been integral with military aviation at various times in the recent past, most noticeably with the USAF.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4121 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2405 times:
While I see your point, is it not art that - unless you know it's painted on an aircraft - could be anywhere?
My point is that, if the image doesn't show part of an aircraft (to the point where it's not immediately obvious the photo features an aircraft) it's leaning more towards abstract art than aviation.
What's wrong with including the nose or other integral part of the plane? You wouldn't just shoot a wheel then claim the photo features aviation?
Look at my example below. I could have just concentrated entirely on the new decal (similar to artwork no?) but there's no saying it's definitively an aircraft had I done that. By including the forward fuselage I'm meeting site criteria AND adequately displaying the motif.
gunship01 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 17 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2317 times:
ALCON,
21 years of USAF flying talking here and if Airliners.net allows military aircraft in the database, then I am of the opinion that nose art by itself should also be allowed. It is such an integral part of military history and is a great testament to the talents of the artists who apply them to the aircraft.
Brits had some great Gulf War I nose art on the Tornados and Lightenings and there was a crew chief in an USAF F-16 unit who did some amazing work. Even more incredulous was the fact that he was self taught with no formal artistic trainig.
It might not happen here on A.net, but the idea certainly has merit and gets my vote.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4121 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2270 times:
Perhaps it could happen here? We don't know as yet as no-one 'official' has yet responded.
The trouble is it opens the door for all kinds of close-ups of motifs - perhaps even things like flags and registrations. If you allow military nose art, you also have to allow a whole bunch of other stuff to stop the moaning.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Quoting AlexC (Thread starter): but if I was to try to up-load them they would be rejected because the whole of the nose is not shown.
Maybe you could upload an example for further comment? Personally, I'm with Karl on this one. If the frame is filled purely with the artwork with no other resemblance of an aircraft, then it could be art from the side of a truck, bus, ship etc for all we know. I'm not suggesting yours are, but thinking about future uploads. Given this site is about aviation and aircraft, civil or military, it would have to include some part of the aircraft too in my opinion whether that be the nose, tail, canopy, just something to suggest it's an aircraft photo rather than just a piece of artwork. Otherwise, as Karl mentions, that would also open the gates for logos on civil aircraft as well like in Karls example above. I've no problem in the actual art work, I actually find them interesting, but they need to be presented in such a way that they conform to the upload criteria.
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4121 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
I'm not saying this is the case with the original poster, but there must be people out there who are interested in such artwork but not necessarily the aircraft upon which it is painted. The artwork and the aircraft are two separate things, and an enthusiasm for one doesn't automatically lead to an enthusiasm for another.
Bear in mind that aviation is the primary interest here. Military nose art is just a by-product of that. Other by-products include contrails - but we wouldn't want thousands of photographs of those (unless the plane's on the end of it).
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6502 posts, RR: 29 Reply 9, posted (5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2154 times:
Overall, I'm pretty ambivalent about this one. Nose art is pretty cool, and I think in a lot of cases, it's pretty obvious that it's from an airplane. I've taken a couple close-up photos of nose art that would be cool to upload (though I don't remember if they're good enough quality anyway). I don't feel strongly one way or the other myself, but if others wanted to upload such shots, I'd support that.
I'm not too worried about the slippery slope-type thing; the screeners here seem to do a pretty good job of determining what qualifies and what doesn't, even if it sometimes seems arbitrary to the rest of us.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 8): The artwork and the aircraft are two separate things, and an enthusiasm for one doesn't automatically lead to an enthusiasm for another.
True, but one could say the same for airline liveries or whatever. Take my following shot:
Did I upload it cause I'm interested in the shape of the tail? No, not even close - I shot it and uploaded it because I liked the colors and artwork. To be honest, the overall aesthetic of the framing doesn't particularly appeal to me, but I thought the paint scheme was worth it.
Of course, it's painted on the tail, and it would be a bit difficult shooting just the artwork without the tail....
