Actually, isn't that your third or fourth attempt, and didn't I already give you an opinion on that one? I told you it would be rejected for motive and you still uploaded it? What is the point of seeking advice if you're not going to listen to any that is given?
vishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 824 times:
Dana, the '1st' attempt was the one with Purple Fringing which i completely agree with so, after that this was my 1st proper attempt (with what i saw/see as a near perfect image)
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 2): What is the point of seeking advice if you're not going to listen to any that is given?
Mate i respect your advice & i have learnt from it.
Roger had quoted photos with far more obstructions than mine being accepted in the previous thread but no one answered Pre-Screening - Vishal Jolapara (by vishaljo Sep 14 2012 in Photography Feedback)
there are more recently accepted photos with more than just a ladder obstructing the nose yet nothing 'special' about them.
Dana, the main reason i want the photo in the db (besides it being my fav shot from that day) is for the very fact of the Motive being portrayed:
A Special Occasion,
Overview of an adoring public + its other fellow Air India Boeing Fleet Members,
photo shows the Old & the New (under-const) ATC towers,
and AI's Iconic Main hanger - which was made by the airline's founder
There is no such photo out there & in all probability there wont be another one like it.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9069 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 770 times:
Quoting vishaljo (Reply 3): there are more recently accepted photos with more than just a ladder obstructing the nose yet nothing 'special' about them.
Yes, I completely agree with this as well. Those BFI photos are nice but there is nothing special about them. They should have been rejected for motive as well. I just got another photo rejected for "motive":
The sign that obstructs the aircraft is very minimal and besides this because of the movement it is fairly transparent too. Now my photo got rejected for that small object and at the same time there are many BFI photos with equipment surrounding the aircraft and blocking much bigger sections of the aircraft. Obstructions in my view should be acceptable to a certain degree. This is where I find airliners.net screening to be (very) inconsistent.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 5, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 756 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting A388 (Reply 4): This is where I find airliners.net screening to be (very) inconsistent.
Actually, that was a very consistent application of the rule. If you are unfamiliar with the application of the motive rule in regards to blockage, a good place to start would be the Rejection Guide - Motive where you will find a wealth of information and examples, several of which specifically state why your image was correctly rejected.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9069 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 747 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 5): Actually, that was a very consistent application of the rule. If you are unfamiliar with the application of the motive rule in regards to blockage, a good place to start would be the Rejection Guide - Motive where you will find a wealth of information and examples, several of which specifically state why your image was correctly rejected.
And the equipment on the 787 photos is no obstruction, even though the cockpit areas and larger parts of the fuselage are blocked? A small object in front of a main gear tyre is worst? Please tell me where the logic is behind this? Please tell me where the consistency is here?
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 7, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 744 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting A388 (Reply 6): And the equipment on the 787 photos is no obstruction, even though the cockpit areas and larger parts of the fuselage are blocked? A small object in front of a main gear tyre is worst? Please tell me where the logic is behind this? Please tell me where the consistency is here?
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9069 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 736 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 7): Quoting A388 (Reply 6):
And the equipment on the 787 photos is no obstruction, even though the cockpit areas and larger parts of the fuselage are blocked? A small object in front of a main gear tyre is worst? Please tell me where the logic is behind this? Please tell me where the consistency is here?
Have you read through the rejection guide yet?
Yes, I have and it doesn't explain the reasoning for accepting those obstructed 787 photos. Let's take one example:
Compare that photo to the LAN/United 787 photos and please read below rules for a "motive rejection":
"Temporary obstructions (such as people, cars, or other moveable objects) will lead to a rejection."
Let's see, all the equipment in those 787 photos are moveable and let me add, ALL of them are moveable. Looking at the LAN 787 photo there are two big stairs obstructing the main object, the 787.
Let's keep reading the "motive rejection" guide:
"Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered."
The stairs obstructing the cockpit is that significant that the cockpit can't even be seen. Please note that there were also already 4 photos of that aircraft in the database.
These are two accounts where this photo and any other similar photo should never have been accepted. Even so, the photo got accepted.
Now my photo only has one stair in front of the Air Force Two 757, it got rejected.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 9, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 734 times:
I'm going to guess this is the part Dana is talking about...
•Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered. This does not include engine/pitot covers.
Now, I can see parts of this applying as well.
•Photos with distracting or obstructing objects in the foreground (this is especially true for gate shots which are very difficult to get accepted due to their common nature and the large amount of equipment which usually surrounds the aircraft). Ramp Vehicles (including tugs, loaders, baggage carts, etc...) are allowed to block part of the aircraft as long as they are: [1] not blocking engines or wheels (exception: tugs are allowed to block engines/wheels if towing aircraft, and ground crew are allowed to block any part if not too prominent, which is at our discretion) [2] below the window line [3] part of active operations (this amendment is meant to exclude any aircraft parked with equipment in front of it. 'Active operations' is meant to include those aircraft actively loading or unloading.).
In Vishal's shot, the stairs block the nose wheel. Here's where the confusion comes into play with the two accepted examples above. The equipment should be blocking the wheels, however due to the overhead angle, the wheels wouldn't be visible anyway. On the other hand, I think an argument can be made against those shots when referring to the last line about "active operations".
Either way, I the rules are confusing!
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 10, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 732 times:
Quoting A388 (Reply 8): Let's see, all the equipment in those 787 photos are moveable and let me add, ALL of them are moveable. Looking at the LAN 787 photo there are two big stairs obstructing the main object, the 787.
Let's keep reading the "motive rejection" guide:
"Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered."
Please note that there were already 4 photos of that aircraft in the database.
Whoops, forget the first part of my above reply then.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9069 posts, RR: 13 Reply 11, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 731 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 9): I'm going to guess this is the part Dana is talking about...
•Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered. This does not include engine/pitot covers.
Now, I can see parts of this applying as well.
And this is why the LAN 787 photo and most of the similar photos shouldn't have been accepted but still similar photos are still being accepted as we speak. My photo mentioned in my post also got rejected to what is clearly very inconsistent screening. There is just no justification and no way to defend those accepted photos.
unattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 714 times:
Quoting A388 (Reply 8): "Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already. If we already have an image of it uncovered, then we will not accept it covered."
At the time of it's original upload to the queue, there were no images of VT-ANH in the database, covered or uncovered.
as seen here: Pre-Screening - Vishal Jolapara (by vishaljo Sep 14 2012 in Photography Feedback)
Pre-screened in this thread as a motive rejection on Sept. 15th by Dana (reply 15). 9 days before the first image of VT-ANH would be added.
As stated by the rejection guide:
Quoting Airliners.net Rejection Reasons: Photos where the aircraft is covered. Shots with covers over a significant part of the aircraft will only be allowed if the aircraft is not on the db already.
So, are photos of aircraft with significant cover ALLOWED and photos with minimal cover NOT ALLOWED if there are no photos of it in the database?
the first image of VT-ANH accepted into the database was on "Upload date: 2012-09-24 07:55:23"
Also regarding this "cover" issue. As noted in both of Vishal's threads regarding this issue. The United 787 that was highlighted as having 2 blocking airstairs (covers) was not the first image of that aircraft in the databse, not the second or third. There were 7 images of that exact aircraft in the database before the highlighted image was accepted.
For the record, I like both images, the United 787 and the Air India 787. I just wish the rules were administered fairly.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9069 posts, RR: 13 Reply 13, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 704 times:
Quoting unattendedbag (Reply 12): For the record, I like both images, the United 787 and the Air India 787. I just wish the rules were administered fairly.
I agree with everything you say and just to be clear I also like those photos but as you said, the rules are very unfair and as soon as this is pointed out (and this time by using the airliners.net guide itself), you hear nothing anymore. That makes it even the more sad!!!
In the mean time we have rejected photos that were unfairly rejected which is clearly explained here now.
dlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, RR: 32 Reply 14, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 704 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting A388 (Reply 11): My photo mentioned in my post also got rejected to what is clearly very inconsistent screening. There is just no justification and no way to defend those accepted photos.
So the answer is buried in there, but if you looked, you would find it. Air-to-ground images are exempt from obstruction rejections. There are many examples of this already on the database:
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 16, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 692 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 14): So the answer is buried in there, but if you looked, you would find it. Air-to-ground images are exempt from obstruction rejections. There are many examples of this already on the database:
The key word must be "buried". I can't seem to find where it says that in the motive section of the rejection guide.
Dana, would it kill you to quote the rejection guide since you know where to look? I have read through it multiple times now and it only furthers my confusion on the issue. It doesn't look like I'm alone so maybe it should be more clear, or less buried.
I really have no opinion either way about the photos in question. I followed along out of curiosity but now I'm just confused so the answer isn't as obvious as you think it is. I just wish you guys didn't give us the runaround and were just straight with us with a concise answer. You pointed to a section in the rejection guide and the answer, even though I'm sure it's there somewhere, is obviously not obvious. Wouldn't life be a lot easier for all of us if you just quoted the source instead of making us go fishing?
EDIT
I think I found it! Is this it?
Jetways are allowed to obstruct aircraft if the image is an aerial view.
If it is, I suggest making it more obvious like including it in the bullet points at the beginning of the section and have it include different types of obstructions since this line speaks only of jetways.
Or even better, how about including examples of aerial views.
[Edited 2012-11-01 14:22:16]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Jetways are allowed to obstruct aircraft if the image is an aerial view.
Yes, that's it.
