A340Spotter
Topic Author
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:52 am

NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:20 pm

Question...

In the past, submitting a side profile shot of a plane, and then also submitting a close up of the nose, or a nice tail only shot, was fine. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples on the site. I have at least two airplanes that fit into this category already. However, when doing this on the Retro World MD-11 N803DE, the tail only shot, vertically, was rejected as a double, and rejected again when appealed.

Has this particular practice been updated?

Just wondering.
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
 
waketurbulence
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:33 pm

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:05 pm

That's a good question. I noticed these shots in the DB.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Carter



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Carter
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Carter


While they are all great shots, I just wondered if they were a bit of overkill. This a/c had been photographed before many times. I am not knocking the photos at all, just how many of them there are. As far as your rejections for double, it would be better to post them as an example. I do know it is hard to get two shots of the same aircraft in.
-Matt
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:13 pm

Quoting Waketurbulence (Reply 1):
While they are all great shots, I just wondered if they were a bit of overkill.

They are great shots, and are all different. Overkill? Hardly. If you read the criteria for NOA_Double, you will see that there is no issue for one person to shoot multiple angles of the same plane.
 
waketurbulence
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:33 pm

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:22 pm

"In order to receive this rejection, the other (similar) photos in the database must also have been taken by you, at the same day and at the same airport...... Eventhough these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar."

I was just going by what the rejection says. I feel that a 3/4 shot and a side-on do not offer much of a difference in angles, and with how strict the screeners can be I was surprised to see three shots from this a/c. I do agree that the tail and one of the shots is fine, but the 2 SIMILAR photos, for me, don't offer much of a difference. They are both shots on the ground, with not much going on. Just one opinion though.
-Matt
 
Dehowie
Posts: 1065
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:16 pm

It has changed and yes entirely differnet angles on entirely different days are being rejected as bad double.
Hey thats life.
Darren
2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
 
GPHOTO
Posts: 799
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:44 pm

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:31 pm

Quoting Waketurbulence (Reply 3):
I do agree that the tail and one of the shots is fine, but the 2 SIMILAR photos, for me, don't offer much of a difference. They are both shots on the ground, with not much going on.

It helps that the two similar shots are at different angles (side-on vs front quarter and also distant vs closer up, changing the perspective as well as the angle) and of different sides of the aircraft (changes the exact nature of the paint scheme, especially with this scheme). Hope this helps with your future uploads. Can you post the rejected and accepted photos, so we can have a look?

I've had (fairly recently) 4 shots of the same aircraft accepted here - cockpit, frontal, rear, tail close-up. All the shots were of very different angles and the aircraft was new to the database (still is), which helped. One of the photos spent MUCH longer in screening than the other three, which I suspect shows that the screeners were having to seriously consider letting it in or not - either because of potential baddouble or possible badmotive (I would have accepted either without complaint). Fortunately, it got in as well, but I think it shows that our screeners really do think about what they are doing and don't just act like mindless robots. I was very pleased all were accepted - I wouldn't have uploaded 4 if I didn't think they were each of individual value and within the rules - but I was half expecting a baddouble. I can't imagine getting so many shots of the same aircraft at the same time accepted again, but on this occasion, the photo angles and rarity came together for my benefit.

Best regards,

Jim
Erm, is this thing on?
 
A340Spotter
Topic Author
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:52 am

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:14 pm

Jim,

Sorry for the delay on your request...Here are the pics that were in question:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



and the one rejected:


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



Clearly different, however on the same day and airport...

Jeffrey
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:23 pm

Quoting A340Spotter (Reply 6):
Clearly different, however on the same day and airport...

I know that this subject of doubles is contentious but, having seen them, I agree with the screeners.
Take the back portion of the top shot and you have the second shot....well almost. Yes, you have changed your position, but not by much.
I would have expected bad double on one.
Mick Bajcar
 
GPHOTO
Posts: 799
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:44 pm

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:24 pm

Ok, I think I see how this works. A photo of the tail but from, say the rear quarter, would have had a much better chance of getting in?

Best regards,

Jim
Erm, is this thing on?
 
A340Spotter
Topic Author
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:52 am

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:35 pm

Well, here's my point...These are previous uploads of mine, all in the database, no double rejections, etc...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



and even, same day, place, etc.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



and another (gees, watch them all disappear now...)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeffrey S. DeVore



Anyway, this is the main reason I was asking about the double rejection maybe changing of late...

Jeffrey
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:38 pm

Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 8):
Ok, I think I see how this works. A photo of the tail but from, say the rear quarter, would have had a much better chance of getting in?

My interpretation is that they have to be substantially different, something not visible between the two or a very different angle, cockpit, close up of nose art or something like that.
However, I guess that the screening then becomes a very subjective matter rather than a much more straightforward quality/rules issue.
Can't be easy for the screeners !
I must emphasise that I am no expert, though double is one of my less frequent rejections.
Mick Bajcar
 
A340Spotter
Topic Author
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:52 am

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:40 pm

Mick,

I agree with you, it's not easy being a screener and I'm hardly bashing them. It's just that this was my first double rejection, thought I had it all figured out a long time ago but then this one happened, had to ask if the rules had changed...

Jeffrey
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:19 pm

thats a kick butt shot, let me know when you get the K64's back, I'd love to have one  Smile
 
A340Spotter
Topic Author
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:52 am

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:42 am

Royal,

The K64s are back...email me your address...

Jeffrey
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
 
waketurbulence
Posts: 1264
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:33 pm

RE: NOA_Double Rejections To A New Level?

Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:28 pm

I don't mean to take over the thread, but instead of starting a new one I will just add a double I was confused by. What is the deal with wing views and NOA_double? Here is one in the DB, right after takeoff, and the link is to a second shot that was a rejection.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Wallman


and the one rejected for double:
http://img391.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mattw61905n408wnwingvi3ni.jpg

To me they are different. What would make it so both could get in? If I had an airport in it, would that not make it double? What about if it were shot in another state? Or different scenery? Any thoughts on this would help me out a lot. Thanks.
-Matt

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests