CallMeCapt
Topic Author
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:21 pm

Would This Be Bad Double

Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:28 pm

A couple of weeks ago I uploaded a photo I took of an F18. I'm pleased to say it got accepted. However, I have a photo of the same aircraft, same day, taken from the back quarter. I quite like the photo and would like to upload it but I don't know if it would be rejected for bad double.
Here is the photo in question.
http://users.tpg.com.au/CaptainG/F18GoranWilliamtown.jpg
Without struggle, there is no progress. (Frederick Douglass)
 
jorge1812
Posts: 2911
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:11 pm

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:26 pm

And the accepted one?

If it's this one
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Goran Matovina

I would say it's no double, but I'm not sure about. Nice pics!

Georg
 
CallMeCapt
Topic Author
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:21 pm

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:52 pm

Yes, thats the accepted one.
Might upload then.
Thanks
Goran
Without struggle, there is no progress. (Frederick Douglass)
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:53 pm

I don't think it will because recently, I uploaded two shots of an aircraft at an airshow and one got rejected for double. One was the aircraft and the other was the engine. So going off that, I'd say that yours will get the boot. But stranger things have happened...
 
CallMeCapt
Topic Author
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:21 pm

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:12 pm

shame if it does get booted. I quite like the angle.
I just uploaded it. Doesnt hurt to leave it there. I can deal with a bad double rejection.
 Big grin
Without struggle, there is no progress. (Frederick Douglass)
 
glennstewart
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:11 am

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:50 am

A copy of the rejection rule:

DOUBLE
You already have photos of this aircraft in the Airliners.Net database that are the same as or very similar to these photo(s).

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. Please do not upload multiple sequential shots of an aircraft during landing, taxiing or take-off, taken only a few seconds apart. Eventhough these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar. Please select the best shot from the sequence and upload only that one. One shot taken during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error.

In certain cases you can also get this rejection if there are photos in the database that are nearly identical to the one(s) rejected here, but taken on another date by you. Examples of this are photos of stored or preserved aircraft that have not moved since you took the other photos.

For window views we accept 2 shots per flight and side of aircraft when they show considerable different motives. So in other words the maximum number of accepted window views of the same registration on the same flight all taken by you would be 4.

For cabin views views we allow 2 shots per registration, date and photographer, when they show considerable different motives. The same applies for cockpit views.

Note: This situation will also occur if there are other photos very similar to these that are still in the upload queue and are waiting for the final screening.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
 
glennstewart
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:11 am

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:52 am

The answer is in this sentence here:

Please do not upload multiple sequential shots of an aircraft during landing, taxiing or take-off, taken only a few seconds apart. Eventhough these photos may appear to be from different angles, we consider them similar.

Although if different movement:

One shot taken during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:09 am

Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 6):
One shot taken during landing, and another during take-off will generally NOT be considered a DOUBLE error.

To me, that is more of a double than say a picture of an aircraft at a show static, then a pic of it's cockpit or engine, but an aircraft landing, one pic coming at you, the other once passed is not.  Confused

Am I missing something?
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:51 am

Quoting Eadster (Reply 7):
but an aircraft landing, one pic coming at you, the other once passed is not.

Martin, I think Glenn is trying to point out that Goran's second shot would(should) be a double rejection.

Cheers

Chris
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
glennstewart
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:11 am

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:10 am

Quoting Eadster (Reply 7):
but an aircraft landing, one pic coming at you, the other once passed is not

I think you need to read the rejection text more carefully. You've misunderstood the text.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
 
CallMeCapt
Topic Author
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 3:21 pm

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:12 pm

Ok, thanks for the clarification, Glenn
photo has been pulled.
I'm sure it will find a place in a frame on my wall unit.
 Wink
Without struggle, there is no progress. (Frederick Douglass)
 
glennstewart
Posts: 952
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:11 am

RE: Would This Be Bad Double

Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:51 pm

Quoting CallMeCapt (Reply 10):
Ok, thanks for the clarification, Glenn

No problems!!!

Would still be good to head up sometime to Williamstown  Smile
I'll consider this one answered.

Glenn
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: solro and 4 guests