Trouble is, some airports have very unlevel areas that only the regulars are truly aware of. MAN is a prime example as the airport is actually built on a slight hill which peaks at about the central point of runway 23R/05L. Therefore the Tunisair shot is actually level despite not looking it. Sure, I could rotate it but then the reliable verticals in the background (the terminal and mast on the left, and the red/white mast far right) will lean slightly to the left. As it is, they are perdendicular, which is what is basically requested by A.net. Yes, we have the 'it must feel level if there are no reliable verticals' rule but clearly here there are reliable verticals; so how can one argue with that?
The next shot is currently in the queue, and is another example of a shot 'feeling' unlevel despite the accuracy of many reliable background verticals (in this case the houses and flats on the hill on the left). If you look at the couple of houses to the right of the cluster, heading towards centre frame, you will actually see that they suggest even more CCW rotation is required; however this will just make the slant from right to left even more obvious.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 569 times:
Although I consider myself extremely good at judging level, I'm reassured by your response. The second image feels more unlevel, but like I say, those houses suggest otherwise. Considering most of those buildings on the hill are probably very old, my guess is that they aren't actually level. Sometimes it feels like you just can't win - told one minute to use every available reliable vertical, then the next to go simply with your instincts. Levelling will never be a prefect art, and some scenes will always contain references likely to lead to conjecture. Unless an image can be proved definitively unlevel I would prefer the team to give benefit of doubt, especially when dealing with people who are known to be competent at levelling (i.e. those who have very, very few level rejections).
dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1630 posts, RR: 63 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 569 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Perhaps you could have taken the advice from the personal that the Screener left you (which you forgot to mention)
Needs CCW, too yellow
The verticals are too short to be reliable and even quite a dramatic ccw would not show them to be wrong.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 562 times:
Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 4): Perhaps you could have taken the advice from the personal that the Screener left you (which you forgot to mention)
Needs CCW, too yellow
Screeners aren't always right - especially where it concerns my home airport. I see I'm not alone in my interpretation of level either. While the Tunis doesn't feel level to me, the verticals say otherwise, and I disagree that they're too short - the section of terminal in the frame must be at least 60ft high, and it's not like all verticals don't correspond with one another. If I'd levelled off the horizon you'd soon be pointing out that I should use the verticals. Speaking of the horizon, how come the hills in the distance look level?
The MRW Metro shot I would agree needs rotation to look right (although the verticals are actually currently correct), but I have to say that I most definitely think you are wrong with regard to the Tunisair. I have many recent acceptances from this spot, all of which were levelled in exactly the same way and by the same references. I shoot at this spot day in, day out, and know what is level there and what's not. But it seems my word is not enough and the benefit of the doubt isn't going to be given.
I don't see any difference between the rejected shot and this.....
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 551 times:
The MRW isn't really too important, as I felt from the get-go that it was unlevel. Still, if the ground an aircraft sits on is sloping, it would naturally lead to the lines of the aircraft doing so too. There was a recent pre-screening thread where this was pointed out by Dana, and I fully agree. Take the runway at Lukla for example - you'd expect the aircraft to have a similar tilt in Photoshop to the example you've posted above (but much more pronounced obviously).
Going back to the Tunis, I really didn't want to go off individual aerials as they are too unreliable, however most of the verticals seemed uniform enough. One thing to bear in mind is that I level these from the full-sized images, and make sure to zoom in many times to check the exact angles. With this shot, the terminal actually leans ever-so-slightly to the left.
I just don't want this to get rejected now with the comment, "Buildings all lean to the left".
Here's a re-hash of the Tunis. It does look better now but the terminal left side does lean to the left. Again, I don't want the next person screening it to now turn around and say, "You should have used the verticals".
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 462 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 8): I just don't want this to get rejected now with the comment, "Buildings all lean to the left".
Lo-and-behold, the above has happened, as predicted! Of course the linked image above now doesn't exist as it's been shifted to my rejected queue (and now subsequently my appeal queue), so here's the revised link.....
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 432 times:
Well, I appealed and the original rejection has been overturned; which I honestly must say surprises me. Thing is, I actually feel sympathetic towards the screener who screened it originally as it was always going to be a tough one with those houses on the hill.