User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

I Should Have Known Better...

Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:06 am

While browsing the database and reviewing the shots of the Belgian Air Component's twin stick F-16B (reg: FB-18) with the "20 years OCU" anniversary scheme, I was wondering why nobody had uploaded a close-up of this magnificent tail?

Now, I found out: I uploaded a close-up - since I thought it was a nice addition to the database - but... it was rejected for double:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...070717_CRW_9047_RT8_WVB_1200px.jpg

I am not complaining, because the rule is clear (it is from the same sequence - on the ground/static) and it the shot is taken from the same side (only slightly different)...but it is good to know for other photographers who have not yet uploaded a side shot...

Best regards,

Walter
Canon 347d mkII ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l IS USM - ...
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: I Should Have Known Better...

Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:48 am

Quoting Walter2222 (Thread starter):
I Should Have Known Better...

don't worry, some get old faster than others

[Edited 2007-08-31 01:06:16]
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
JRadier
Posts: 3943
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:36 pm

RE: I Should Have Known Better...

Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:06 am

Quoting AirKas1 (Reply 2):
Ditto Wink

what?  Wink
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: I Should Have Known Better...

Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:12 pm

Quoting JRadier (Reply 1):
don't worry, some get old faster than others

 rotfl   rotfl 

...but never too old to learn!  Smile

Best regards,

Walter
Canon 347d mkII ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l IS USM - ...
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: I Should Have Known Better...

Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:22 am

Now that I finally thought I understood the rule about double, I deleted the other tail close-up I had in the queue (FA-101), since I had already another shot (+/- 45 degrees-frontal) from the same aircraft/day accepted.

While browsing through my other recently accepted shots, I discovered that these two - "double"-seaters - were also accepted, within a period of a week, without rejection for double...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel



and


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel



So, was one of these wrongly accepted?

Thanks for further inputs!

Best regards,

Walter
Canon 347d mkII ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l IS USM - ...
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Crew
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: I Should Have Known Better...

Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:35 am

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 4):
So, was one of these wrongly accepted?

Hi Walter!

According to the double rule you get only 1 shot per sequence (in this case: parking) accepted for same a/c, same airport, same date.
So the Eurofighter most probably got through by error; normally you would only have gotten either the full view OR tailshot accepted especially since the aircraft is already pictured many times in the db.
The luck was with you on that one.  Wink

Thierry
"Go ahead...make my day"
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1235
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: I Should Have Known Better...

Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:59 am

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 5):
According to the double rule you get only 1 shot per sequence (in this case: parking) accepted for same a/c, same airport, same date.

Thanks for the feedback, Thierry!

By coincidence, I was reading a very old post (from 2006) of mine about a motiv rejection. At that time there was also a discussion about the double rule and at that time it was stated that the rule was there to prevent photos entering the database that looked "similar" (when taken by same photographer on same day, same location, same motive,...), but that it would - generally - not be a problem if the 2 photo's would each have a complete different motiv...(e.g. a tail-shot and a nose close-up). Could it be that this is the interpretation that is used? Just a thought...

PS: As an ex aircraft model builder, I have some interest in close-up shots of aircraft. The detail of the tail-shots is not available in the 45degrees/front shots, so that's what I thought of being different enough...

I think it is worth further discussion! What are your thoughts about this? Just trying to clarify the double-issue a bit more. If we hereby come to a more clear rule, all the better (if one of my doubles has to leave, I have no problem with that if it saves us and the screeners some time in the future).


Best regards,

Walter
Canon 347d mkII ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l IS USM - ...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests