SFO2SVO
Topic Author
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:56 pm

Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:54 am

In light of recent changes on a.net, I would like to suggest we revisit another controversial subject: DOUBLE rejections.

Currently we have a set of very strict and clearly defined rules. While these rules largely eliminate confusion and arguments over rejections, in some cases they may also prevent some interesting photos from being accepted. I am not advocating long sequences of "737 landed - 737 taxiing - 737 turning to the gate".
The suggestion is to add the following to definition of DOUBLE:

Up to 3 photos of the same aircraft are allowed provided that no two of them fall into one of these categories:

- photo showing entire aircraft;
- close-up of cockpit;
- close-up of tail;
- close-up of engine;
- close-up of sticker or damaged area;

What do fellow photographers and crew think?
318-19-20-21 332 343 717 727 737-234578 743-4 752 763 772 D9/10 M11/8x/90 F70 RJ85 ATR72 SF340 E120 TU34/54 IL18/62/86/9
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:27 am

I think the current double rule is fine personally.

Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 4579
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:31 am

I'm also happy with the rules as they stand regarding double criteria.
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4458
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:38 am

The only issue I have with the double rule is how it applies to airshows. I think the rules should be loosened for airshows, especially if the same aircraft participates in two totally different demonstrations on the same day.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
raedervision
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:24 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:42 am

I could not agree more. Some spotting rules are written in concrete and I think they should be written in the sand. A a2a photograph of the top and bottom of an AC for example to me is not a double. Many military airplanes are not even painted the same color top and bottom. The screeners are all good photographers. Let them use some of their judgement as to what a double is. I'll throw in the centering rule too. I wish I had a dime for every time I looked at a "centered" picture only to find the interesting part of the background or foreground cropped off eliminating part of the story in the photograph. I could certainly buy some new camera gear lol. My 2 cents. Not worth much but enough of them might buy a beer or two. Jim
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4647
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:00 am

Another vote for keeping them as they are. If you have an interesting image from an entire sequence just upload that one.

Karl
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4458
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:17 pm

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
If you have an interesting image from an entire sequence just upload that one.

But what if you have two interesting photos of two very rare situations?

Before I continue, I would like to say overall I am ok with the double rules. But I like the suggestion above that the rules not be so concrete. For example (and this relates to my airshow point) I have been very disappointed that this photo can't be shown here.



With the rules as they stand now, this photo will never have an opportunity to be featured in the DB simply because I have another shot of the same aircraft showing the same side taken on the same day. Both photos show two different situations and both show something unique and very rare in their own ways. It seems silly to me that if one of the passes had come from the opposite direction, both would likely be eligible for consideration. But since they were the same direction, this one loses out. I wish in situations like this, which IMO is very different than a sequence of a WN 737 or some common A320 doing an every-day taxi, takeoff or landing, screeners were open to exceptions.

[Edited 2009-11-23 04:19:23]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:29 pm

It ain't broke, so don't need fixin'.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:41 pm

Let me give my vote for changes.

All things should have it sense and the double rule is. As I understand at the beginning the double rule was to prevent site from tonns of similar shots from the same photogs and the server abilities were limited. Nowdays, as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) - the upload space on server is not so actual problem like it was. So, the only reason is to prevent site from qualitive but boring staff.

So, I'd agree regarding limits on similar shots - no interetst to have 2-3 photos from one regular landing. However there are many cases (not only airshows actualy) there photogs are able to make wonderful different pictures of the same plane. All they can be the point of great interest and in situation with fall of views - will help to increase the site popularity. Here double rules not follows its sense on 180 degrees heading - it just prevent site from interesting staff.

I'd agree with Jims point. Screeners are good and experienced photogs - it might be an idea to keep clear double rules on side shots but to give an option for screener to make exceptions for the rest of motives. At least as a first step. If it is clear that pics are very different - nobody will loose if they will be presented. Who of us look first who is photog when we look at the pictures? We look at the subject first. And if no loosers and there are some (or many) winners - it is clear arithmetic - the point to allow some doubles has it sense.

