PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4164 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3715 times:
Dmitry Ben said it already. Just do a search on the DB for Airline: Qantas and Aircraft: 707 the results will be 89pictures in the DB. The take the time and check how many of those have the reg N707JT .....
Now back to the first class and lets do some maths OK?
Thats makes how much other Qantas 707 pictures?
So that micture might fall into the category rare or may be very rare.
And it was explained a couple of times thta the standards are lower for rare pictures. Just check the DB for older pictures which were recently uploaded and you might regocnize that this is very common for shots taken in the 60's and 70's not to meet the requeirements for shots taken nowadays.
Rindt From Germany, joined May 2000, 930 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3698 times:
Actually, I agree with Dmitry's first thoughts... sure it's a 1966 shot, but there are FAR better shots of QF 707s out there I guarantee it. Sure, they're not on the database yet, but I know someone someday will upload something. I collect oldies slides, and quite frankly, that shot is poor - even for "rare" standards, which it isn't (QF had 707s for decades, it's just that no one has uploaded a good shot as of yet).
Rare = something that lasts only 8months-1year(tops), and isn't shot very heavily. The QF707 fits in neither category. Just because there isn't a shot on the database doesn't make it rare. So if you upload a shot of an American MD-80 whose reggie isn't in the database yet, surely doesn't make it rare.
What other people think of you is none of your business!
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3686 times:
The rules are not set by the screeners. It has been made clear in the past that "rare" in airliners.net terms constitutes something that is not in the database. Recently, guidance has been issued that means less lattitude is given for brand new subjects that are "rare", especially where the subject is likely to be photographed again and again in future (albeit that any "rare" but current airplane could crash tomorrow and become truely very rare). Sure, I have pictures of QF 707s that I have acquired and it is possible that the owner of the copyright on some of these will come along here and upload them. None the less, guidance has been given and I (and presumably several other screeners) believe that this picture falls within airliners.net's definition of "rare" and therefore lowering of the standards was justified.