AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

Nose-art

Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:47 pm

Like many of us I suppose, I've taken quite a number of close-ups of USAF nose-art over the years, but if I was to try to up-load them they would be rejected because the whole of the nose is not shown. They are close-up obviously in order to show the maximum detail possible of the art. This also applys to the artwork often painted on the inside of the doors on A-10's which cover the entry steps. Is there anyway I wonder that the whole nose rule could be relaxed in the circumstances described so that examples of this art-work could be shared between us?

A slightly different example I have is of some quite outstanding art-work applied to the tail of a Stearman that I saw at Oshkosh last year. I took a close-up which was rejected because the whole tail was not shown, but if I'd taken the whole tail the detail of the art would not have been fully visible therefore destroying the reason for taking the shot in the first place.

I see that this subject has been raised before some time ago, but think it's worth mentioning again as things may have changed?
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:50 pm

I'm of the opinion that such nose art is a step too far from aviation. Unfortunately A.net isn't an art gallery and if the photo illustrates just a piece of artwork it's not aviation related.

That's just my personal opinion though.

Karl
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:25 pm

I've got to say that I completely disagree with you on that Karl. The sort of art that I'm mainly referring to has been integral with military aviation at various times in the recent past, most noticeably with the USAF.

Alex
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:04 pm

While I see your point, is it not art that - unless you know it's painted on an aircraft - could be anywhere?

My point is that, if the image doesn't show part of an aircraft (to the point where it's not immediately obvious the photo features an aircraft) it's leaning more towards abstract art than aviation.

What's wrong with including the nose or other integral part of the plane? You wouldn't just shoot a wheel then claim the photo features aviation?

Look at my example below. I could have just concentrated entirely on the new decal (similar to artwork no?) but there's no saying it's definitively an aircraft had I done that. By including the forward fuselage I'm meeting site criteria AND adequately displaying the motif.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karl Nixon



Again, this is just my opinion, so isn't right or wrong - and it doesn't reflect the sentiments of the site.

Karl
 
Gunship01
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:29 am

RE: Nose-art

Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:39 pm

ALCON,

21 years of USAF flying talking here and if Airliners.net allows military aircraft in the database, then I am of the opinion that nose art by itself should also be allowed. It is such an integral part of military history and is a great testament to the talents of the artists who apply them to the aircraft.

Brits had some great Gulf War I nose art on the Tornados and Lightenings and there was a crew chief in an USAF F-16 unit who did some amazing work. Even more incredulous was the fact that he was self taught with no formal artistic trainig.

It might not happen here on A.net, but the idea certainly has merit and gets my vote.
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:05 am

Perhaps it could happen here? We don't know as yet as no-one 'official' has yet responded.

The trouble is it opens the door for all kinds of close-ups of motifs - perhaps even things like flags and registrations. If you allow military nose art, you also have to allow a whole bunch of other stuff to stop the moaning.

Karl
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:12 am

Quoting AlexC (Thread starter):
but if I was to try to up-load them they would be rejected because the whole of the nose is not shown.

Maybe you could upload an example for further comment? Personally, I'm with Karl on this one. If the frame is filled purely with the artwork with no other resemblance of an aircraft, then it could be art from the side of a truck, bus, ship etc for all we know. I'm not suggesting yours are, but thinking about future uploads. Given this site is about aviation and aircraft, civil or military, it would have to include some part of the aircraft too in my opinion whether that be the nose, tail, canopy, just something to suggest it's an aircraft photo rather than just a piece of artwork. Otherwise, as Karl mentions, that would also open the gates for logos on civil aircraft as well like in Karls example above. I've no problem in the actual art work, I actually find them interesting, but they need to be presented in such a way that they conform to the upload criteria.

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
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:32 am

In my view, it needs to be obvious that the artwork is on an aircraft.

Here are a couple of mine that made the cut.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivion Mulcahy


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivion Mulcahy

Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:21 pm

I'm not saying this is the case with the original poster, but there must be people out there who are interested in such artwork but not necessarily the aircraft upon which it is painted. The artwork and the aircraft are two separate things, and an enthusiasm for one doesn't automatically lead to an enthusiasm for another.

Bear in mind that aviation is the primary interest here. Military nose art is just a by-product of that. Other by-products include contrails - but we wouldn't want thousands of photographs of those (unless the plane's on the end of it).

Karl
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:58 pm

Overall, I'm pretty ambivalent about this one. Nose art is pretty cool, and I think in a lot of cases, it's pretty obvious that it's from an airplane. I've taken a couple close-up photos of nose art that would be cool to upload (though I don't remember if they're good enough quality anyway). I don't feel strongly one way or the other myself, but if others wanted to upload such shots, I'd support that.