Regards,

Fyodor
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4647
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:45 pm

Ryan,

I see your point but you would strengthen your argument by showing us the apparent 'double' image. If the one you show above was the more interesting of the two why didn't you upload that?

Karl
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:48 pm



Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
If you have an interesting image from an entire sequence just upload that one.

But it happens that it is equal choice and if I have some inetersting shots I'd like to present them all. And if I can't - I have to look for opportunities on other - i.e. competing sites. Does it have sense for A.net to support them?

Regards,

Fyodor
 
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:51 pm



Quoting Viv (Reply 7):
It ain't broke, so don't need fixin'.

+1
 
RonS
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:52 pm

I agree, I would like some small changes, maybe just "tweaks" to the double rule. The double rule works, but could be improved to allow for some even more interesting and quality images into the DB.

Ryan has a good example. His shot above, while from the general same side is completely different due to foreground and framing of the shot (not to mention the other two AC). It is not a duplicate and would generate a ton of views for him and the site


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Pastorino




I have a few examples as well. I simply want to display a photo for the enjoyement of the Anet viewers / community (and myself of course).

My two accepted shots (some might say I'm lucky to have even two, but the 3rd is completely different and just sitting on my hard drive not doing anything).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ronald J Stella
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ronald J Stella





Quoting FYODOR (Reply 10):
And if I can't - I have to look for opportunities on other

Agreed, for me I want them on here, and don't want to look elsewhere simply cause I want them hosted.

Thanks,

Ron

[Edited 2009-11-23 05:53:51]
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10889
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:56 pm

Quoting SFO2SVO (Thread starter):
photo showing entire aircraft;
- close-up of cockpit;
- close-up of tail;
- close-up of engine;
- close-up of sticker or damaged area;

What do fellow photographers and crew think?

This would be a disaster, along with the fact that acceptance ratio means nothing now the queue would spike like crazy with people uploading 3 times or more of the pics they do now. Only thing I could see with the double rule is maybe relax it on a case by case basis for very rare aircraft which I think they do anyway. Otherwise leave it be.

[Edited 2009-11-23 06:57:13]
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
Jalap
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:25 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:04 pm

Although I largely agree with the rule as it is rigth now I do feel that some more slack should be given to the usually stringent application of the rule.

But that in turn would be very difficult to put in writing. While, in practice, there are exceptions. A very extreme case to illustrate, I'm sure everybody here will agree that a multiple breach is fully justified because of the documentational value of this sequence.

Then, where to draw the line and should that line be carved in stone? Are the current rules sufficient to exclude discussions?


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © J.Laporte
MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © J.Laporte



Maybe double rejection is justified, especially because of the similar atmosphere. And allowing them both may open the door to an overload of closeup/sideview combinations. But then again, is that really such a bad thing?
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:10 pm



Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 6):
I have been very disappointed that this photo can't be shown here.

Did you try?

I think that the acceptance ratio/Upload slot issue stopped people attempting shots like this because they feared the "double"rule.

At the expense of small increase in screening load, we might see more exceptional "doubles" get in the DB

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:24 pm



Quoting Jalap (Reply 14):
Then, where to draw the line and should that line be carved in stone?

It should not. As we trust screening team in other rejections with rather tangible subjective factor like general quality, motive etc. why can't we do same with double? I think guys easely determine ability for exception. If it will be clearly stated that the exceptions can be.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4102
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:29 pm

The double rule is fine.

Ryan's two 747SP shots are indeed exceptional and the screeners should simply allow themselves some freedom to make exceptions to the rule, if they don't curently do so.

In Jalap's shots, the aircraft is rare I'm sure, but that doesn't make the left photo worth an exception IMHO, sorry.

Peter Smile
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4458
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:12 pm



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 15):
Did you try?

Yes, I tried twice. On the second attempt I uploaded it with the registration of one of the other aircraft in the formation as suggested by another photographer. It didn't fool the screeners and they kicked it again for double.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
SFO2SVO
Topic Author
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 4:56 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:52 pm

Well, thanks all for joining and expressing opinions.
It clearly looks like most of us believe current rules are working fine. Majority rules!  Big grin
318-19-20-21 332 343 717 727 737-234578 743-4 752 763 772 D9/10 M11/8x/90 F70 RJ85 ATR72 SF340 E120 TU34/54 IL18/62/86/9
 
User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1301
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:09 am

While the double rule may have been put into place for certain things, there are frustrating times that it does not work.

