Great, amazing photos (I am not referring to mine, by the way) used to get thousands of hits even if they weren't on the front page. Where did the traffic go?

I guess the photo traffic went where the forum traffic went (to competing sites).

For me it was much quicker and easier to google image search what I was looking for. They might not have been the highest quality or had the exact details of what I needed but for 95% of my searches it had what I was looking for and it was rarely an image from this site.

I guess there are just more options out there now.

Recommend you read all of this thread.

Goodyear wrote:

I guess the photo traffic went where the forum traffic went (to competing sites).

I don't think that much. My personal records reveal that the average traffic for non-featured (in social media or flight tracking sites) pics that have been uploaded long ago (not counting the initial views) are only 25% lower here compared with the "other" site which is much lower than most people (including me) think. This 25% includes the 'feature' driven views which I can't measure. So I suppose that the difference of the view coming from within the site is 10-20%.

I should also argue that the forum traffic went somewhere, if people get bored of forums they rarely find others.

solro wrote:

Goodyear wrote:

I guess the photo traffic went where the forum traffic went (to competing sites).

I don't think that much. My personal records reveal that the average traffic for non-featured (in social media or flight tracking sites) pics that have been uploaded long ago (not counting the initial views) are only 25% lower here compared with the "other" site which is much lower than most people (including me) think. This 25% includes the 'feature' driven views which I can't measure. So I suppose that the difference of the view coming from within the site is 10-20%.

I should also argue that the forum traffic went somewhere, if people get bored of forums they rarely find others.

I would strongly disagree as well. You only need to look at the shots on the frontpage, shots there get far, far less views than on a.net, oftern struggling to break the 1K view barrier. Same goes for the shots that aren'f featured on the flightracker, again they get less views on a.net. Same goes for the forums, I can only see far less threads there.
Of course you have these shots that are featured on the flighttracker that get decent views, but that's it. Just the site itself doesn't reach out to a mass of people.
Of course photographers have an easier life there, as requirments there are lower these days compared to airliners.

I think the main "problem" lies with social media platforms and or other non-screening instant sharing sites that take away quite some traffic from airliners, not any direct competitor..

Still the traffic on airliners isn't that bad. Not as good as it was, for sure, but still not bad...

JKPhotos wrote:

I think the main "problem" lies with social media platforms and or other non-screening instant sharing sites that take away quite some traffic from airliners, not any direct competitor..

Still the traffic on airliners isn't that bad. Not as good as it was, for sure, but still not bad...

I think that's exactly what is happening. People want to share their photos immediately, and viewers want to see photos immediately. And I suspect some people have just found other interests, they got bored of photographing planes, visiting forums, etc. Not much anyone can do about that.

Nobody wants to wait a week to possibly have their photo accepted when there are many other platforms to instantly share your photos on. Everybody I've met through here I'm friends with on facebook. It's just easier to share photos there, join groups and keep up with news and special flights coming in that way.

On the topic of facebook, flickr, etc, and playing a bit of devil's advocate, I have just stopped following any aviation-related group, as the quality of the photos is generally very poor. While it's true that waiting a week for a photo to show up here can be cumbersome, some people prefer that to the endless stream of bad photos elsewhere.

Miguel1982 wrote:

On the topic of facebook, flickr, etc, and playing a bit of devil's advocate, I have just stopped following any aviation-related group, as the quality of the photos is generally very poor. While it's true that waiting a week for a photo to show up here can be cumbersome, some people prefer that to the endless stream of bad photos elsewhere.

+1.

Some time ago I left a large group on Facebook, because I was tired of seeing so many poor images and people commenting on how great they were. When you try to say something about it, others respond that we shouldn't hate. Or when I would give pointers to someone on how to improve their photos, they would just make excuses and keep posting crap photos. So I decided it wasn't worth the aggravation anymore and left. So far a very good decision.