I'm not too worried about the slippery slope-type thing; the screeners here seem to do a pretty good job of determining what qualifies and what doesn't, even if it sometimes seems arbitrary to the rest of us.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 8):
The artwork and the aircraft are two separate things, and an enthusiasm for one doesn't automatically lead to an enthusiasm for another.

True, but one could say the same for airline liveries or whatever. Take my following shot:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vik S



Did I upload it cause I'm interested in the shape of the tail? No, not even close - I shot it and uploaded it because I liked the colors and artwork. To be honest, the overall aesthetic of the framing doesn't particularly appeal to me, but I thought the paint scheme was worth it.

Of course, it's painted on the tail, and it would be a bit difficult shooting just the artwork without the tail.... 

With that said:

Quoting viv (Reply 7):
In my view, it needs to be obvious that the artwork is on an aircraft.

I'd agree with that.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:23 pm

I think the OP meant close-ups shots of the artwork exclusively. Take the following image for instance.....

http://www.myfreewallpapers.net/cart...ons/pages/bugs-bunny-forever.shtml

I took it this morning at MAN. It was just behind the cockpit on the new 'All-Blacks' ANZ 777-300.

Okay, so I didn't really; but who can prove that it wasn't on a plane? Whether it was or not is actually immaterial because the image doesn't reflect any part of aviation.

Karl
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:46 pm

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
I think the OP meant close-ups shots of the artwork exclusively. Take the following image for instance.....

I understand that. My point was that my intention in taking the tail shot wasn't to show an F-18 tail. It was specifically to show the colors/artwork, and I can completely understand people wanting to shoot and upload closeups of nose artwork as well.

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 10):
Okay, so I didn't really; but who can prove that it wasn't on a plane? Whether it was or not is actually immaterial because the image doesn't reflect any part of aviation.

That's why I agreed with Viv's point:

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 9):

Quoting viv (Reply 7):
In my view, it needs to be obvious that the artwork is on an aircraft.

I'd agree with that.

It should somehow be aviation related. If I remember correctly (which I may not - I'm not all that familiar with military aircraft), a lot of the artwork has something in it (words or whatever) relating it to the aircraft's particular fighter wing or what-have-you.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:58 pm

Vik,

Relax; I knew what you meant.  

I was just trying to illustrate my point further.

I suppose you can say the same about any aircraft - that we all go after a photo mainly for what's painted on the tail/fuselage/winglet/whatever. We know how everyone moans when something turns up all white!

Karl
 
McG1967
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:43 pm

It's not nose art, but I did get this example of fuselage art accepted, so it my be possible to get nose art accepted but not sure how tight you could crop.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark McGrath

 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:53 pm

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 12):
Relax; I knew what you meant.

I was just trying to illustrate my point further.

No worries - I was just doing the same thing. Sorry if I came off as offended or whatever.  
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 12):
I suppose you can say the same about any aircraft - that we all go after a photo mainly for what's painted on the tail/fuselage/winglet/whatever. We know how everyone moans when something turns up all white!

True to a certain extent. Personally, although I do like certain colorschemes and whatnot, I'm pretty happy to shoot aircraft regardless. It's more gratifying for me to shoot airlines that I haven't shot before, but I'm not really sure that it has to do with the scheme....although that's obviously what differentiates them externally.

It's a weird thing that I don't consciously think about all that much. Like at the Lemoore Air Show (where I shot that F-18), it was my first airshow experience as a "real" amateur photographer, and I was excited at the opportunity for some different types of photos and different aircraft, but I can't say I was really thinking about the colorschemes or the military nose art or anything - at least, not before I got there.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:10 am

I was mainly referring to the art-work on USAF aircraft (harking back to WW II) that was very prevelent for a few years before the powers-that-by put a stop to it. It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that all my close-ups are of aircraft! The art-work on the inside of A-10 doors (they'd have to be open of course!) would be all but invisible if the shot was of the whole nose.
 
McG1967
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:48 pm

Alex,

can you post some examples or links to your photos? A better judgement would then be able to be made.
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:28 pm

I could post some examples, but don't really see that that should be necessary. I'm pretty sure that we all know what I'm getting at.
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:38 pm

You have asked a question about the potential rejection of artwork shots then decline to post any here so someone can give you an final verdict.

You're right - you don't have to post then here; but if you want your question answering definitively........

Not being of 'military' persuasion I've not got much of an idea exactly what you are on about. I'll bet I'm not the only one either.

Karl
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:11 pm

Quoting AlexC (Reply 17):
I could post some examples, but don't really see that that should be necessary. I'm pretty sure that we all know what I'm getting at.

It's difficult to form a full opinion until you have something to form that opinion on.

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
Moose135
Posts: 2554
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:32 pm

I don't know if this is exactly what Alex has in mind, but this is an example of the art work inside the door of an A-10:



I don't have a "wide" photo of an A-10 with the door open handy, but the art work is inside of the door below the triangular ejection warning decal. You wouldn't see much detail of the art work on a shot composed like this:

http://www.moose135photography.com/Airplanes/Air-Shows/McGuire-AFB-Open-House-2008/JM20080601A-10A80-0275002/307614764_q4oPo-XL-2.jpg
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 23, 2011 3:49 pm

Quoting moose135 (Reply 20):
I don't know if this is exactly what Alex has in mind, but this is an example of the art work inside the door of an A-10

Thanks for posting those, it puts it in to perspective now. Personally, while it's interesting to see the artwork inside the door, if that is what Alex is refering to, I can't see that it has a place here. That artwork could be anywhere, there's nothing really to suggest it's inside an aircraft. It could almost be the inside of someones locker. While it's interesting to see, I don't think those shots are for the Airliners.net photo database.

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
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:57 pm

My thanks to 'Moose' for posting that shot, it's pretty much exactly what I'm referring to. I can't really get my head around this 'it could be anywhere' arguement. For one thing as I will have taken the shot I'll be able to guarantee that it is on an aircraft, and will include all the details as is normal. I would hope that would be good enough for eveybody?
 
Jez
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:47 pm

RE: Nose-art

Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:36 pm

Well, I'd be pleased to see more nose art in the DB. In my opinion, they are preferable to the cabin shots.
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Nose-art

Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:35 pm

Quoting AlexC (Reply 22):
I can't really get my head around this 'it could be anywhere' arguement

Simply, it's a piece of art painted inside of an aircraft door. That artwork could be painted anywhere and you'd never know it was inside an aircraft. Your thread title is a little misleading in that respect. Nose-art for me is something painted on the nose of the aircraft for external display. These art works are on the inside of doors so not really nose-art. If it was on the nose of the aircraft and showed the aircraft nose and the art, I don't see it being a problem. However, as this is an aircraft database with an ever increasing creative side, there simply isn't enough aircraft shown in the example above.

Looking at the civilian side of things, should something like the following be accepted?



Merry Christmas   

Darren

[Edited 2011-12-25 05:44:53]
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:24 pm

This thread appears to be going round in nothing short of a monotonous circle now. How about I take a picture of my last in-flight meal and upload it here in the name of aviation? It was served on a plane so is relative, right?

Every Gordon Ramsey wannabe will love it but I'm not too sure aviation enthusiasts will share the passion. Food and aviation are different - the food just happens to have been served on a plane but that's not an excuse to include it on a website such as this. Stuff that belongs in the Tate Gallery is the same.

By the way, I really didn't want to put it so eloquently but felt there was no other way. It's unusual for me to suggest that a thread has descended into farce but the lack of input by anyone official has sort of sealed its fate........

P.S. If I remember rightly someone did once upload a photo of airline food, and I must admit I had to look at the calender to make sure it wasn't April! Luckily I've not seen anything similar since!

Karl
 
Jez
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:47 pm

RE: Nose-art

Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:30 pm

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 24):
Looking at the civilian side of things, should something like the following be accepted?

No. Looks like an advert to me. A photograph of a photograph too.

Don't get hung up on the A-10 door, which may look like a locker door to some, but those that are familiar with military aircraft will have no doubts about where on the aircraft it is. It would be much the same with any other close up. Possibly a few rivets/latches/grilles is all it takes to see that the artwork was indeed on an aircraft. To me, much of the nose art alluded to by the OP has much more historical significance than the examples of commercially produced decals shown in this thread have.
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Nose-art

Sun Dec 25, 2011 6:40 pm

Quoting Jez (Reply 26):
but those that are familiar with military aircraft will have no doubts about where on the aircraft it is

That is exactly the point. The majority of viewers won't have a clue where it is from and therefore it could be from anywhere. The example I posted above wasn't great, but you can see it has rivets so it could be from anything while its aviation related. Is it from an aircraft, a bus, etc? As it happens, it's the luggage van for the air taxi in Male. The problem lies with it's aviation related, but doesn't fit the criteria of an aviation database. While the artwork has a place in aviation history, it's just not for here.