With that said:
Quoting viv (Reply 7): In my view, it needs to be obvious that the artwork is on an aircraft.
I'd agree with that.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
I took it this morning at MAN. It was just behind the cockpit on the new 'All-Blacks' ANZ 777-300.
Okay, so I didn't really; but who can prove that it wasn't on a plane? Whether it was or not is actually immaterial because the image doesn't reflect any part of aviation.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6502 posts, RR: 29 Reply 11, posted (5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2130 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10): I think the OP meant close-ups shots of the artwork exclusively. Take the following image for instance.....
I understand that. My point was that my intention in taking the tail shot wasn't to show an F-18 tail. It was specifically to show the colors/artwork, and I can completely understand people wanting to shoot and upload closeups of nose artwork as well.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10): Okay, so I didn't really; but who can prove that it wasn't on a plane? Whether it was or not is actually immaterial because the image doesn't reflect any part of aviation.
That's why I agreed with Viv's point:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):
Quoting viv (Reply 7):
In my view, it needs to be obvious that the artwork is on an aircraft.
I'd agree with that.
It should somehow be aviation related. If I remember correctly (which I may not - I'm not all that familiar with military aircraft), a lot of the artwork has something in it (words or whatever) relating it to the aircraft's particular fighter wing or what-have-you.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4121 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2128 times:
Vik,
Relax; I knew what you meant.
I was just trying to illustrate my point further.
I suppose you can say the same about any aircraft - that we all go after a photo mainly for what's painted on the tail/fuselage/winglet/whatever. We know how everyone moans when something turns up all white!
McG1967 From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 466 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2116 times:
It's not nose art, but I did get this example of fuselage art accepted, so it my be possible to get nose art accepted but not sure how tight you could crop.
No worries - I was just doing the same thing. Sorry if I came off as offended or whatever.
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 12): I suppose you can say the same about any aircraft - that we all go after a photo mainly for what's painted on the tail/fuselage/winglet/whatever. We know how everyone moans when something turns up all white!
True to a certain extent. Personally, although I do like certain colorschemes and whatnot, I'm pretty happy to shoot aircraft regardless. It's more gratifying for me to shoot airlines that I haven't shot before, but I'm not really sure that it has to do with the scheme....although that's obviously what differentiates them externally.
It's a weird thing that I don't consciously think about all that much. Like at the Lemoore Air Show (where I shot that F-18), it was my first airshow experience as a "real" amateur photographer, and I was excited at the opportunity for some different types of photos and different aircraft, but I can't say I was really thinking about the colorschemes or the military nose art or anything - at least, not before I got there.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 19 hours ago) and read 2069 times:
I was mainly referring to the art-work on USAF aircraft (harking back to WW II) that was very prevelent for a few years before the powers-that-by put a stop to it. It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that all my close-ups are of aircraft! The art-work on the inside of A-10 doors (they'd have to be open of course!) would be all but invisible if the shot was of the whole nose.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (5 months 14 hours ago) and read 2039 times:
Quoting AlexC (Reply 17): I could post some examples, but don't really see that that should be necessary. I'm pretty sure that we all know what I'm getting at.
It's difficult to form a full opinion until you have something to form that opinion on.
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (5 months 14 hours ago) and read 2037 times:
I don't know if this is exactly what Alex has in mind, but this is an example of the art work inside the door of an A-10:
I don't have a "wide" photo of an A-10 with the door open handy, but the art work is inside of the door below the triangular ejection warning decal. You wouldn't see much detail of the art work on a shot composed like this:
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (5 months 14 hours ago) and read 2033 times:
Quoting moose135 (Reply 20): I don't know if this is exactly what Alex has in mind, but this is an example of the art work inside the door of an A-10
Thanks for posting those, it puts it in to perspective now. Personally, while it's interesting to see the artwork inside the door, if that is what Alex is refering to, I can't see that it has a place here. That artwork could be anywhere, there's nothing really to suggest it's inside an aircraft. It could almost be the inside of someones locker. While it's interesting to see, I don't think those shots are for the Airliners.net photo database.