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 16): If it is, I suggest making it more obvious like including it in the bullet points at the beginning of the section and have it include different types of obstructions since this line speaks only of jetways.
vishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 670 times:
Again, Dana the main reason i want the photo in the db is for the very fact of the Motive being portrayed:
- A Special Occasion (Delivery Flight / India's First 787),
- Overview of an adoring public + its other fellow Air India Boeing Fleet Members,
- photo shows the Old & the New (under-const) ATC towers,
- and AI's Iconic Main hanger - which was made by the airline's founder
I'm taking a little heart from this very uplifting thread you just posted in the AV Photography Section
The screening team has decided to implement a few revisions and clarifications to the double rule in order to be a little more inclusive of unique, rare, and difficult to obtain images.
The photo is Unique, Rare, VERY Difficult to obtain & will be impossible henceforth as this was the first time in the history of this airport that they let anyone with cameras near the airport, let alone inside - for the Delivery Ceremony.
+ The hangar is right beside an Indian Navy Hangar & i was asked to come down immediately from my perch after my photo, thank god they let me keep the photo (after pleading) as their equip wasn't showing in it.
I can upload as normal after the sharpening correction or Airport/Ramp Overview as one can also see the Entire Domestic Terminal in it.
All i'm asking for is leniency for what is a Historic Photo of sorts.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9069 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 652 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 17): Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 16):
If it is, I suggest making it more obvious like including it in the bullet points at the beginning of the section and have it include different types of obstructions since this line speaks only of jetways.
Good idea, will do.
Yes, I also overlooked the air-to-ground rule as well. Giving it a better place so it stands out will avoid people overlooking it. Right now it is burried in the text as mentioned.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4734 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 604 times:
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 5): Actually, that was a very consistent application of the rule. If you are unfamiliar with the application of the motive rule in regards to blockage, a good place to start would be the Rejection Guide - Motive where you will find a wealth of information and examples, several of which specifically state why your image was correctly rejected.
Quoting dlowwa (Reply 7): Have you read through the rejection guide yet?
I assume trees blocking parts of taxiing aircraft are fine though?
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4734 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 604 times:
Okay, found it. Not overly clear but I have found an image I feel shouldn't be in the database, based on what I've just read. If a team member wants to see it, I'll forward a link off-forum.
vishaljo From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 604 times:
Dana
Quoting vishaljo (Reply 18): Again, Dana the main reason i want the photo in the db is for the very fact of the Motive being portrayed:
- A Special Occasion (Delivery Flight / India's First 787),
- Overview of an adoring public + its other fellow Air India Boeing Fleet Members,
- photo shows the Old & the New (under-const) ATC towers,
- and AI's Iconic Main hanger - which was made by the airline's founder
I'm taking a little heart from this very uplifting thread you just posted in the AV Photography Section
Quoting dlowwa (Thread starter):
Update To Double Rule (by dlowwa Oct 31 2012 in Aviation Photography)
The screening team has decided to implement a few revisions and clarifications to the double rule in order to be a little more inclusive of unique, rare, and difficult to obtain images.
The photo is Unique, Rare, VERY Difficult to obtain & will be impossible henceforth as this was the first time in the history of this airport that they let anyone with cameras near the airport, let alone inside - for the Delivery Ceremony.
+ The hangar is right beside an Indian Navy Hangar & i was asked to come down immediately from my perch after my photo, thank god they let me keep the photo (after pleading) as their equip wasn't showing in it.
I can upload as normal after the sharpening correction or Airport/Ramp Overview as one can also see the Entire Domestic Terminal in it.
All i'm asking for is leniency for what is a Historic Photo of sorts.
Yes, I saw it the first time, and I've already expressed my opinion about the image. In any case, as I mentioned above, I have seen multiple examples where you have not taken the advice offered so I have a hard time seeing why I should continue to give it.
Which is why i asked again if the photo would qualify under the new rules as spotting here is outright DANGEROUS & the photo-op of the ceremony was a Rare one-time-only .
The screening team has decided to implement a few revisions and clarifications to the double rule in order to be a little more inclusive of unique, rare, and difficult to obtain images.
sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, RR: 14 Reply 28, posted (5 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 600 times:
I think the windows look oversharpened while the rest of the photo looks soft. To be honest, I think the whole photo looks overprocessed almost like an HDR.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, RR: 26 Reply 29, posted (5 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 595 times:
Quoting sovietjet (Reply 28): sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2285 posts, RR: 16
Reply 28, posted Fri Nov 23 2012 11:26:09 your local time (1 hour 14 minutes 56 secs ago) and read 3 times:
I think the windows look oversharpened while the rest of the photo looks soft. To be honest, I think the whole photo looks overprocessed almost like an HDR.
I agree. The contrast is quite harsh, especially the darks. Looks very characteristic of a filter called Tonal Contrast in Nik Color Effex.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Sponsor Message: 
From India, joined Aug 2006, 440 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7238 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9069 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4536 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4734 posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2339 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
){kind=link}