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
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:46 pm

I have to say that I've got to agree with Karl now, this thread is going nowhere. It seems to be coming down to military enthusiasts v civil enthusiasts and never the twain shall meet, or have I got that wrong!?
 
dlowwa
Posts: 7168
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17 pm

RE: Nose-art

Sun Dec 25, 2011 8:42 pm

Quoting AlexC (Reply 28):
It seems to be coming down to military enthusiasts v civil enthusiasts and never the twain shall meet, or have I got that wrong!?

I don't see how that would have any influence on this. I have interest in both, and probably more the military side of things, yet I don't think the example John posted has a place on a.net. Out of context (and minus the A-10 in the actual art) there is nothing to identify it as an aircraft to anyone that doesn't work closely with hawgs. If not for the second wider-angle image John posted, I would have had a hard time figuring out exactly where on the aircraft it was.

The a.net rule against tight crops of art/logos/decals applies to both civilian and military aircraft. A tight crop on just the decal of Karl's example would also not be acceptable. In fact, if you check the rejection guide, it is the first example given of a motive rejection, and you can also see that even close-ups of tail logos that don't include the whole tail are not allowed. You can find images on the db where the crop has been done to focus on art/logo/etc. like Mark's example, but as noted, they also include part of the aircraft for context - there is no mistake you are looking at an aircraft. In the end, Viv's examples are probably the best way to showcase military nose art, though it might be possible to crop a little tighter and keep the context of it being on an aircraft.
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:43 am

Not what I was hoping to hear but fair enough, my collection will have to remain unseen in their little yellow boxes. Incidently I see that a shot of the inside of an airliner toilet currently has over 10,000 views. It's a funny old world that's for sure!
 
Jez
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:47 pm

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:11 pm

Well I'd like to see them Alex. Thought about setting up your own site or even just getting a Flickr account for aviation images unsuitable for a.net?
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Dec 29, 2011 3:24 pm

Quoting AlexC (Reply 30):
Incidently I see that a shot of the inside of an airliner toilet currently has over 10,000 views

Yes, and it's a policy I personally don't agree with - although I have to admit that it's clear from the outset that it's an aircraft toilet.

Karl
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:14 am

As the chief objection to my nose-art shots being acceptable appears to be 'how do I know that's on an aircraft?', (which IMHO is irrational as is 'it could be on the inside of a locker door', as mentioned by someone) I think I'm entitled to ask 'how do I know that that photo is of the inside of a toilet in an airliner?' I'm reasonably confident that many advanced railway trains from around the world (although not including the UK of course!) have very similar toilet interiors, so how do I know that the photo is not of a train toilet?

Going on from that, I (as do many of us) often get shouted and sworn at by men (always seems to be men) in white van's and other motorists while I'm taking photos on the perimeter roads around Heathrow. Now I don't really care what these people think of me, or the rest of us for that matter, but I don't like being sworn at that's for sure! What a gift for these people if they were to learn that around 23,000 of us to date had looked at a picture of the inside of a toilet on an aviation website. Confirmation as they would see it that we are all just a bunch of weirdo's, and that's to put it mildly.

Most of the above is said tongue-in-cheek of course but not all of it. And I accept that the toilet photo in question was taken inside an airliner, but only because the photographer says it was!
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:02 am

Quoting AlexC (Reply 33):
I think I'm entitled to ask 'how do I know that that photo is of the inside of a toilet in an airliner?

I think there is a difference between a piece or art and what can be considered an aircraft cabin / interior. I can see your point, but I don't think the same argument applies. To me, it's pretty obvious that the photo in question is an aircraft toilet. While I'm sure facilities on trains are similar, it still looks like it's onboard an aircraft. I don't think this is all that relevant though. Had it been just a photo of the sink or the actual toilet, ie a close up or only part of the cabin, then it would have received the same motive rejection as the art you are asking about here. The issues isn't if it's part of an aircraft, it's does it look like it's part of an aircraft. In your case, the general consensus is even though they are interesting photos, it's difficult to work out where they are from and other than dipicting an aviation scene, there's no aircraft shown which is the main criteria of the photo database. Opinion is split regarding aircraft cabins. To me, an aircraft cabin is one of the main aspects of an aircraft. After all, if you couldn't put passenger or freight inside, it defeats the whole objective or an aircraft, civillian at least. As a moderator of a popular holidays website, cabin photos are normally well viewed so people can see what they may be travelling in to compare with other airlines and to know what to expect. Close-ups of certain parts of cabins aren't accepted on to the database, only wider shots which is sort of where you're coming from.

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
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:57 am

We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the value or otherwise of cabin shots, but the popularity of what usually is just the backs of a whole lot of seats is a continuing mystery to me. Just why for instance an air-to-air shot of a beautiful war-bird can get many less views then a boring cabin interior I find baffling.
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:18 pm

Quoting AlexC (Reply 35):
We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the value or otherwise of cabin shots, but the popularity of what usually is just the backs of a whole lot of seats is a continuing mystery to me

Everyone likes different things. It would be a boring world if we didn't! The reason for their popularity is as stated above, plus it's of interest to many to see what's inside the metal tubes, eg seat design, IFE, lighting etc.

Quoting AlexC (Reply 35):
Just why for instance an air-to-air shot of a beautiful war-bird can get many less views then a boring cabin interior I find baffling.

Agreed but different people like different things and there are more than just aviation enthusiasts using this site as an information resource.

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
 
JakTrax
Posts: 4635
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:33 pm

People come to A.net to view the inside of cabins. God knows why but they obviously have their reasons. Unfortunately art lovers go to the Tate Modern and not here.

Sums it up I think, without agreeing or disagreeing with anyone.

Karl
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11753
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Nose-art

Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:01 pm

Like I said before, I'm right in the middle on this one (don't care either way)....But I do want to address a few points:

Quoting AlexC (Reply 30):
Not what I was hoping to hear but fair enough, my collection will have to remain unseen in their little yellow boxes.

That's really not relevant. It's up to you, not A.net, whether your collection gets seen. It's like me saying that it's the Getty Museum's fault that my art is never seen, since they refuse to accept it.

Quoting AlexC (Reply 33):

Going on from that, I (as do many of us) often get shouted and sworn at by men (always seems to be men) in white van's and other motorists while I'm taking photos on the perimeter roads around Heathrow. Now I don't really care what these people think of me, or the rest of us for that matter, but I don't like being sworn at that's for sure! What a gift for these people if they were to learn that around 23,000 of us to date had looked at a picture of the inside of a toilet on an aviation website. Confirmation as they would see it that we are all just a bunch of weirdo's, and that's to put it mildly.

We are a bunch of weirdos, in certain people's view. Who cares? They could pick on any sort of photo in this database and use it to label us as weirdos. Again, who cares?

Quoting AlexC (Reply 35):
We are just going to have to agree to disagree about the value or otherwise of cabin shots, but the popularity of what usually is just the backs of a whole lot of seats is a continuing mystery to me.

Certainly fair, and I'm sure there are certain types of photos that get thousands of views that puzzle all of us. But like Darren said, it keeps the world interesting!
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Sat Dec 31, 2011 8:54 am

I'm an art lover, and I wouldn't go anywhere near Tate Modern! No, I'm a National Gallery kinda guy!

[Edited 2011-12-31 01:25:19]
 
raedervision
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 8:24 am

RE: Nose-art

Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:06 am

You won't see the detail if you add much airplane. Personaly I'd like to see them both.
[
 
AlexC
Topic Author
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:13 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:44 am

That was my point, but the powers that be are unconvinced mores the pity!
 
User avatar
derekf
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:53 am

I don't see why there couldn't be a special category for close-ups of any art-work that adorns an aircraft; nose-art, logos etc. I think it would prove to be a very useful resource for all sorts of people.
Whatever.......
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Nose-art

Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:03 pm

I must admit that I do not have an interest in nose art, but this has been an interesting debate. For me it illustrates a wider debating point regarding what A.net 'is'. Many refer to Johan's original intention for the site to be a 'database' - i.e., one assumes, a pictorial resource for airframes.

The decision-makers have moved on from that remit and A.net has evolved to include a far wider range of aviation-related imagery. As discussed above, it has become a very popular resource for internal cabin shots (again, not photos I myself would choose to open up). I could understand why the owners - DM - would be very pleased to think that those in the travel industry keen to show clients the inside of aircraft when considering a booking may automatically default to A.net as their preferred provider of visual information.

What interests me is the justification for including certain kind of 'aviation-related' images, and not including others - and what 'philosophy' underlies this. A bit like those debates we had a couple of years ago about including more creative images. You could posit that the nose art being discussed here is as much linked to aviation as is a landscape photograph taken from a cabin window (with a little bit of airframe included for good measure), or a 787 toilet facility.

What always interests me is the process by which we - the photographers - interact with and influence the thinking of the decison-makers who own and operate the site. DM may well be interested to pursue this debate further if it could be demonstrated that nose art may become an appealing motive that attracts traffic to the site. I would be one of those upset if my super-dooper aircraft photo was pipped at the post for a top spot by a piece of artwork, but I already feel that way about cabin shots   .

Cheers.

Paul

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests