Tonimr From Spain, joined Jan 2001, 325 posts, RR: 25 Posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 935 times:
One of the most important Airliner News magazines’ Editorial recognized some months ago that these mags have an uncertain future due to web sites like this, that can display a hot new photo before them and for less money. Despite having less contributors, magazines keep posting many hot new items that are missing here…
I’ve read in some discussions that someone criticise those boring approach or ramp shots where the aircraft is displayed from its side, simply because it doesn’t give anything new to A.net. Maybe they only show a NEW Airline, a NEW registration or a HISTORIC airline scheme that the best digital equipment, many hours waiting at the most exotic location, and the biggest inspiration wouldn’t bring you anymore.
I also think that artsy shots are not always as original as the contributor may think. Don’t let me be misunderstood! I also enjoy them!, but there are many of them that are too similar IMHO
And in the "Why this photo has been rejected" discussions, I’ve never read that someone answered: folk, your photograph is correct, but not better than the rest of the two pages of the same plane, in the same airport, from the same position... and many times from the same photographer!!!
Don’t you think that we should make an effort, go back to our rarest aircraft shots, scan and upload them, even if they get a low number of hits?
There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 848 times:
I think you have brought up a good point here. More and more people try to achieve the highest possibly hit rate (Me too ). When they go out to the airport they desperately search for an "artsy" shot which generate a lot of hits at airliners.net. There are many great unusual shots in the database, but nowadays I only look at the very best ones, together with hot new items or excellent side shots.
But you don't have to upload your "artsy" shots to get high hit rates. If you select carefully your "normal" pictures (side shots, approach shots etc. of either interesting, old or rare aircraft) you will also get a lot of hits (just look at the average hit rate of J. Pries, M. McLaughlin or S. Chui).
Toni, I really enjoy your older pics from PMI, so keep them coming.
I myself only upload those shots that I consider to be very interesting to look at. Right now I have 22 photos in the database and my average hit rate stands at 792 and I would appreciate if more photographers would upload with this philosophy in mind.
Do you really take pictures of airliners just to get them uploaded at airliners.net?
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 848 times:
No, I think this website is very capable of coping with the whole range of airliner photos. You can upload any aviation photo you want, as long as it fits the criteria for the website, you choose what you upload, and what you view, and really its a matter of opinion of what people like and what people don't.
I have here, some really rare shots, but there is no way i'd ever scan them or upload them, because a)they are not good enough and b) they are not mine. So they are just part of my collection.
This database is great, because you can find so much here, every single type of shot. In the future you'll be able to look up a registration, and find a photo of it in different locations and from different angles. This should give you a good insight into what routes the aircraft flies/flew. Which IMO is very interesting!!!
Its all good and well seeing one picture of a BA A319 approaching LHR, but its another thing seeing it from every angle, and at airports in other countries, where it sometimes might be a rare visitor!
Still all comes down to opinion, I think that we can have Variation AND Aesthetics, the database can be so diverse...
CrewChief32 From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 418 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 843 times:
The problem might be that there are not that many shots of rare airliners or liveries available as we would like to see........
Nowadays it is very common to see many spotters(almost) alll over the world taking photographs of aircrafts at any given airport, but back in the early days of the jetliners or even earlier, just after the second world war, when a lot of DC-4/6/7s and other propliners haven been the backbone of the airlines, not too many people did spend their time taking photos of aircrafts!!!
On the other, what do you consider rare??????
This is a database that is used by many different people for many different purposes and therefore I think the main target should be to have as many aircrafts (better say "registrations") as possible in the database, and that would include, just as an example, every AA MD-80 or United 737 or Aeroflot TU-154. Sure, all AA MD-80s or all Air France A320s look the same (some might say boring), one is like the other, but it is the registration that counts, imho. And when you check the advanced photo index you will notice that there are some regs missing, so wouldn`t this already make a `common` aircraft (choose one..) a rare bird?????
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 836 times:
Well, I'm still buying my aviation magazines as I did before the time of A.net. It doesn't matter if the same photos are sooner here than in the mags. The point is to take some day the mag from shelf and browse is, to look at the pictures and read the stories. Like people said when the computers came to the offices, less paper would be used, less newspapers would be bought etc. The didn't happen.
I really do know some guys uploading window shots for getting many views (I don't say I don't have any of those kind of photos here) but no "normal photos". Take a look at the photos below (this is not the guy I mean, however):
FUAirliner From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 538 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 808 times:
There are a lot of aviation photographers around the world who don't even have access to the internet. Of those who have only a small percentage is able to scan his slides good enough to get them accepted at airliners.net. These are often the older generations of us who have the desired rare shots from former times.
In my opinion at least 15 more years will pass by until the internet becomes really threatening to magazines such as WAFN, Airways and Airliner World, but I'm pretty sure those magazines will be in trouble one day unless they publish major parts on the internet.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 806 times:
couple of things- when i go out to shoot i couldnt care less about getting artsy for airliners.net, i shoot what comes naturally to me and whatever that is, i upload.
as far as magzines/airliners.net- i dont think that it is an apples to apples comparison- they are two different animals for two different times- magazines i enjoy on the train to/fro work, on an airplane, etc- airliners.net i enjoy in my spare time and daily looking at the pics- whether they are new or old means 0 to me- i just want to see top quality pics or ok pics of older subjects. Plus magazines have editors and stories- Jon Proctor of Airliners is an amazing writer and i look forward to that magazine before it comes out each time.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 799 times:
Right, If I press POST one more time, and my huge long post gets lost, I swear I will DELETE MYSELF. This is getting beyond a joke, and if I could (which I can't), I would contact my ISP immediately.
Now, Just after posting a reply, which got lost... I am just, extremely angry and cannot replicate it in such a way. Well, my point was that the whole great thing about A.net is the variation, It wouldn't be as good by far if there was 200,000 artsy shots, or 200,000 50mm side on shots. We have a great balance here, the best of both worlds.
Now, I am not a one for taking pictures solely for Airliners.net, I have alot of 'artsy' shots that I would never consider uploading, but I don't because they wouldn't be looked at twice by anybody, they are not for Airliners.net, they are not for anybody but me, because they are too my tastes. Some photos I really hope get lots of hits, others I don't.
Frank - well, One of the things I am trying to do is take a photograph, where the aircraft is not the main focal point, where people would look at a picture and the plane would not be the first thing that would catch their eye, it would have that 'atmosphere' that you get in some pictures, where you feel that if it was shot any other way or under any other conditions, it just wouldn't have been such a photograph. Someone achieved it at Munich, (photographer name escapes me, Thomas Reich...?) where it is a view down the runway, with a private jet or something small approaching in the corner at sunset. Without the plane, the picture wouldn't be so great, but if it was just a picture of the plane full frame, it would also not have been so great, and it is that that I want to achieve.
Views on this website is something that intrigues me, some photos are top quality, interesting subject, matter, well taken and perfect, yet there is no views. There are other photos, that the event that is captured you'd probably never see, ever, or is something pretty spectacular, yet it has no views. Then you get a photo of a UA Jumbo, side on on the runway, not particularly well taken, nothing special yet it gets a bucketload of views. I agree that sometimes it might be down to bad luck, ie. back of a huge batch of uploads, but sometimes its simply not like that.
Frank, I need to catch you with something. I have a trick up my sleeve, but with an airport like Bristol, not going to pull off huge views with anything routine.
You currently have 24 photos in our database. The large version of all your photos have been viewed a total of 17299 distinct times. On average, a photo of yours has been viewed 721 times
I'll get you somehow!!!
I've missed some from my original post, but it would never match it anyway... *SIGH*
2912n From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 799 times:
The market for magazines will not die out until you can take a computer, roll it up, shove it in your back pocket, read it on the train or plane or hwile waiting in the drive through line, or, most importantly, take it to the bathroom with you!
Seriously, the death of anything would be when they lock themselves into just one type of photo. Aesthetics are different for everyone. What I consider to be a great shot at an odd angle or with clouds telling the story may be too dark, a/c not in center, etc...for some people. Shoot what you like, enjoy yourself.
Some people (based on emails. ...) Love this shot. Others think it is stupid and does not belong on A.net...
To each his own...
Tonimr From Spain, joined Jan 2001, 325 posts, RR: 25 Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 780 times:
Frank: A.net didn't exist when I began to take photos
I firmly believe that some contributors are ONLY thinking about a possible upload to A.net when making a photo, but these are exceptions…
I’m also amazed by the hits of some photos, but we all know what’s the use of statistics. One should post what he finds that can be interesting. Do you remember those who made grow their hits ratio by stopping to upload for some time? I prefer to think that they were joking.
Torsten, Joge: Rare? Any Airline, livery, aircraft with their combinations that are not here: but also registrations, perhaps there's someone who is interested in having pictures of every AA MD-80. The key is: FILL IN THE GAPS. I think that it would be a pity that someone was reluctant to upload a missing aircraft simply because it will lower its ratio.
Yes, magazines have still a long life guaranteed, but I’m not so sure about those that ONLY publish fleet news and photos, even though I like to collect them as a reference and the quality of their printed photos is superior to the web images. One of this mags was smart enough to migrate to the Internet for the fleet news and keep the hardcopy with the articles, a pair of years ago.
There is a very fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'.
ExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 782 times:
I know this is just semantics, but I just want to say I **detest** the word "artsy."
Not sure if that stems from the fact that it is often coupled with the words like "fartsy" or "craftsy." I just find it trivializes aesthetic. Would you have walked up to Ansel Adams and said to his face, "Ansel... can I call you Ansel?... I LOVE that shot of yours of Half Dome. It's so artsy."
Please don't take this as a flame. It's not intended to be. As someone who works in a creative field, it's just a pet peeve of mine that I am bothering you with. I fully understand what is implied by people when they say "artsy." I hope it's with good intentions. Words like "artistic and aesthetic" are good, good words. Use the word "beautiful" if you feel it! I guess it's like when I hear someone say "supposebly." I squirm.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to trim my goatee, adjust my beret and polish my big, black-rimmed glasses...