OlegShv
Topic Author
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:22 am

Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:34 pm

I happened to find two shots of the same aircraft, from the same photographer, on the same day, and on the same taxiing sequence! Is the "double" rule not enforced anymore?

Here are the shots in question:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vishal Jolapara




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vishal Jolapara

 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:38 pm

That is pretty damning evidence of being in the same taxi sequence.

So here's a question - why didn't you email this to the screeners or DB editors instead of playing a "gotcha" game on the forums? Maybe they had a reason for letting it go.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
bubbles
Crew
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:54 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:44 pm

They are showing different sides of this aeroplane.

_Hongyin_
 
OlegShv
Topic Author
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 7:22 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:45 pm



Quoting Bubbles (Reply 2):
They are showing different sides of this aeroplane.

Thanks!
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:08 am

Quoting Bubbles (Reply 2):
They are showing different sides of this aeroplane.

The front side and the left side... Hmm, interesting concept. I'll need to remember that.

[Edited 2008-02-29 16:10:06]
 
Ander
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:14 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:16 am



Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 4):
The front side and the left side... Hmm, interesting concept. I'll need to remember that.

 rotfl   rotfl 
Born to tri.
 
philhyde
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:57 am

To me this is not "baddouble". The photos are obviously same day, aircraft, etc, but are not "similar".

http://www.airliners.net/procphotos/reasons.php
Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
 
Fly747
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:03 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:53 am



Quoting Bubbles (Reply 2):
They are showing different sides of this aeroplane.

I sent an email to screeners before this thread was started and this was the answer I got as well.
It is a new registration to the database, however it was only changed recently as the caption of the photo explains.
I accepted the reason why both of them were let in the DB but not necessarily agree with it 100%, but that's irrelevant.

Ivan
 
bubbles
Crew
Posts: 1124
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:54 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:02 am



Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 4):
The front side and the left side... Hmm, interesting concept. I'll need to remember that.

Hi Chad

My point is the first image shows the nose area AND the starboard side of fuselage, and the second one shows the larboard side of fuselage. So, two sides - different.

_Hongyin_
 
scottieprecord
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:52 am

So if I have a shot of, say an EK 777 pulling into the gate, I can upload one of each angle and baddouble won't be a problem?

Mike
 
dacman
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 9:22 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 2:58 am

Nose view - profile view, looks good to me and definately not a double.

My two cents.

Michael
(Dacman)
LAX / LGB local
"Airliner Photography is not a crime"
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:09 am

I think the shots are great. Besides featuring completely different angles of the aircraft, the backgrounds are also quite different. To me, this makes each photo unique in its own way.

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
HAL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:58 am

I posted a thread on the same subject but didn't get much response last week. Would it be possible to have someone edit the rejection reasons to include language that clearly states that it is the 'same side of the aircraft' that makes a difference? It seems to me the word 'similar' just isn't specific enough. I had this photo rejected:
MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © David Sperry

as being a double of this accepted photo:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Sperry


The are from different locations with different views, but since they show the same aircraft on the same day and from (sort of) the same side, the nose view was rejected. I accept that by the rules it is a double, but could the posted rules be clarified so we don't have so many of the same kind of mistakes? Thanks.

David

[Edited 2008-02-29 20:16:41]

[Edited 2008-02-29 20:17:13]

[Edited 2008-02-29 20:18:27]

[Edited 2008-02-29 20:21:16]
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:59 am



Quoting Bubbles (Reply 8):
he first image shows the nose area AND the starboard side of fuselage, and the second one shows the larboard side of fuselage.

...sorry, what the heck is "larboard" side?
 
HAL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:03 am



Quoting JeffM (Reply 13):
...sorry, what the heck is "larboard" side?

Archaic version of 'Port' side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_(nautical)

David
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:05 am



Quoting Dacman (Reply 10):

My two cents.

and not a penny more.

Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 9):
So if I have a shot of, say an EK 777 pulling into the gate, I can upload one of each angle and baddouble won't be a problem?

Mike

Based on this precedent, I don't see why not!
 
unattendedbag
Posts: 2154
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:35 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:11 am



Quoting OlegShv (Thread starter):
same aircraft, from the same photographer, on the same day, and on the same taxiing sequence! Is the "double" rule not enforced anymore?

The first shot is showing the right side and nose and the second shot is showing the left side of the aircraft.

this is the same principal:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Robbins - Nashville Aviation Photographers
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Robbins - Nashville Aviation Photographers



Quoting HAL (Reply 12):
as being a double of this accepted photo:

you have been here long enough to know how to post your photo properly!!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Sperry

Slower traffic, keep right
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:24 am

This type of debate intrigues me. In the not-so-distant past, I had a shot rejected, I appealed and it was rejected again.


Arrival:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chad Thomas - Jetwash Images



Departure (REJECTED FOR DOUBLE):



Why?
 
HAL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:27 am



Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 16):
you have been here long enough to know how to post your photo properly!!

I'm a-pedaling just as fast as I can man!  Smile I'm used to writing, not posting photos here and I'm still in the steep part of the learning curve! It took several attempts (obviously), but I think I got it done before my 30-minute edit window expired. Thanks for everyone's advice here and elsewhere on A.net. It's a great resource for anyone interested in aviation.