Airliners.net is 100% pure aviation while Facebook and other similar sites/platforms are the mix of information.
I echo Miguel and Kas opinion about quality. No one wants to spend some time for editing and make photo looks pleasant but everyone wants to be in TOP and do not want to wait.

airkas1 wrote:

Miguel1982 wrote:

On the topic of facebook, flickr, etc, and playing a bit of devil's advocate, I have just stopped following any aviation-related group, as the quality of the photos is generally very poor. While it's true that waiting a week for a photo to show up here can be cumbersome, some people prefer that to the endless stream of bad photos elsewhere.

+1.

Some time ago I left a large group on Facebook, because I was tired of seeing so many poor images and people commenting on how great they were. When you try to say something about it, others respond that we shouldn't hate. Or when I would give pointers to someone on how to improve their photos, they would just make excuses and keep posting crap photos. So I decided it wasn't worth the aggravation anymore and left. So far a very good decision.

Very well said. I expierenced the same on a local forum. Honest feedback is apparently unwelcome these days. So people keep on posting crappy shots, that could easily improved with just some very basic editing, but yet they get 25 "likes" for it. I will never understand that...but okay...

airkas1 wrote:

Miguel1982 wrote:

On the topic of facebook, flickr, etc, and playing a bit of devil's advocate, I have just stopped following any aviation-related group, as the quality of the photos is generally very poor. While it's true that waiting a week for a photo to show up here can be cumbersome, some people prefer that to the endless stream of bad photos elsewhere.

+1.

Some time ago I left a large group on Facebook, because I was tired of seeing so many poor images and people commenting on how great they were. When you try to say something about it, others respond that we shouldn't hate. Or when I would give pointers to someone on how to improve their photos, they would just make excuses and keep posting crap photos. So I decided it wasn't worth the aggravation anymore and left. So far a very good decision.

yerbol wrote:

Airliners.net is 100% pure aviation while Facebook and other similar sites/platforms are the mix of information.
I echo Miguel and Kas opinion about quality. No one wants to spend some time for editing and make photo looks pleasant but everyone wants to be in TOP and do not want to wait.

JKPhotos wrote:

Very well said. I expierenced the same on a local forum. Honest feedback is apparently unwelcome these days. So people keep on posting crappy shots, that could easily improved with just some very basic editing, but yet they get 25 "likes" for it. I will never understand that...but okay...

I've had each of your thoughts rolling around in my head for a few days now, trying to figure out how to respond. The way I interpret comments like this is that airliners.net only accepts "good" quality photos. I say "good" in quotes because we have to realize that everyone has a different standard as to what is a "good" photo. For the screeners, their "good" is a very high standard and their individual standards are very close together (though not identical). As we see on the feedback forum here, and as each of you have seen elsewhere on the internet, other people define "good" to a different (likely lower) standard.

My standard for a "good" photo is pretty close to the screener's for your standard sunny-side-on or static 737 shot, but I think I'm willing to forgive more quality issues on a exciting/unique/creative/rare/challenging photo and still consider it "good" than is the norm for screeners here. As someone who enjoys creating and viewing more of these types of images, I find the standard of "good" here to be too high for those types of images. That's frustrating for me, and is a big reason why I rarely upload my aviation photos here (let alone anywhere else) anymore.

Comments like these reinforce the image that this website has created for itself of a "good ol boys" club where photos judged to be good enough are shared, while those photos that are "very poor", "bad", or "crappy" are set aside. Now in reality there's nothing wrong with that, but you all have to realize that you've created a club for the 1% and turn everyone else away at the door. As this hobby shrinks, the number of people in that 1% is dwindling... on it's current path, this site will become a place where maybe a hundred top aviation photographers from around the world share their best photos with each other.

With the attitude towards screening that exists now, that's where we're headed. I and others have offered ideas to try and expand the hobby, open our doors, yes, maybe lower some standards, but this sadly doesn't seem to be the direction the admins and screeners wish to go. I quote myself from the last time this topic came up:

Kaphias wrote:

At one point, airliners.net was instrumental in growing our hobby.

As of late, it's certainly played a part in killing it.

I'm sad to see it happen, and wish there was more I was willing and able to do.

Well theme of the subject was "why upload here" and in the end Miguel, Kas and I just shared our own motivation: as we like quality shots.

I for myself like my photos to be amongst quality shots and love to get inspired by some great photographs on here.

I'd also say everyone to his own, and that's why I personally avoid these facebook groups and so on. But if someone else is happy with it, then why not? Also if someone has different standards, fine for me.

My point was more that I am rather dissapointed how reluctant to feedback some people in these groups are. When I was a beginner (as a Kid back in the 90' s) I learned from the elder spotters and my shooting improved a lot from it. These days with all the digital editing available it is even much easier. So when you try to tell anyone that he could level the image a bit and try to improve the framing and in the end you’re a hater because you are “criticizing” then this is ridiculous in my personal opinion (like Kas I've experience the same). I am not talking about a-net’s standards, just some very basic stuff. Also not about any artistic shots.

I appreciate a lot when people make an effort before sharing anything. If the goal is just to share as many shots as possible no matter how and no matter what, then this is not my cup of tea. I don’t think this is a particular elitist behaviour.

Kaphias wrote:

Comments like these reinforce the image that this website has created for itself of a "good ol boys" club where photos judged to be good enough are shared, while those photos that are "very poor", "bad", or "crappy" are set aside. Now in reality there's nothing wrong with that, but you all have to realize that you've created a club for the 1% and turn everyone else away at the door. As this hobby shrinks, the number of people in that 1% is dwindling... on it's current path, this site will become a place where maybe a hundred top aviation photographers from around the world share their best photos with each other.

I have to disagree. The hobby isn’t shrinking, at least not on the places I am going to. If I go to FRA or LHR there are much more people out than like 15 years a go and from my impression it tends to get more and not less.
I don’t think a.net is a club for 1%. The requirements are high, but there are more than enough photographers that meet the criteria. In the end it is not that hard I’d say.

The site traffic is simply gone. Front page shots would routinely get tens of thousands of hits. Now the most popular shot on the site is struggling to break 3,000 views.
Social media is to blame I think. I routinely run into spotters at the airport who have no clue what Airliners.net is. That speaks for itself.

Hello all

For me, the hobby is shrinking. Still love to take aviation images but less and less to see at my local. Moved on to other subject which give me more pleasure. I rarely visit the Airliners.net site now to view the daily images, only visiting to search for a particular aircraft/airline/registration, and mostly all those are old aircraft. Social media has covered my requirements.

Best regards

Gary

Justin

Agree with your comments.

Dazed767 wrote:

Nobody wants to wait a week to possibly have their photo accepted when there are many other platforms to instantly share your photos on. Everybody I've met through here I'm friends with on facebook. It's just easier to share photos there, join groups and keep up with news and special flights coming in that way.

Best regards

Gary

The problem is with 'rebranding' of the site. Few years ago, when you typed registration of the aircraft on google, you would get top 3 results as top matches. Now, a.net doesn't even appears on the first page. How many people go to page 2 on google.com?
I used to use exclusively a.net to search for the planes. Now the search function is the nightmare and many times it returns incorrect results.
I don't remember when was the last time I've clicked on the picture in here. By the time the picture showed up on a.net, I've seen it on flickr.
The screening process made sense 15 years ago. Now it's just a nuisance that turns people off from coming here to share the hobby.

I believe the initial question can be rather easily answered by saying: because Airliners.net is still the best high quality aviation photography site on the net.

When Airliners.net started out some 20 years ago it had a real monopoly because there was no similar site around. So, of course, everyone (though that is probably an exaggeration) in the hobby was trying out this new medium and viewers had no other place to go to see all kinds of different aircraft photos in mostly good quality. Now as the years passed by others (often out of disagreements with Airliners.net) created their own sites, some purely for the fun of the hobby, others for commercial reasons. There was a first diversification going on. Later came all those social media platforms which diversified the matter even more. Now anybody could post any photo and have it online whenever it pleases him/her.
It is up to each individual to decide what he/she wants to do with his/her photos. Purely share it no matter the quality, go to a purely commercial site to make a bit of money on the side or share it on a site like Airliners.net where a high quality standard is being maintained with the added bonus of offering a high quality database. Surely the acceptance criteria here have always been quite stringent and one might even say narrow when it comes to motives for instance but Airliners.net never went down the path of quantity over quality which is a good thing and something our visitors appreciate I am sure.

Best regards,

Thierry

ThierryD wrote:

I believe the initial question can be rather easily answered by saying: because Airliners.net is still the best high quality aviation photography site on the net.

This is utter nonsense. The "best" aviation photography site on the internet is the one that gets the most hits.

Goodyear wrote:

This is utter nonsense. The "best" aviation photography site on the internet is the one that gets the most hits.

By that definition, I guess social networks, such as Facebook or Twitter are the best aviation photography sites on the internet. I strongly disagree with it.

Goodyear wrote:

ThierryD wrote:

I believe the initial question can be rather easily answered by saying: because Airliners.net is still the best high quality aviation photography site on the net.

This is utter nonsense. The "best" aviation photography site on the internet is the one that gets the most hits.

"Best" is subjective, and doesn't have one single definition.

Also, Thierry said "high quality" aviation photography site.

There's also the possibility that some people don't care that much about 3,000 versus 10,000 hits, and are happy to share their photos with like-minded individuals. I still share the occasional photo here, because I know people will appreciate them.

So: why upload here? Why not?

Goodyear wrote:

ThierryD wrote:

I believe the initial question can be rather easily answered by saying: because Airliners.net is still the best high quality aviation photography site on the net.

This is utter nonsense. The "best" aviation photography site on the internet is the one that gets the most hits.

I do not agree with your statement as the number of visitors to a site says very little about the quality of the site. Anyway, for the sake of the argument, let's pretend you were right, than still Airliners.net would be the "best" site among comparable sites as it generates considerably more views than any of its direct competitors.

Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and all these sites are no competing sites. Yes, they also offer aviation related photos but they are nothing like an aviation photography database. They have no quality control, everybody uploads whatever he/she wants and there's no one checking whether the photos have been overly manipulated or whether the info that comes with the photos is correct. Airliners.net does offer that and we have a big experienced team taking care of these issues. Again, it is a choice you make.

vikkyvik wrote:

"Best" is subjective, and doesn't have one single definition.

Absolutely, but since the amount of competing sites is limited and there only is a handful of direct competitors I believe I can claim that no site offers the same great mix of high quality photos, accurate database, clean design, forums, social media presence and support. Hence my use of the word "best" though I agree it is subjective.

Best regards,

Thierry

Well said Thierry.

ThierryD wrote:

Goodyear wrote:

ThierryD wrote:

I believe the initial question can be rather easily answered by saying: because Airliners.net is still the best high quality aviation photography site on the net.

This is utter nonsense. The "best" aviation photography site on the internet is the one that gets the most hits.

I do not agree with your statement as the number of visitors to a site says very little about the quality of the site. Anyway, for the sake of the argument, let's pretend you were right, than still Airliners.net would be the "best" site among comparable sites as it generates considerably more views than any of its direct competitors.

Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and all these sites are no competing sites. Yes, they also offer aviation related photos but they are nothing like an aviation photography database. They have no quality control, everybody uploads whatever he/she wants and there's no one checking whether the photos have been overly manipulated or whether the info that comes with the photos is correct. Airliners.net does offer that and we have a big experienced team taking care of these issues. Again, it is a choice you make.

vikkyvik wrote:

"Best" is subjective, and doesn't have one single definition.

Absolutely, but since the amount of competing sites is limited and there only is a handful of direct competitors I believe I can claim that no site offers the same great mix of high quality photos, accurate database, clean design, forums, social media presence and support. Hence my use of the word "best" though I agree it is subjective.

Best regards,

Thierry

It's easier to find a plane on Flickr than it is on a.net. This site's database is useless now. Lots of people put up thousands of hours to make this database the best. Now it's absolutely useless.
I can't even see line number of the Boeing planes anymore...

dcaviation wrote:

I can't even see line number of the Boeing planes anymore...

But that doesn't mean that it's not there. It's true that the database needs updating and that the search values need to be improved, but I can still find the whole history of an aircraft with just a few clicks.

Sadly, this site has deteriorated into a small, exclusive “boys club” where a small handful of 5 or 6 uploaders are consistently given preferential treatment at the expense of the other 500 uploaders. No better example than the front page today. The fifth shot of the same aircraft from the same location on the same day promoted on FB!! Come on! It’s an interesting aircraft but this is too much. It certainly lowers ones motivation to go to the effort to upload here.

airkas1 wrote:

dcaviation wrote:

I can't even see line number of the Boeing planes anymore...

But that doesn't mean that it's not there. It's true that the database needs updating and that the search values need to be improved, but I can still find the whole history of an aircraft with just a few clicks.

Then why don't you show it?
History of the aircraft with few clicks? Return search version of the old a.net and then you can say it. Now it's impossible to do any meaningful search on a.net.

Because the space isn't there on the default/card view in combination with the current layout of them. When you open a photo, all extra info (LN, code, even painted fake serials) will show.

Regarding the history of an aircraft, I respectfully disagree that it's impossible to do a meaningful search. I'd be happy to take up a challenge to illustrate.

For quick example. In google type any registration of commercial aircraft, let say N722TW. Click Enter, click on planespotters.net link and you are done. The entire aircraft history is right there, including all the relevant information and pictures.

In terms of actual aircraft info (age, dates, etc.) I agree. In terms of a photographic database throughout the years, I don't.

dcaviation wrote:

For quick example. In google type any registration of commercial aircraft, let say N722TW. Click Enter, click on planespotters.net link and you are done. The entire aircraft history is right there, including all the relevant information and pictures.

We are talking different things here. Planespotters.net is first about aircraft info and second come the photos (which is clearly noticeable by their often mediocre quality). Airliners.net has always (not only since the update) been about photos first and then about the aircraft info. You also wouldn't search a National Geographic photo book about Canada to find a decent restaurant in Toronto, would you..!?

Best regards,

Thierry

This new layout of a.net was created to fix issues that were in the original one. Looks like it created more issues instead of fixing existing ones.

dcaviation wrote:

This new layout of a.net was created to fix issues that were in the original one. Looks like it created more issues instead of fixing existing ones.

Where do you get that from?

In my opinion the new layout was mostly an attempt to modernize the site (that didn't work out to well tbh). I know the old site is something like a holy grail for some, but as much as I liked it too, it was very old-school in the end. And dont forget there were issues like the thumbnail proplem and rather long downtimes that don't happen anymore. I miss a few features too, but not everything was better.
The function that planespotters offers wasn't possible on the old site neither it was never more than a photographic database through the years as Kas said,

Gary, I miss the 'old days' and the banter in the forums. We could get a few jabs in on each other without bruising ego's too much but still have respect for one another. But I guess that's what facebook is for now.

johnr wrote:

Sadly, this site has deteriorated into a small, exclusive “boys club” where a small handful of 5 or 6 uploaders are consistently given preferential treatment at the expense of the other 500 uploaders.

I've heard this from people for over a decade now, and I don't believe it to be true. I can say as a former screener the person uploading the photo was the last thing I looked at, if at all.

I’m actually talking about the preferential treatment for site promotion not screening which I have absolutely no doubt is fair.

Goodyear wrote:

The site traffic is simply gone. Front page shots would routinely get tens of thousands of hits. Now the most popular shot on the site is struggling to break 3,000 views.
Social media is to blame I think. I routinely run into spotters at the airport who have no clue what Airliners.net is. That speaks for itself.

This social media thing started many years ago.

A case in point, when the first visit of Cathay B-LJA to our airport happened, there was a mad rush by the usual people to be the first to get a photo uploaded or online. One person edited the photo and uploaded it out in the field with laptop and mobile phone hotspot connection.

But even that person was one-upped by the local spotter working inside the airport who was super quick to get an airside shot up on social media. You would say then that this spotter wasn't doing quality photos, except that this person did upload here too.

That's where I think the whole thing started to fall apart. I bet that is common elsewhere too.

The problem is at some point it does not become worth the effort. I think the site's heyday time has come and gone.

