Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Is Not Common Any More?  
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Posted (9 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3044 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi All,

A couple of days ago I received a rejection; among other reasons there was "common".

Just curios - isn't this rejection reason a bit out of date? What I mean, in the times when Airliners.net had 200-300 thousand pictures in the DB - yes, it did make sense. But not today.

There is only a limited number of airliners in the world. Every one of them was photographed to pieces. You put any registration in the search bar - there will be tens, sometimes even hundreds pictures in the DB. Pretty much everything is common any more! At least every airliner of every major airline is.

In the old times there was an explanation that for less common aircraft there could bee some slack cut in terms of quality. This doesn't happen any more. In fact, nowadays the aircraft must be extremely uncommon for that.

My poin't is - why keep the rejection reason that is obsolete and doesn't make a whole lot of sense any longer?

Andrei

[Edited 2013-12-17 15:49:53]

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3014 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Andrei,

so what you're saying is that it was ok to reject for common (among other things as 'common' is never used as sole rejection reason) when the aircraft weren't yet quite as common in our database but now that they are really common we should show more leniency?  

I think the rule concerning 'common' is just fine. It merely tells that the aircraft is well represented in the database and that we are more stringent on the quality standards. But it is still quite feasible to get photos of these aircraft accepted.

On the other hand there are still many, many aircraft out there that are not yet or at least not so well represented in our database; just need to get out there, find and shoot them.  

Cheers,

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlinetopgun3 From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2998 times:

Some spotters upload only photos of airliner-type aircraft, and I do have to say, there is a multitude of photos in the database already....so a bit of restraint on uploads of the same, unchanged aircraft needs to occur. On the other hand uploads of new entries to the DB should be encouraged, maybe even preferential screening could be applied to them to encourage new entries.
Personally, I have over 1000 different registrations not yet in the DB that I would like to submit, but the screening process is extremely slow due to glut of photos in the queue that everyone has seen many times over.

I realize one way to subvert the queue limitations is to become a screener, but I can only devote so much time of my day to this hobby, so screening as a way to increase my uploads is counter productive.



I'd rather be flying.
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2987 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 1):
among other things as 'common' is never used as sole rejection reason

That's exactly right, Tierry - because it is never the sole reason, it becomes superfluous. The other reasons given with it are quite sufficient, IMHO.

Common or not, if the photographer uploads a perfect side-on of an aircraft, that has, say, 300 shots in the DB, it will still get accepted, right?

And, honestly, it has been a while since much leniency was shown to the aircraft that are rare in the DB. By and large, quality requirements for them are exactly the same - unless it is extremely rare or a picture of an accident.

[Edited 2013-12-17 18:39:17]

User currently offlinehrtsfldhomeboy From Djibouti, joined Oct 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2950 times:

The photos here are categorized in the format of a database, but let's be honest, this website serves as a world leading gallery for aviation photography. Treat it like a gallery and toss the rejection criteria of "Common." All this rule does is suppress creativity and limit opportunities (especially for those less fortunate stuck at one airfield instead of TRAVELING THE WORLD WITH THEIR CAMERA WHILE AT WORK .. cough cough). It's was a ridiculous rule 6 years ago and it's a ridiculous rule today.

User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6430 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

Quoting hrtsfldhomeboy (Reply 4):

Completely agree. If a photo is soft, it is soft.. It doesn't have to be common as well.

Not only that, but it saves the screeners one click for a lot of rejections, slowing down the process if drawn out over years.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2886 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting topgun3 (Reply 2):
I have over 1000 different registrations not yet in the DB that I would like to submit, but the screening process is extremely slow due to glut of photos in the queue that everyone has seen many times over.

Mark, I don't quite see how the amount of photos in the queue keeps you from uploading those regs...?

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 3):
Common or not, if the photographer uploads a perfect side-on of an aircraft, that has, say, 300 shots in the DB, it will still get accepted, right?

That's right, Andrei!

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 3):
And, honestly, it has been a while since much leniency was shown to the aircraft that are rare in the DB. By and large, quality requirements for them are exactly the same - unless it is extremely rare or a picture of an accident.

That's not right! We do apply high standards for any upload but are lenient when the aircraft is not common which we are not when it is common, hence the rejection reason to let the photographer know about it.

For us screeners it is an additional tool to clarify a rejection.
Anyway, Andrei, during the last 6 years (and 5000+ uploads) you've merely had 12 rejections for "common", not really something to be worried about, right?  
Quoting hrtsfldhomeboy (Reply 4):
All this rule does is suppress creativity and limit opportunities

Could you please elaborate this or show me one single example when the "common" criteria suppressed creativity!?  
The common criteria only applies to technical standards and as such does not apply to the creativity of a photo. And no need to travel the world to be creative...