Case and point,I am using a recent example in which the double rule was skipped by "mistake" (according to a headscreener in a communication to me). So if the double rule was diligently applied by the screeners, the database would not have these fanatastic different views of the same object at the same location taken seconds apart. ( SIDENOTE: My follow on images of the same event where rejected as doubles by both the screeners and headscreener because I had one already accepted image).

So, here is a recent case and point to highlight the need to adjust the double rule for special events etc.

Here are the images below. Please give them some clicks,too! Great work Ben!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Cooper



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Cooper



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Cooper



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Cooper

World Wide Aerospace Photography
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 4579
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:22 am

Ben's photos here clearly have very different motives - and are from very different views/locations. This, in my view, doesn't (or should not) represent a double.

But the old B707 freighter sequence above would represent a double in my opinion.
 
RonS
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:44 am



Quoting Cpd (Reply 21):
Ben's photos here clearly have very different motives - and are from very different views/locations.

Ben's photo's are incredible. BUT, they are of the same rocket on the same day.

Do you mean that I can set up cameras in all 4 quadrants of the airport, and remote release them on one particular aircraft and then get all four accepted in the DB. As long as I show a different motive, and different view? Actually, this sounds like an awesome idea.  Wink Really it does...hhhm, anybody have 3 cameras I can borrow?

My C-5 is a decent example of a different Motive on all three, different shooting location, different view.

I get Suresh's point. He's glad and we probably all are that all of Ben's shots got in, but there was a very good chance that they could have been rejected, at a loss to the anet viewers and community.

So, a little tweaking and expansion of the double rule is good in my opinion. Ryan's shot above is a perfect example of a shot I would love to see and want to see. Plus, the Site is missing those thousands of views that would have been generated if he got that shot in.

Hope I don't sound like I'm complaing, simply debating. I have nothing to complain about, Just my  twocents 
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
 
raedervision
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:24 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:51 am

Rules have always been broken because they can't cover every situation. Rules should be used as a guide strict or loose. That's one of the reasons why we have screeners so they can use their judgement and reason to take care of those situations. I too...Great work Ben to the 2nd power. Jim
 
Chukcha
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:57 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:29 am

Just a thought... Why not allow the screeners make exceptions in certain cases, when they see that the photo in question could be a great asset to the database due to its outstanding qualities? Kind of like with the 'motive' - call it artistic, and it becomes acceptable  Smile .

I'm pretty sure that sometimes screeners reject some photos with regret. As a loose example - a side shot of a rare type and a good artistic shot of the same aircraft in interesting light but showing only part of it could present a dilemma. The artistic photo could be outstanding, but if the photographer opted for it, there could never be a photo of the whole aircraft in the DB.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:00 am



Quoting Chukcha (Reply 24):
The artistic photo could be outstanding, but if the photographer opted for it, there could never be a photo of the whole aircraft in the DB.

Well there could, just not by that photographer that day!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
Jalap
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:25 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:58 am



Quoting Chukcha (Reply 24):
Just a thought... Why not allow the screeners make exceptions in certain cases

Well, they can, and they do, as shown by the C5 higher and the Joe Pries sequence of the crashed DC8 I linked to.

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 24):
I'm pretty sure that sometimes screeners reject some photos with regret.

Well, I guess so too, but I can't convince myself that this is a necessity. Somehow I agree that it feels kind of dirty to allow everybody to upload combinations. And apparently most people agree that this isn't the way to go. But the only argument I have found here so far is about the queue length. That can't possibly be enough reason to have to "reject photos with regret"!

So what's the real reason? I am also not too fond of the concept of allowing "doubles" but can't pinpoint a rational explanation for that feeling...
 
User avatar
FYODOR
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 4:13 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:35 am

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 25):
Well there could, just not by that photographer that day!

Could I be a bit bore   but WHY are they not? If we look at pictures not at photogs? What is the bad point in double for viewers? Who will lose then?  

Quoting Jalap (Reply 26):
I am also not too fond of the concept of allowing "doubles" but can't pinpoint a rational explanation for that feeling...

That's what I'm talking about. Any measure should have it clear sense. If it is - I just will agree with a point.

Regards,

Fyodor

[Edited 2009-11-24 03:02:16]
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4458
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:22 am



Quoting Chukcha (Reply 24):
Just a thought... Why not allow the screeners make exceptions in certain cases, when they see that the photo in question could be a great asset to the database due to its outstanding qualities? Kind of like with the 'motive'

Exactly. If some of the other rules can be relaxed under certain circumstances, why can't the same happen with the double rule?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1237
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 2:14 pm



Quoting Chukcha (Reply 24):
Just a thought... Why not allow the screeners make exceptions in certain cases, when they see that the photo in question could be a great asset to the database due to its outstanding qualities?

Well, sometimes they do! But it is not easy for them, because there are always people that start complaining when their own shot has been rejected for double and another photographer's shot isn't! That's what makes it difficult for the screeners when they depart the strict guidelines.

Personally, I am in favor of allowing the screeners to depart from the strict guidelines in some cases, such as shown above for the C-5 and Ben Cooper's shots. I would also have liked them to allow Suresh's shots in (even if they were double according to the rules). These kind of shots are in most cases so rare and interesting that a series is worth looking at!

Another loss for the site is when a special c/s is only available for a short time period (often these aircraft are due to be wfu very soon after being the subject of a certain celebration). One example is this one (sorry for the self-plug):

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel


The close-up of the tail (from the other side) was correctly rejected as double with another shot of mine (I tried anyhow, because I knew that there were not that many days to shoot this special c/s). Other photographers probably ran into similar rejections, and I am sure one day, some people might be looking for such a shot (e.g.for modelling scale aircraft). I am not complaining, I had several shots accepted of this aircraft with this c/s, but there are certainly photographers out there that have a beautiful close-up of this special tail  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 - ...
 
Chukcha
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:57 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:21 pm



Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 29):
But it is not easy for them, because there are always people that start complaining when their own shot has been rejected

Walter, this is exactly my point - if the right of the screener to accept doubles he considers worth accepting is put in writing, say in the 'Rejection guide', then complaining will become pointless. Same as with other RR - plenty of people have complained that 'similar' shots have been accepted, but that is up to the screener to decide, whether they are 'similar' enough.
 
User avatar
walter2222
Posts: 1237
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:40 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:37 pm



Quoting Chukcha (Reply 30):
if the right of the screener to accept doubles he considers worth accepting is put in writing, say in the 'Rejection guide', then complaining will become pointless.

Hi Andrei,

I understand what you are saying, and I would also welcome more freedom from the screeners to wander off track, but then it will become more subjective (as is the case for motiv and creative). I could certainly live with the fact that the screeners would have more freedom to accept doubles, if they think it is worthwhile for the site!

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 - ...
 
Silver1SWA
Crew
Posts: 4458
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:11 pm

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:36 am

I think a lot of great points have been brought up in this thread. Could we maybe get a screener's opinion or input? Or is the silence from anyone from the crew a sign that the topic of doubles is simply not going to be officially open for debate?
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Chukcha
Posts: 2019
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:57 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:23 am



Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 31):
but then it will become more subjective

Walter, the screening have always been subjective, and always will be. When you receive a 'soft' rejection, just search in the DB - you will almost certainly find a softer image accepted at about the same time. If yours was rejected for 'oversharpened' - there might be images accepted that seem much more oversharpened. And it is the same pretty much all RR. As long as the photos are screened by humans, it will never be perfectly objective.

Frankly, I would gladly put up with a little more subjectivity to see more good photos in the DB.
 
Philthy
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:13 am

RE: Let's Talk About Double

Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:25 am

I recently received a 'double' rejection for a shot showing the other side of an aircraft for which I already had a shot in the database on that day!  Confused

Accepted on appeal, but maybe some of the screeners don't understand the current rules correctly?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests