Photo(s) that made you go WOW!

45272455674 · Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:15 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
Photo fraud?

https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news- ... 1144027311
https://imgur.com/gallery/9Vi1m
https://www.reddit.com/r/trypophobia/co ... raindrops/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/101964379 ... 62/?nic=1a

First it’s a fake, then it’s a fraud? Did that photographer do something to upset you?

He is one of the old names around here and very skilled.

You’ve almost made me think about getting my cameras back out to take a similar photo just to prove it isn’t a fake. :grumpy:

vikkyvik · Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:13 pm

This is pretty cool - the aircraft is much higher than it looks. Photo is taken about 9 miles from touchdown:

aircountry · Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:48 am

real or fake photo? Look up at upper level last left door with big double windows. All A380 dont have double window only one small window on each door.
see this

Maybe the screener didnt see it before accept it. It already accept it few days ago.

Kaphias · Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:54 am

aircountry wrote:
real or fake photo? Look up at upper level last left door with big double windows. All A380 dont have double window only one small window on each door.
see this

Maybe the screener didnt see it before accept it. It already accept it few days ago.

Think it probably has something to do with this: https://onemileatatime.com/qantas-removing-exit-doors/

B747Saeed · Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:13 pm

Miguel1982 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:28 pm

aircountry wrote:
real or fake photo? Look up at upper level last left door with big double windows. All A380 dont have double window only one small window on each door.
see this

Maybe the screener didnt see it before accept it. It already accept it few days ago.

I have never considered the possibility of cloning in/out windows on an exit door, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Happy to wait until there are more shots of it (or of any other QF A380s after cabin rework) and see if they have the extra windows or not.

310815 · Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:43 pm

I know Miguel very well, so this is a non-issue for me anyway... But even if I had never heard of him before, WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT? Why should anyone clone a window in? Even more a headscreener from the site? I really don't get it...

aircountry · Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:37 am

Miguel1982 wrote:
aircountry wrote:
real or fake photo? Look up at upper level last left door with big double windows. All A380 dont have double window only one small window on each door.
see this

Maybe the screener didnt see it before accept it. It already accept it few days ago.

I have never considered the possibility of cloning in/out windows on an exit door, but I guess there is a first time for everything.

Happy to wait until there are more shots of it (or of any other QF A380s after cabin rework) and see if they have the extra windows or not.

Yes I found another one same plane on later date at Sydney from JPhotos and its real, no joke, fake or clone. See this https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9506494

Miguel1982 · Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:31 am

aircountry wrote:
Yes I found another one same plane on later date at Sydney from JPhotos and its real, no joke, fake or clone. See this https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9506494

I was quite sure that it wasn't fake as the shot is mine, but great to have confirmation.

airkas1 · Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:30 am

Miguel1982 · Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:32 am

Crosswindphoto · Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:54 am

Absolutely stunning, my jaw dropped when I first saw this.
The light, the landscape, and the clouds make this photo so nice.

airkas1 · Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:54 pm

Crosswindphoto · Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:08 am

The light and angle on this one is just phenomenal!

angad84 · Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:32 am

airkas1 wrote:

Holy moly!

McG1967 · Sat Nov 23, 2019 9:44 pm

Some good ones from past couple of days.

Really unusual to see desert camo and a snowy backdrop.

The sense of movement and the angle are really appealing in this shot.

B747Saeed · Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:52 pm

310815 · Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:05 pm

Very glad that this one made it:

Very lovely composition and what a background.

mrgrtt123 · Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:35 am

JKPhotos wrote:
Very glad that this one made it:

Very lovely composition and what a background.

What a breathtaking shot, I love how the aircraft color standout from the background.

B747Saeed · Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:30 am

dara88 · Fri Dec 27, 2019 10:19 pm

8 photos in the top 10 of the last 24 hours! Incredible! Well done M. Oswald.

airkas1 · Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:30 am

dara88 wrote:
8 photos in the top 10 of the last 24 hours! Incredible! Well done M. Oswald.

A nice blast from the past :yes:

McG1967 · Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:49 pm

This stood out for me from the recent load of Greenland photos Stefan uploaded.

B747Saeed · Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:50 pm

45272455674 · Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:20 am

Just about perfect in all ways:

Lovely plane, great light and conditions in the photo.

angad84 · Wed Mar 18, 2020 8:43 pm

Just, WOW!

45272455674 · Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:02 am

angad84 wrote:

Just, WOW!

Totally agree with you on that photo. Pretty special!

Well done to the photographer on that photo.

Stunning result.

LGM · Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:56 pm

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitle ... /5924845/L WOW in a bad way. How a.net can accept a poor edition like this? Clone stamp tool all over the photo, there's sky merging into the upper fuselage next to the front door. Meanwhile, good photos being rejected due to bad motives.

dara88 · Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:38 pm

LGM wrote:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-Nomad-Aviation/Airbus-ACJ319-A319-133-CJ/5924845/L WOW in a bad way. How a.net can accept a poor edition like this? Clone stamp tool all over the photo, there's sky merging into the upper fuselage next to the front door. Meanwhile, good photos being rejected due to bad motives.

Weird

dutchspotter1 · Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:45 am

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Flybe-B ... 00/5334417
Also WOW in a bad way, for an obvious reason.

jelpee · Thu Apr 02, 2020 1:23 am

dutchspotter1 wrote:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Flybe-British-European/Bombardier-DHC-8-402-Q400/5334417
Also WOW in a bad way, for an obvious reason.

This appears to have been an oversight. The photographer has been contacted to upload a version that is properly leveled. Alas, we screeners are fallible as well! :white:

Jehan

45272455674 · Thu Apr 02, 2020 7:34 am

jelpee wrote:
dutchspotter1 wrote:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Flybe-British-European/Bombardier-DHC-8-402-Q400/5334417
Also WOW in a bad way, for an obvious reason.

This appears to have been an oversight. The photographer has been contacted to upload a version that is properly leveled. Alas, we screeners are fallible as well!

Jehan

It looks like they tried to level it on those two posts, the one on the left and the small sign at the right. However it just looks quite off.

jelpee · Thu Apr 02, 2020 12:11 pm

I find using a distant horizontal provides a more level perspective than a vertical. If this image is leveled based on the distant fence everything lines up nicely. I agree, as it is posted, it does look like everything is leaning to the right.

Jehan

45272455674 · Mon Apr 06, 2020 11:17 am

Great to see these images of those historic airliners. These deserve many more views.

45272455674 · Thu Apr 09, 2020 11:46 pm

Is the site now allowing photos where the primary subject(s) are people and not a plane? And where the plane just happens to be in the background.

Haven’t noticed that before and it seems to be a change. I think in the old days such a photo would have been rejected.

I’m not naming the photographer or the image.

Moose135 · Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:05 am

cpd wrote:
Is the site now allowing photos where the primary subject(s) are people and not a plane? And where the plane just happens to be in the background.

Haven’t noticed that before and it seems to be a change. I think in the old days such a photo would have been rejected.

I’m not naming the photographer or the image.

I was wondering the same - looks like they've accepted a couple of them the past two days.

jelpee · Fri Apr 10, 2020 4:10 pm

There has been some changes to acceptance criteria recently which explains some of the said shots being accepted. A couple of the items considered were if the posers were posing for the photographer or just part of the background of a common scene for the location. In the case of Phuket, it seems to be a common scene where folks pose for pictures under the landing aircraft. If the uploader had someone pose for them with an aircraft in the background, that would not be acceptable. Whether the person is too distracting to the aircraft is up to screener discretion. Therefore we are likely to see some differing opinions on accepted images. The site is trying to adapt to what seems popular while still maintaining its standards. Feedback on this is welcome.

Regards,

Jehan

angad84 · Sat Apr 11, 2020 8:34 pm

jelpee wrote:
There has been some changes to acceptance criteria recently which explains some of the said shots being accepted. A couple of the items considered were if the posers were posing for the photographer or just part of the background of a common scene for the location. In the case of Phuket, it seems to be a common scene where folks pose for pictures under the landing aircraft. If the uploader had someone pose for them with an aircraft in the background, that would not be acceptable. Whether the person is too distracting to the aircraft is up to screener discretion. Therefore we are likely to see some differing opinions on accepted images. The site is trying to adapt to what seems popular while still maintaining its standards. Feedback on this is welcome.

Regards,

Jehan

I like it, hope it continues!

dara88 · Tue Apr 14, 2020 7:50 pm

jelpee wrote:
There has been some changes to acceptance criteria recently which explains some of the said shots being accepted. A couple of the items considered were if the posers were posing for the photographer or just part of the background of a common scene for the location. In the case of Phuket, it seems to be a common scene where folks pose for pictures under the landing aircraft. If the uploader had someone pose for them with an aircraft in the background, that would not be acceptable. Whether the person is too distracting to the aircraft is up to screener discretion. Therefore we are likely to see some differing opinions on accepted images. The site is trying to adapt to what seems popular while still maintaining its standards. Feedback on this is welcome.

Regards,

Jehan

Yeah that would be great Jehan

45272455674 · Wed Apr 15, 2020 2:29 am

jelpee wrote:
There has been some changes to acceptance criteria recently which explains some of the said shots being accepted. A couple of the items considered were if the posers were posing for the photographer or just part of the background of a common scene for the location. In the case of Phuket, it seems to be a common scene where folks pose for pictures under the landing aircraft. If the uploader had someone pose for them with an aircraft in the background, that would not be acceptable. Whether the person is too distracting to the aircraft is up to screener discretion. Therefore we are likely to see some differing opinions on accepted images. The site is trying to adapt to what seems popular while still maintaining its standards. Feedback on this is welcome.

Regards,

Jehan

My thoughts are negative on this. It is airliners.net, not ballet poses with a plane in the background.net.

This caught my attention, a real wow photo:

JakTrax · Wed Apr 15, 2020 8:54 pm

I've no real issue with the photos featuring people on the beach, however... would a team of all-male posers have been similarly accepted? It's also worth noting that quite a few recent acceptances feature very obvious banding towards the top-right of the frame — in these very forums there's a guy struggling to get a shot accepted due to the same (but far more discreet in his case) issue.

jelpee wrote:
Therefore we are likely to see some differing opinions on accepted images. The site is trying to adapt to what seems popular while still maintaining its standards. Feedback on this is welcome

Really? Because a couple of recent posts of mine highlighting some quality issues have been deleted...

Kaphias · Wed Apr 15, 2020 9:06 pm

jelpee wrote:
There has been some changes to acceptance criteria recently which explains some of the said shots being accepted. A couple of the items considered were if the posers were posing for the photographer or just part of the background of a common scene for the location. In the case of Phuket, it seems to be a common scene where folks pose for pictures under the landing aircraft. If the uploader had someone pose for them with an aircraft in the background, that would not be acceptable. Whether the person is too distracting to the aircraft is up to screener discretion. Therefore we are likely to see some differing opinions on accepted images. The site is trying to adapt to what seems popular while still maintaining its standards. Feedback on this is welcome.

Regards,

Jehan

I welcome this change. As someone who partakes in both "documentary" photography and "artistic" photography as it relates to aviation, I'd like to see the scope of photos accepted here expanded to any subject that represents the "spirit of aviation" as a whole community rather than the traditional preference for aircraft and the built environment.

I'll probably give this photo of mine a try at some point, considering this change.

45272455674 · Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:01 am

I'd like to highlight this photo as a really worthy one:

I'm also liking these historic photos from Richard Parkhouse:

vikkyvik · Thu Apr 16, 2020 4:15 pm

JakTrax wrote:
It's also worth noting that quite a few recent acceptances feature very obvious banding towards the top-right of the frame

Indeed they do. Are images judged less strictly if they are deemed "likely-to-be-popular" (or equivalently, "likely-to-be-promoted-on-social-media")?

jelpee · Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:01 pm

vikkyvik wrote:
JakTrax wrote:
It's also worth noting that quite a few recent acceptances feature very obvious banding towards the top-right of the frame

Indeed they do. Are images judged less strictly if they are deemed "likely-to-be-popular" (or equivalently, "likely-to-be-promoted-on-social-media")?

No change to standards based on potential popularity or social media potential. Sometimes, images with flaws get through the screening process; we try to handle those with the individual photographers on a 1 x 1 basis.

Jehan

JakTrax · Thu Apr 16, 2020 8:08 pm

Jehan, I could understand one of these images slipping through but there are five or six (in the last week). There is a guy currently trying to get an image accepted in which the banding is far less severe and each time he's being knocked back. Now the site has maintained that names are not screened but many of us (perhaps more than you think) are seeing evidence to the contrary. If this issue isn't discussed the site will lose a lot of photographers (on top of those already gone) and you'll be left with a small oligarch and very limited variety.

Deleting posts questioning the system only makes people more suspicious. To the site's credit, though, the latest such posts remain.

glen · Fri Apr 17, 2020 8:55 am

I really like this thead, for the sake of photos that make me go WOW.
So could you all please stay on topic and discuss other pictures in another thread. Pls.

45272455674 · Mon Apr 20, 2020 9:25 am

More wonderful classic airliners. Just lovely.

45272455674 · Fri Apr 24, 2020 9:51 am

Lovely photo of the B2 Spirit. No people doing silly things in this photo - just a good classic shot of a really interesting plane.

This is also quite nice:

B747Saeed · Mon May 04, 2020 8:19 pm

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net