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (9 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2849 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 6):
Anyway, Andrei, during the last 6 years (and 5000+ uploads) you've merely had 12 rejections for "common", not really something to be worried about, right?

Amazing - you can actually access this kind of statistics? It has been in fact 7 years 8 month. And I don't think it was that many uploads. If you do your math based on my current acceptance ratio - then yes, that's what it should be. But for the first six years my acceptance ratio was steadily between 85 to 95 per cent. It is in the last year and a half, that it started going down, and now I'm struggling to keep it at 60.

I am not worried at all - I am merely making a suggestion... That's right - only 12, but I am sure that I had more rejections of aircraft that could be considered common. It just seems that this rejection reason is used sporadically, at whim. How many pictures of a particular aircraft in the DB will actually make it "common"?

[Edited 2013-12-18 05:40:23]

User currently offlinelen90 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2824 times:

I have only had one common rejection and it was due to there being other issues with the picture. I have uploaded shots of some very well represented aircraft on the db (over 100 shots). They have been accepted with no issues or even lag time in screening. If the picture is high quality, it will get accepted no matter what.

As for what is not common, airlines are constantly changing out their fleets so new planes are always entering service for airlines. In addition there are some registrations that are under represented on airliners.net as well. Look at United (ex CO) N76065. That 764 only has 21 shots in the db and is an 11 year old plane. My personal theory when spotting is to photograph everything and not worry about it being common.



Len90
User currently offlinehrtsfldhomeboy From Djibouti, joined Oct 2007, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 6):
Could you please elaborate this or show me one single example when the "common" criteria suppressed creativity!?
The common criteria only applies to technical standards and as such does not apply to the creativity of a photo. And no need to travel the world to be creative...

Thierry

I can't show you an example because I'm not a screener with access to the a.net rejection history. Surely a screener can't determine the motives for creativity in submitted photos. Please tell me how how the anet staff determines when a photographer is or isn't being creative in how they shoot their photos.

As for technical standards, taken straight from the rejection guideL "In this case the standards for acceptance are higher than for aircraft of which we have fewer or no photographs on the database, and only photos of exceptional quality will be accepted."


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Planecatcher



Please explain to the community why this recent (October 2013) photo is of exceptional quality. Criteria for a photo of a well documented aircraft to pass review must also meet these standards: you may increase the likelihood your photos of it will be accepted by photographing it from an unusual angle, under exceptional lighting conditions, or with interesting scenery in the background.

Nothing about this photo is eye-popping. This photo is the 37th upload of this aircraft. Surely the database isn't hurting for more bland WN 737 photos.

[Edited 2013-12-18 08:49:09]


And to be fair, I'm in favor of accepting all photos regardless of their blandness. For some person that bland photo might be their first attempt at creativity. I'm in favor of a "gallery" mentality. All photos welcome as long as they meet basic technical standards.


[Edited 2013-12-18 08:54:21]

User currently offlineThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2070 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2784 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SUPPORT

Quoting len90 (Reply 8):
If the picture is high quality, it will get accepted no matter what.

  

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 7):
It is in the last year and a half, that it started going down, and now I'm struggling to keep it at 60.

Andrei, I had such drops in acceptance ratios as well and normally there was a reason for it (e.g. change of editing software or hardware). Is there any rejection reason you get a lot of (can't be the "common" one in your case  )?

Quoting hrtsfldhomeboy (Reply 9):
I can't show you an example because I'm not a screener with access to the a.net rejection history.

Well I guess you have a log of your own or are you just making assumptions?

Quoting hrtsfldhomeboy (Reply 9):
Please explain to the community why this recent (October 2013) photo is of exceptional quality.

Firstly, it wouldn't fall under the "common" criteria with "only" 37 of that reg in the database and secondly it meets all the technical criteria of A.net, that's why it got accepted.

Thierry



"Go ahead...make my day"
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2753 times:

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 10):
Firstly, it wouldn't fall under the "common" criteria with "only" 37 of that reg in the database and secondly it meets all the technical criteria of A.net, that's why it got accepted.

So what is the magical number that makes a reg "common"? If there are 500 photos, or 1,000 of a reg in the database, and I submit a photo that meets all the technical criteria of A.net, will it be accepted, or will I have to meet some "exceptional quality" criteria? And what constitutes "exceptional" quality beyond normal A.net standards?



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10027 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moose135 (Reply 11):
If there are 500 photos, or 1,000 of a reg in the database, and I submit a photo that meets all the technical criteria of A.net, will it be accepted, or will I have to meet some "exceptional quality" criteria?

It will be accepted. I think the wording in the Rejection Guide is confusing.

Really, all it means is that shots that are rare will get a bit more leeway.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

What I really hate about the common rejection is the fact that what's common for one person can be so rare for the other. A few years ago we had QF fly the Wunala Dreaming 744 to Argentina a few times. I tried to upload twice and both times common was one of the rejection reasons. At the time, there were no pictures of that aircraft from EZE (in fact, I think there were no pictures of QF from EZE), so what was common about that?
Not a big deal though since it's the only common rejection I've ever had.

rgds



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 10):
Is there any rejection reason you get a lot of?

Thierry, I am not really complaining or anything... Yes, there was a hardware-related batch of rejected photos for "dark" once, when I changed the monitor, but I sorted it out quickly. Other than that - I still use the same routine and even the same software.

However, there seemed to have been a general "tightening of the nuts" some time around the first half of 2011. I remember it very well because I was uploading my photos from the Avalon airshow 2011. All of a sudden the screening has become realy nitpicky and fairly inconsistent because of that. I used to participate quite a bit in the forum of the Russian A.net photographers. As usual among the photographers crowd, there was a fair amount of complaining about screening, they would post the rejected photos, and almost every time I could see the defects and would agree with the screeners. Then all of a sudden, in 2011, there was a lot of rejections that seemed unfair. It almost seemed that there was a call for perfection in the screening team. People would post pictures rejected for "soft", "oversharpened" or "dark", and I just could see nothing wrong with them!

After a while, the iconsistency became less, but it seemed still, that the plank was raised, and it stayed there. You know, in my humble opinion the screening has become a little "too perfect". In the old times, every now and then the not-so-perfect images would make it in the DB, and there was an element of surprise about that. Now there is no surprises - boring   ...

In general, I agree with the most of my recent rejections. Well, I did receive a rejection for "blurry" the other day for a photo that even in the full size shot is absolutely pin-sharp... But that was just one off.

[Edited 2013-12-18 16:24:20]

User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6430 posts, RR: 38
Reply 15, posted (9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2654 times:

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 13):

Exactly the same for me when it came to AKL in 2011. It was the first time the -ER version had been to AKL and I got a common rejection for that.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinealevik From Canada, joined Mar 2009, 1026 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2647 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

To determine if an aircraft is common, the following formula is used:

[(Number of photos in database) - (Number of images of aircraft by same photographer)^3] + (Total number of airports aircraft photographed at) x 0.35 +log[(annual flight hours of aircraft) / (Total flight hours on airframe)] + (Annual passenger volume of airport photographed at) x 0.05 x IF(camera used=nikon, then 0) x photographer acceptance ratio

If the above formula renders a result of 17.3476 or higher, then the image is common.

Hope that helps.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Kidding. Photography is subjective, we don't use formulas.

Personally I don't use the common rejection a lot, but if there are more than 100 images in the database and the quality of the image is in my view borderline to make it even if re-edited, I will use it. Sometimes I include a personal message to help explain that reasoning.

For most of the folks in this thread commenting on the common rejection, it seems you pretty much all know the jive for the site and know what common means in your own context. For some people who aren't as knowledgeable or experienced, perhaps common comes in handy. Not sure we'll know, there are over 1200 photographers waiting with images in the queue, and only less than a dozen have commented here.

For me, if it ain't broke don't fix it. We have a longer list of programming updates we would like in screening tools that (in my opinion at least) are more important to get addressed.

Anywho, back the 1200+ photogs waiting on screening...



Improvise, adapt, overcome.
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2567 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting alevik (Reply 16):
there are over 1200 photographers waiting with images in the queue, and only less than a dozen have commented here

And how many out of the 1200 participate in this forum at all?


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2533 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 13):
I tried to upload twice and both times common was one of the rejection reasons. At the time, there were no pictures of that aircraft from EZE (in fact, I think there were no pictures of QF from EZE), so what was common about that?

Where the photo is taken has no relevance to the common rejection. You said it was 'one of the rejection reasons' if you were able to fix the other reason(s), then the shot should be accepted.

Let's be clear - if there's no technical reason to reject a shot, then it will be accepted, even if there are 5,000 other images of it in the database.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineEZEIZA From Argentina, joined Aug 2004, 4967 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2530 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 18):
Where the photo is taken has no relevance to the common rejection. You said it was 'one of the rejection reasons' if you were able to fix the other reason(s), then the shot should be accepted.

Well, but it should have relevance. Common should not only be the aircraft, but also where the aircraft is. Just as an example, a A380 at LAX is common. a A380 in Argentina is not.
The other reasons for rejection I can't remember to be honest, and they were probably correct, but if the quality would have been there, why have "common" as a rejection reason in the first place if, as you say, it's about the quality?



Carp aunque ganes o pierdas ...
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2322 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 18):
Let's be clear - if there's no technical reason to reject a shot, then it will be accepted, even if there are 5,000 other images of it in the database.

