AAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 542 posts, RR: 52 Posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1738 times:
It's seems that in the past week or two I've been getting a high number of bad double rejections for shots I really feel it isn't warranted. For example, the other day I uploaded these two shots, admittedley of the same aircraft, and both were rejected for bad double.
OK, the same airplane, but two completely different views. Don't the instructions say pick your best 1 or 2 shots at most? OK, I thought maybe I had a previous picture accepted of this aircraft and that was why they were rejecting it for bad double. So I went into the database and found these two:
OK, I've got two shots of that aircraft in the database, both side-on shots but with the aircraft in the opposite direction (and the titles are different on each side of the aircraft). Neither of the two shots I submitted are the same angle as what's in the database and, furthermore, checking the shots of the aircraft on A.net there is no shot at all showing the angle of the close up above. I can accept the full body shot being rejected as a bad double even though it does show another angle, but it's hard to swallow the closeup being rejected as a bad double. So how do both of these get rejected as bad doubles?
On the same day I got the two following shots accepted of another aircraft.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1635 times:
Art, were the two that were rejected taken on the same date as the one that's already on the database (the one taken from the same side)? If the new ones you uploaded was taken on the same date, then at least one of the two rejections was justified. If the two you uploaded were not taken on the same date as the one you already have on the database, then assuming the quality was OK we should certainly have accepted one, quite possibly both.
AAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 542 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1592 times:
The two in the database were taken on different dates in April. The two uploaded the other day and rejected for bad double were taken on July 20th so they have no connection to the pics in the database.
Kingwide From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
One shot should definitely have got in here. IF it was me I'd have accepted the first of the two, the second shot looks a bit ugly to me. It almost seems as if you were a bit late firing the shutter, just past side-on but not far enough past for one of those under-the-wing going away shots if you see what I mean? In this kind of situation it could be said to be badDouble and it's easier to tick badDouble than badIThinkYouWereAbitLateAndTheShotLooksUnbalanced
AAGOLD From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 542 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1551 times:
I hear what you're saying, but the kind of shot you're talking about isn't possible from the angle I was at. The shot, as is, was attempting to show as much of the markings as possible. I'd have taken the second one because there is no other shot like it of this aircraft in the database.