Chris (Goodyear) - I see your first accepted image to the site was on Feb 10 2018, so less than two months ago, and you have had a forum account for four months; How could you possibly know that "The site traffic is simply gone...?" Quite bluntly, you aren't qualified to even talk about it, but you are posting the same message over and over. If you think "the site's heyday time has come and gone" why are you here? I am curious as to your true motivation for starting this thread, it feels to me like you are hoping a bunch of people pile in and agree with you? If so, why?

The best option you have is to vote with your feet.

If I’m not mistaken, this Chris has had photos in the DB years ago and was also a forum member. If he is who I think he is, we’ve even met in Amsterdam years ago. I’m guessing he requested his photos to be removed and that he made a new account.

And if he is the person I’m thinking of, he’s qualified to mention the heyday of A.net although I also don’t understand his motives for this thread and negative comments in general.

I have sold my aircraft photos to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NBC Nightly News, a software developer, a airplane part producer and several others - all of whom discovered the photos on this website. Does it draw the way it used to - no. Does it still draw well - for me - absolutely. Even though it is still very much a hobby for me - I enjoy being compared to the best. Most importantly - I have learned an immense amount about photography from the experts on this site. Tell your friends.

airkas1 wrote:

Miguel1982 wrote:

On the topic of facebook, flickr, etc, and playing a bit of devil's advocate, I have just stopped following any aviation-related group, as the quality of the photos is generally very poor. While it's true that waiting a week for a photo to show up here can be cumbersome, some people prefer that to the endless stream of bad photos elsewhere.

+1.

Some time ago I left a large group on Facebook, because I was tired of seeing so many poor images and people commenting on how great they were. When you try to say something about it, others respond that we shouldn't hate. Or when I would give pointers to someone on how to improve their photos, they would just make excuses and keep posting crap photos. So I decided it wasn't worth the aggravation anymore and left. So far a very good decision.

This is the exact reason I left my local group. Horrendous pictures getting tons of likes and quality pictures get nothing. Pretty disheartening. Legitimately terrible pictures.

I have been a visitor of Airliners.net since the 90's, but the past years I come simply for the forums. I took a break for a while as the forums were awful, and the volume of posts decreased, but i've been back lurking now every so often. Airliners.net is definitely not the same as it was long ago, and i think ownership is the ones to blame for that.

canyonblue17 wrote:

I have sold my aircraft photos to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NBC Nightly News, a software developer, a airplane part producer and several others - all of whom discovered the photos on this website.

That's great - I've gotten lots of requests for free photos, but very few willing to pay for any.

Goodyear wrote:

This is utter nonsense. The "best" aviation photography site on the internet is the one that gets the most hits.

I recommend you check the site stats and ranking . For example here:

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/airliners.net

Then take everyone of those competing sites that host photos like Airliners.net and run the stats and see comparison. You will find that this site satisfies your second statement.

Granite wrote:

Hello all

For me, the hobby is shrinking. Still love to take aviation images but less and less to see at my local. Moved on to other subject which give me more pleasure. I rarely visit the Airliners.net site now to view the daily images, only visiting to search for a particular aircraft/airline/registration, and mostly all those are old aircraft. Social media has covered my requirements.

Best regards

Gary

I would agree that this hobby is dying, as it isn't the same as it was 10-20+ years ago. When I was young, I would enjoy traveling to different airports and finding cool places to spot and shoot photos of planes. I would also enjoy running around the terminals snapping whatever photos I could. This was pre 9/11 days when most airports didn't require you to be a ticketed passenger. However, those days are long gone. I remember a while after 9/11, I was in Washington D.C. and took a photo of a plane. A few seconds later I was approached by the police and told to delete my photos immediately. A while after that, I was in Chicago O'Hare and again police harassed me while taking some photos out of the window while waiting for my flight. After this, i dropped the hobby until my later adult years when smart phones became popular and I began to travel the world again. I really think the over-hyped security tended to scare off a lot of younger would be aviation enthusiasts.

canyonblue17 wrote:

I have sold my aircraft photos to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NBC Nightly News, a software developer, a airplane part producer and several others - all of whom discovered the photos on this website. Does it draw the way it used to - no. Does it still draw well - for me - absolutely. Even though it is still very much a hobby for me - I enjoy being compared to the best. Most importantly - I have learned an immense amount about photography from the experts on this site. Tell your friends.