Then maybe we should retire "common" from the list of rejection reasons.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1980 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (9 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moose135 (Reply 20):
Then maybe we should retire "common" from the list of rejection reasons.

My point exactly. But I will also agree with Peter on this one:

Quoting alevik (Reply 16):
For me, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Unfortunately, a lot of things have gone wrong with this website in the past, when something had to be fixed...


User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2428 times:

Quoting alevik (Reply 16):
Not sure we'll know, there are over 1200 photographers waiting with images in the queue, and only less than a dozen have commented here.

That's rich coming from the screener side! There are 34 on from screening team. There are less than 5 that make regular comment on the forums with many questions or pleas for opinion going unanswered (ignored).

My opinion, the common rejection is there just to indicate the quality isn't quite up to scratch given the number of photos of that registration so it demands greater scrutiny. I don't see a problem with the current reasoning personally. There are plenty of other issues with screening to be worrying about than when or if common should be used.

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 offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 19):
Well, but it should have relevance. Common should not only be the aircraft, but also where the aircraft is

I just don't see it that way personally. It seems to me that the vast majority of shots on the site have nothing in them to clearly identify where they were taken. As a totally unscientific test, I just checked the last 360 shots accepted from EZE. Maybe a dozen of them could possibly provide a clue as to where they were taken (all of these were either terminal interiors or overviews of the airport - in other words, didn't include a plane as the main subject!)

Here's the most recent - it could have been taken anywhere. Unless there's something iconic or that ties the photo to a specific place, I just don't see why location is or should be, a factor in deciding if a plane is 'common'.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alberto U.




Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10027 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2378 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting moose135 (Reply 20):
Then maybe we should retire "common" from the list of rejection reasons.

My advice: if the "common" rejection bothers you, just ignore it. Pretend it isn't there. It doesn't affect the other rejection reasons.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 23):
I just don't see it that way personally. It seems to me that the vast majority of shots on the site have nothing in them to clearly identify where they were taken. As a totally unscientific test, I just checked the last 360 shots accepted from EZE. Maybe a dozen of them could possibly provide a clue as to where they were taken (all of these were either terminal interiors or overviews of the airport - in other words, didn't include a plane as the main subject!)

Here's the most recent - it could have been taken anywhere. Unless there's something iconic or that ties the photo to a specific place, I just don't see why location is or should be, a factor in deciding if a plane is 'common'.

Agreed. I could pass off a lot of my photos as being taken somewhere else.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
25 moose135 : It doesn't bother me, don't recall if I've ever gotten one, but given this isn't the first time it has come up in the forum, and it clearly causes co
26 Post contains images EZEIZA : Fair enough, I agree that just having the blue sky in the back doesn't say much about where it was taken. But there has to be some trust in photograph
27 Post contains images vikkyvik : I meant that as a more general comment - not specifically to you. I fully agree, I don't really see the point of the Common rejection. But since it's
28 topgun3 : If the number of new registrations I find is much higher than I can upload (about 40 uploads every 10-12 days), then my collection will keep growing.
29 Bruce : For me common was a problem in a couple of cases involving European aircraft. Because plane spotting is heavily tilted toward those folks & much m
30 Post contains images 727LOVER : About 2 years ago, I had an aircraft that would have been a FIRST IN THE DATABASE reg.....it still got rejected
31 vikkyvik : It's not a blanket guarantee that all first-in-DB regs will be accepted. There are plenty that are still rejected.
32 dvincent : I never cared for the Common reason when I was a screener; I recall using it very rarely. It's kind of like a quality rejection; both are just generic
33 Chukcha : I'm pretty sure that nearly every "common" rejection I had, I just reworked the images, fixed the flaws, and they were accepted.
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...
Full Frame, What Is The Big Difference? posted Mon Aug 12 2013 08:08:17 by notaxonrotax
What Is The Tolerance Allowed For Window Shots? posted Mon Aug 20 2012 13:45:36 by jpmagero
What Is This Plane posted Fri Jul 20 2012 23:33:18 by hongming
What Is My Camera Capable Of? posted Tue Jan 3 2012 08:26:38 by Korpenko
What Is In This Photo? posted Tue Sep 13 2011 13:53:45 by KFLLCFII
What Is It About Cabin Shots? posted Tue Nov 16 2010 11:01:46 by pilotalltheway
Just What Is A Nose Shot? posted Wed Oct 20 2010 23:26:40 by dmemory
What Is A Photo Worth? posted Wed Mar 31 2010 06:16:00 by GdsF100
Not Having Any Luck W/ Acceptance! posted Wed Aug 26 2009 07:09:16 by Mjlewis
What Is The Rarest Plane In Pittsburgh? posted Thu Jun 4 2009 04:55:15 by Jpc11