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1936 times:
My thanks to 'Moose' for posting that shot, it's pretty much exactly what I'm referring to. I can't really get my head around this 'it could be anywhere' arguement. For one thing as I will have taken the shot I'll be able to guarantee that it is on an aircraft, and will include all the details as is normal. I would hope that would be good enough for eveybody?
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1899 times:
Quoting AlexC (Reply 22): I can't really get my head around this 'it could be anywhere' arguement
Simply, it's a piece of art painted inside of an aircraft door. That artwork could be painted anywhere and you'd never know it was inside an aircraft. Your thread title is a little misleading in that respect. Nose-art for me is something painted on the nose of the aircraft for external display. These art works are on the inside of doors so not really nose-art. If it was on the nose of the aircraft and showed the aircraft nose and the art, I don't see it being a problem. However, as this is an aircraft database with an ever increasing creative side, there simply isn't enough aircraft shown in the example above.
Looking at the civilian side of things, should something like the following be accepted?
Merry Christmas
Darren
[Edited 2011-12-25 05:44:53]
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4121 posts, RR: 9 Reply 25, posted (4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1901 times:
This thread appears to be going round in nothing short of a monotonous circle now. How about I take a picture of my last in-flight meal and upload it here in the name of aviation? It was served on a plane so is relative, right?
Every Gordon Ramsey wannabe will love it but I'm not too sure aviation enthusiasts will share the passion. Food and aviation are different - the food just happens to have been served on a plane but that's not an excuse to include it on a website such as this. Stuff that belongs in the Tate Gallery is the same.
By the way, I really didn't want to put it so eloquently but felt there was no other way. It's unusual for me to suggest that a thread has descended into farce but the lack of input by anyone official has sort of sealed its fate........
P.S. If I remember rightly someone did once upload a photo of airline food, and I must admit I had to look at the calender to make sure it wasn't April! Luckily I've not seen anything similar since!
Jez From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 58 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 24): Looking at the civilian side of things, should something like the following be accepted?
No. Looks like an advert to me. A photograph of a photograph too.
Don't get hung up on the A-10 door, which may look like a locker door to some, but those that are familiar with military aircraft will have no doubts about where on the aircraft it is. It would be much the same with any other close up. Possibly a few rivets/latches/grilles is all it takes to see that the artwork was indeed on an aircraft. To me, much of the nose art alluded to by the OP has much more historical significance than the examples of commercially produced decals shown in this thread have.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 27, posted (4 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1910 times:
Quoting Jez (Reply 26): but those that are familiar with military aircraft will have no doubts about where on the aircraft it is
That is exactly the point. The majority of viewers won't have a clue where it is from and therefore it could be from anywhere. The example I posted above wasn't great, but you can see it has rivets so it could be from anything while its aviation related. Is it from an aircraft, a bus, etc? As it happens, it's the luggage van for the air taxi in Male. The problem lies with it's aviation related, but doesn't fit the criteria of an aviation database. While the artwork has a place in aviation history, it's just not for here.
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (4 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1897 times:
I have to say that I've got to agree with Karl now, this thread is going nowhere. It seems to be coming down to military enthusiasts v civil enthusiasts and never the twain shall meet, or have I got that wrong!?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 5152 posts, RR: 36 Reply 29, posted (4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting AlexC (Reply 28): It seems to be coming down to military enthusiasts v civil enthusiasts and never the twain shall meet, or have I got that wrong!?
I don't see how that would have any influence on this. I have interest in both, and probably more the military side of things, yet I don't think the example John posted has a place on a.net. Out of context (and minus the A-10 in the actual art) there is nothing to identify it as an aircraft to anyone that doesn't work closely with hawgs. If not for the second wider-angle image John posted, I would have had a hard time figuring out exactly where on the aircraft it was.
The a.net rule against tight crops of art/logos/decals applies to both civilian and military aircraft. A tight crop on just the decal of Karl's example would also not be acceptable. In fact, if you check the rejection guide, it is the first example given of a motive rejection, and you can also see that even close-ups of tail logos that don't include the whole tail are not allowed. You can find images on the db where the crop has been done to focus on art/logo/etc. like Mark's example, but as noted, they also include part of the aircraft for context - there is no mistake you are looking at an aircraft. In the end, Viv's examples are probably the best way to showcase military nose art, though it might be possible to crop a little tighter and keep the context of it being on an aircraft.
AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (4 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
Not what I was hoping to hear but fair enough, my collection will have to remain unseen in their little yellow boxes. Incidently I see that a shot of the inside of an airliner toilet currently has over 10,000 views. It's a funny old world that's for sure!
AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1698 times:
As the chief objection to my nose-art shots being acceptable appears to be 'how do I know that's on an aircraft?', (which IMHO is irrational as is 'it could be on the inside of a locker door', as mentioned by someone) I think I'm entitled to ask 'how do I know that that photo is of the inside of a toilet in an airliner?' I'm reasonably confident that many advanced railway trains from around the world (although not including the UK of course!) have very similar toilet interiors, so how do I know that the photo is not of a train toilet?
Going on from that, I (as do many of us) often get shouted and sworn at by men (always seems to be men) in white van's and other motorists while I'm taking photos on the perimeter roads around Heathrow. Now I don't really care what these people think of me, or the rest of us for that matter, but I don't like being sworn at that's for sure! What a gift for these people if they were to learn that around 23,000 of us to date had looked at a picture of the inside of a toilet on an aviation website. Confirmation as they would see it that we are all just a bunch of weirdo's, and that's to put it mildly.
Most of the above is said tongue-in-cheek of course but not all of it. And I accept that the toilet photo in question was taken inside an airliner, but only because the photographer says it was!
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 34, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1687 times:
Quoting AlexC (Reply 33): I think I'm entitled to ask 'how do I know that that photo is of the inside of a toilet in an airliner?
I think there is a difference between a piece or art and what can be considered an aircraft cabin / interior. I can see your point, but I don't think the same argument applies. To me, it's pretty obvious that the photo in question is an aircraft toilet. While I'm sure facilities on trains are similar, it still looks like it's onboard an aircraft. I don't think this is all that relevant though. Had it been just a photo of the sink or the actual toilet, ie a close up or only part of the cabin, then it would have received the same motive rejection as the art you are asking about here. The issues isn't if it's part of an aircraft, it's does it look like it's part of an aircraft. In your case, the general consensus is even though they are interesting photos, it's difficult to work out where they are from and other than dipicting an aviation scene, there's no aircraft shown which is the main criteria of the photo database. Opinion is split regarding aircraft cabins. To me, an aircraft cabin is one of the main aspects of an aircraft. After all, if you couldn't put passenger or freight inside, it defeats the whole objective or an aircraft, civillian at least. As a moderator of a popular holidays website, cabin photos are normally well viewed so people can see what they may be travelling in to compare with other airlines and to know what to expect. Close-ups of certain parts of cabins aren't accepted on to the database, only wider shots which is sort of where you're coming from.
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
AlexC From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1675 times:
We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the value or otherwise of cabin shots, but the popularity of what usually is just the backs of a whole lot of seats is a continuing mystery to me. Just why for instance an air-to-air shot of a beautiful war-bird can get many less views then a boring cabin interior I find baffling.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2084 posts, RR: 5 Reply 36, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1669 times:
Quoting AlexC (Reply 35): We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the value or otherwise of cabin shots, but the popularity of what usually is just the backs of a whole lot of seats is a continuing mystery to me
Everyone likes different things. It would be a boring world if we didn't! The reason for their popularity is as stated above, plus it's of interest to many to see what's inside the metal tubes, eg seat design, IFE, lighting etc.