Back in the heyday of Airliners.net, I sold a lot of my photos to various places. They were featured on television, newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. I actually had an "in" with the AP to sell the photos anytime something happened. That was a nice little revenue stream at my young age then. I was even interviewed about the hobby on MSNBC by Lester Holt shortly after the Concorde crash. Coincidentally, I was at my local airport snapping photos when I got the call that they wanted to interview me. haha. Now, i feel there are too many other 'options' out there for companies to buy/use photos from. Back in the day, this was "THE" place to come for plane photos.

Cush wrote:

Granite wrote:

Hello all

For me, the hobby is shrinking. Still love to take aviation images but less and less to see at my local. Moved on to other subject which give me more pleasure. I rarely visit the Airliners.net site now to view the daily images, only visiting to search for a particular aircraft/airline/registration, and mostly all those are old aircraft. Social media has covered my requirements.

Best regards

Gary

I would agree that this hobby is dying, as it isn't the same as it was 10-20+ years ago. When I was young, I would enjoy traveling to different airports and finding cool places to spot and shoot photos of planes. I would also enjoy running around the terminals snapping whatever photos I could. This was pre 9/11 days when most airports didn't require you to be a ticketed passenger. However, those days are long gone. I remember a while after 9/11, I was in Washington D.C. and took a photo of a plane. A few seconds later I was approached by the police and told to delete my photos immediately. A while after that, I was in Chicago O'Hare and again police harassed me while taking some photos out of the window while waiting for my flight. After this, i dropped the hobby until my later adult years when smart phones became popular and I began to travel the world again. I really think the over-hyped security tended to scare off a lot of younger would be aviation enthusiasts.

AFP has given me the third degree once in Sydney too. I mean really, I had two expensive cameras (one with an enormous lens and tripod) with me and a huge tripod. I also had my Nikon Professional Services ID card with me too. Not exactly the kind of person they should be watching. And my camera equipment was together more costly than their car!

I don't need that hassle anymore. I sometimes come back and take photos for a week or two, but I usually then disappear for a year or more and don't stick with it.

As for being told to delete the photos of planes immediately, what about all the ones already on the internet? Or worse, the computer flight simulator addons like from PMDG and others. Or the flying manuals easily available to download.

Sorry to bring up an old thread but it'll be interesting to see updated traffic stats for the site.

I'm not one to usually complain however my latest upload (Ok, it's a TUI 737 so not exactly a rarity!) has been online for 24 hours and has just 3 views!

Since this old thread popped up I’ll chime in and offer some input as someone who sometimes lurks but no longer participates.

Why upload here? I can’t think of many reasons anymore.

The world has changed and the site has lost relevance. Sure there’s still a niche market for those who sell their photos but the majority of the enthusiast community, especially the young generation, have moved on to various social media platforms/apps and no longer need this website to get their aviation photo fix. When I first started here in the late ‘90s, there was no other place to look at pictures of airplanes. I had an interest in uploading photos because the idea that my work could be seen by anyone around the world was revolutionary and mind blowing to me. It was a good run but now I see very little point. What point do the high standards serve when I’m browsing the internet on my iPhone X screen 99.98% of the time and the once in a blue moon chance I’m on a desktop I’m viewing on my 5k resolution iMac which is impossible for editing and screening things like noise and sharpness anyway. I used to keep a 10 year-old monitor just so I could continue to participate. But why? What’s the point? The majority of the internet can’t see the difference and don’t care anyway. That’s the biggest problem. The audience has moved on and photographers have followed. I’m perfectly happy taking photos with my iPhone and uploading to Instagram where it looks perfectly fine on my iPhone screen at 1080x pixels.

The world has changed but this site refuses to let go of its coveted position as the site with the highest quality photos. Resistance from the users and the crew are holding this place back and relevance will continue to slip as the world shift further to a completely social media mobile platform.

Just my two cents. I miss this place, but it isn’t worth (for me) the time or energy anymore.