David
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:50 am



Quoting HAL (Reply 14):
Archaic version of 'Port' side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_(n...ical)

Wow. An entire career in the Navy and I never heard that term....not even at initiation.  rotfl 

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 17):
Why?

Same side visible in bot images Chad?
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 6:30 am



Quoting JeffM (Reply 19):
Same side visible in bot images Chad?

Oh. It was a rhetorical question really.

Still, one is an arrival and one is a departure. The arrival photo is 500mm of in your face UH-60 metal and the departure is well, a side on. Much difference me thinks.


I'm not debating the fact that the initial photos should or shouldn't have made it, I think they are just fine. Would like some consistency though. The fact that both of these photos were accepted while many other photogs would get double rejections for uploading shots in sequence goes to show there are flaws in the system.
 
User avatar
acontador
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 12:36 pm

Hi All,

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 20):
The fact that both of these photos were accepted while many other photogs would get double rejections for uploading shots in sequence goes to show there are flaws in the system.

Not necessarily. The first two pictures in this thread were borderline double cases. Most probably, if the aircraft shown was a KLM 737 or a Swiss Avro it might have not been accepted. Or if the second picture was taken showing exactly same background...I hope you see my point.
I think this is another very good example that shows that actually our system of not-so-rigid rules works! Yes, this does lead to sometimes photographers believe that their picture was judged by different parameters (=not accepted) than others (accepted), but it gives us screeners a bit of more freedom to let some exceptional pictures being accepted that otherwise would have never seen the public - and I would say the many hits this two got are a proof of what I'm saying.

Chad, if you just look at the two UH-60A Black Hawk pics you posted, they show same side, both in the air, no apparent different flying attitude, although I would agree that having only 3 in the DB does give you a point in favor. In the end, your's was probably also a borderline case, but eventually the same-side part was considered the main decision criteria.

I fully understand that most contributing photogs want to have a set of clearly defined rules of what is 'allowed' and what not, but we screeners also need to have a small room in each category to accept some exceptional pictures. I would not call that inconsistency, as long as there is a good explanation for each decision taken by the team.
Just sit back, relax and have a glass of Merlot...enjoy your life!
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:49 pm



Quoting Acontador (Reply 21):
Hi

Thanks for the explaination. Although my examples were separated by approximately 8 hours, Ithey were both shots of the same side of the aircraft.

Im glad to see the rules relaxing enough to allow several photos of the same aircraft in sequence, different sides of course.
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sat Mar 01, 2008 4:10 pm

I believe that it helps that this is a colorful/special scheme as well, right? I see no real issues in those cases - odds are the left side may be different than the right!
From the Mind of Minolta
 
scottieprecord
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:16 am



Quoting Acontador (Reply 21):
Most probably, if the aircraft shown was a KLM 737 or a Swiss Avro it might have not been accepted.



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11):
Besides featuring completely different angles of the aircraft, the backgrounds are also quite different.

So I can upload this second shot and it won't be rejected for double, or can we only do this with special airframes and good backgrounds?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mike Paschal


 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:04 am

Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 24):
So I can upload this second shot and it won't be rejected for double, or can we only do this with special airframes and good backgrounds?

Both of your photos should make it. One is a landing shot, one is a taxi shot. In addition to that, they are showing different sides of the aircraft.

[Edited 2008-03-01 21:06:00]
 
seahawks7757
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:54 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:34 am

Why not wait a few days and reenter it after the other one has gone through?
 
flyboyseven
Posts: 803
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:24 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:47 am



Quoting HAL (Reply 12):

I really do like that nose shot. That is a very nice shot in my opinion.

Graham
As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Crew
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sun Mar 02, 2008 2:25 pm



Quoting Acontador (Reply 21):
I would not call that inconsistency, as long as there is a good explanation for each decision taken by the team.

Andrés,

all in all I agree with what you've said, however I can't agree with the screeners' decision of accepting those 2 Gulf Air shots. Sure they are the first 2 pictures of that aircraft but they both have some quality issues which would have them both rejected if more pics of the aircraft already existed in the db. I agree if you accept one picture in such a case but 2 is unnecessary, especially if they are such borderline double cases. Also due to the special colors of this a/c you'll most probably receive many more pictures of it in the near future with better (technical) quality.
And forgive me, but the number of views can't really be your argument as you reject many nice pictures for different reasons despite them being possible high hitters.
On the other side if you do apply the acceptance criteria by the book it would only be fair to accept shots like Chad's UH-60 photos as they are from 2 different sequences.

Thierry
"Go ahead...make my day"
 
Fly747
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:03 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:12 pm

Quoting ThierryD (Reply 28):
Sure they are the first 2 pictures of that aircraft

That's the thing, they are not the first pictures of it. There were 30 others in the db before, most of them in that special c/s.

Ivan

[Edited 2008-03-02 07:13:26]
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Why The "double" Rule Did Not Apply Here?

Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:37 pm



Quoting Seahawks7757 (Reply 26):
Why not wait a few days and reenter it after the other one has gone through?

...poor advice....when the photos are uploaded doesn't matter.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DoubleUgly and 6 guests