Quoting AlexC (Reply 35): Just why for instance an air-to-air shot of a beautiful war-bird can get many less views then a boring cabin interior I find baffling.
Agreed but different people like different things and there are more than just aviation enthusiasts using this site as an information resource.
Darren
Equipment: Canon EOS 50D & 350D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4121 posts, RR: 9 Reply 37, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1655 times:
People come to A.net to view the inside of cabins. God knows why but they obviously have their reasons. Unfortunately art lovers go to the Tate Modern and not here.
Sums it up I think, without agreeing or disagreeing with anyone.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 6502 posts, RR: 29 Reply 38, posted (4 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1651 times:
Like I said before, I'm right in the middle on this one (don't care either way)....But I do want to address a few points:
Quoting AlexC (Reply 30): Not what I was hoping to hear but fair enough, my collection will have to remain unseen in their little yellow boxes.
That's really not relevant. It's up to you, not A.net, whether your collection gets seen. It's like me saying that it's the Getty Museum's fault that my art is never seen, since they refuse to accept it.
Quoting AlexC (Reply 33):
Going on from that, I (as do many of us) often get shouted and sworn at by men (always seems to be men) in white van's and other motorists while I'm taking photos on the perimeter roads around Heathrow. Now I don't really care what these people think of me, or the rest of us for that matter, but I don't like being sworn at that's for sure! What a gift for these people if they were to learn that around 23,000 of us to date had looked at a picture of the inside of a toilet on an aviation website. Confirmation as they would see it that we are all just a bunch of weirdo's, and that's to put it mildly.
We are a bunch of weirdos, in certain people's view. Who cares? They could pick on any sort of photo in this database and use it to label us as weirdos. Again, who cares?
Quoting AlexC (Reply 35): We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the value or otherwise of cabin shots, but the popularity of what usually is just the backs of a whole lot of seats is a continuing mystery to me.
Certainly fair, and I'm sure there are certain types of photos that get thousands of views that puzzle all of us. But like Darren said, it keeps the world interesting!
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
raedervision From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 62 posts, RR: 14 Reply 40, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
You won't see the detail if you add much airplane. Personaly I'd like to see them both.
derekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 733 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1421 times:
I don't see why there couldn't be a special category for close-ups of any art-work that adorns an aircraft; nose-art, logos etc. I think it would prove to be a very useful resource for all sorts of people.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2909 posts, RR: 63 Reply 43, posted (4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1408 times:
I must admit that I do not have an interest in nose art, but this has been an interesting debate. For me it illustrates a wider debating point regarding what A.net 'is'. Many refer to Johan's original intention for the site to be a 'database' - i.e., one assumes, a pictorial resource for airframes.
The decision-makers have moved on from that remit and A.net has evolved to include a far wider range of aviation-related imagery. As discussed above, it has become a very popular resource for internal cabin shots (again, not photos I myself would choose to open up). I could understand why the owners - DM - would be very pleased to think that those in the travel industry keen to show clients the inside of aircraft when considering a booking may automatically default to A.net as their preferred provider of visual information.
What interests me is the justification for including certain kind of 'aviation-related' images, and not including others - and what 'philosophy' underlies this. A bit like those debates we had a couple of years ago about including more creative images. You could posit that the nose art being discussed here is as much linked to aviation as is a landscape photograph taken from a cabin window (with a little bit of airframe included for good measure), or a 787 toilet facility.
What always interests me is the process by which we - the photographers - interact with and influence the thinking of the decison-makers who own and operate the site. DM may well be interested to pursue this debate further if it could be demonstrated that nose art may become an appealing motive that attracts traffic to the site. I would be one of those upset if my super-dooper aircraft photo was pipped at the post for a top spot by a piece of artwork, but I already feel that way about cabin shots .
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 26 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 17 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3053 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Apr 2006, 466 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Feb 2005, 58 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 5152 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
