Hit pumping of common shots that take the place of high quality shots in the top 5 needs to stop.

Anyone else wondering how that Cessna Citation (and 5 other photos from the same Swiss photographer) are all sequenced fairly high on the Top 24 list?
They all look like fairly average photos to me - yet a small business jet manages to overtake a Pan Am 707 photo from 1998..
Very unusual in my opinion.
G

In all honesty I doubt it'd overtake a Pan Am 707 from 1998...

Karl

I had to search for what I thought was the photo in question- it had naturally been overtaken by the 707 and others so things seem normal enough.

I haven’t been looking closely at the photos or this site recently however.

I do briefly see what is recently added in photos via the forum display and if any of those are interesting I’ll look at them.

Hit pumping of common shots that take the place of high quality shots in the top 5 needs to stop.

Again, I'm sure I join MOST of the community when I say I'm sick of people blatantly view pumping.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xQ1Vzz ... sp=sharing

I sincerely hope the moderators/screeners take notice of the current very basic 737 and A330 on the cover page for the Top 24 list, having accelerated at an abnormal rate through the view counters.

This sort of behaviour needs to be addressed in the strongest way to send a clear message!

Gianni

Hello

This is a response to a few posts about some standard shots making the Top 5 recently. We shared the 737 on our social media pages and that does influence the amount of views an image receives. The crew always keep a watch for any iffy views. A photographer was contacted a few months ago by the head screeners and after an exchange his images are shared on some social media pages.

As you can see from our other posts we do not mind if any member of the community shares their images on social platforms even if they reach the top 5.

Dutchspotter1 you're referring to our Motive rule.

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

Dutchspotter1 you're referring to our Motive rule.

Thanks but that seems to cover merely distance/centering/obstructions. I was more referring to things like distracting items (fences in the bottom, lampposts in the back, taxiway signs stuck to the a/c) general backgorund issues (hazy skies/flat light), unfavourable angles (belly photos), etc.

Photo Acceptance Guide wrote:

Please note that motive rejections can also result from other, more subjective reasons. These are usually of an aesthetical nature.

So basically I am wondering if screeners are actively looking at this or if they are merely looking at the technical/editing aspects of a photo. I couldn't help but notice there is a big discrepancy in quality standards between motive/composition/aesthetical aspects and the technical/editing aspects.

The moderators have nothing to do with the top 5, so leave us out of it, our role is specifically for the forum hence why out title is "Forum Moderator"

The issue was very clearly explained in the comment following mine - Thanks!

Gianni

Hi Dutchspotter1

Two ways to look at the issues you raise. For vintage images we do allow leeway for distracting items like a fence, haze, flat light and so on. Not too much but definately more than the past few years. In relation to vintage images they are onlybecoming rarer and all add value to the database.

For current shots the above would be looked at more closely and lead to rejections. Yes, we do look at editing. The discrepancies you've noticed, can you provide an example or two please so we can review and advise? I hope you can see we're happy to discuss and if it leads to an improvemt for the community we'll do our best to accommodate.

Paul

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your response. My comments indeed do not apply to vintage photos. Here are a few random examples where I think stricter screening could be applied (or at least considered) to ensure a consistent level of high quality standards.

1. Lots of distracting clutter (fence, ramp equipment) in the foreground. Although not blocking any part of the a/c, it still takes away the focus of the main subject. Granted, it's the first photo of this particular a/c but I'm wondering if it would've been accepted if there were already a dozen photos in the db.


2. Distracting lightpole on the left side, probably avoidable by taking the photo a second earlier


3. Similar story, lightpole is even more distracting as it is prominently sticking out of the cockpit.


4. Bush/tree in the lower left corner is distracting and avoidable by taking the photo a second later


5. Flat light (bordering backlight). While there may not be any technical flaws, there are numerous photos of this a/c with much better light, making this photo subpar.


6. Distracting lightpole (or something) in the bottom of the photo, probably avoidable


7. Unfavourable angle, no titles whatsoever visible, it's not much more than just a dark belly


8. Similar story, also a lot of empty space


So whereas the margins for the technical/editing aspects are small, the margins for motive/composition/aesthetics are quite large. I get the impression that high quality photography is merely defined as the absence of any technical/editing flaws and I don't know if that is correct. I wonder how the screening team/community sees this.

Personally I see nothing wrong with the above images, I dont find any trees/light poles/ground equipment distracting at all. I do agree that the Transavia B738 isn't superb light wise, however it looks passable.

Any website of this sort (particularly this one) always aims to accept photos, and given that these photos are technically just fine, why bother rejecting them? Personally I think that ground equipment/the ramp with some light poles adds to the photo.




Here are two of my photos. I like the mechanic working on the heli and think it adds something to the photo, should it have been rejected for the mechanic being "distracting"? What about the ACA B789, same boat?

With reference to the ACA A330 you had mentioned, I personally think that the tree adds some reference to the photo, it tells us how high/close to the ground it is rather than jsut some blue sky and clouds
Lastly, the WJA B737 landing overhead shot is one of my favourite of the bunch. As someone who used to live where that photo was taken, I can tell you that that spot is where families go to watch planes on a Saturday afternoon. That photo shows what the "normal" person will see, rather than just a side on of a bland old Boeing 737. (Its the Wendys right next to runway 23 at CYYZ if you want to have a look on google maps)

Tim

EDIT: If I recall correctly, I believe the ORNGE heli was rejected first time around for the mechanic being in the way but was on accepted on appeal.

That Transavia has a very yellow cast and the KL E75 lacks contrast but lightpoles behind the subject shouldn't be an issue. Yes, it'd be better if they weren't there but sometimes they can't be helped. Same with foreground clutter that's not blocking the aircraft. We each have our own preferences but I think we have to accept that this site is for a wide variety of people — it's rare that I support the site these days but I think the acceptance criteria is about as fair as it's going to get (when it's properly applied). Yeah, I see images in which the heat-haze perhaps should have warranted a rejection but it's semantics really.

I find the 'other' site a far bigger offender when it comes to endless pages of technically perfect but fundamentally flawed midday summer shots, from the same location, by the same photographer, on the same day.

Thank you for your responses. I get that some of these issues are subjective (as illustrated by the contributions from Tim and JakTrax) and ultimately it is up to the owners/screeners to define the acceptance standards. My point is the discrepancy between the "mild" screening on motive/composition/aesthetics and the "strict" screening on the technical/editing aspects, even though things like exposure, sharpness, colour etc are also subjective to a certain degree since people use different PC screens.
Why would the above Transavia B738 be passable whereas a photo in superb light could be rejected for a minor editing issue? Isn't quality more than just the absence of technical/editing flaws?
So the question is, does this website aim to accept (like JP) or aim for high quality? Right now it sometimes feels like it's neither. E.g. recently I had a photo in the upload queue with three screeners asking for a second opinion and the fourth rejecting it. I wouldn't call that "aim to accept"

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your response. My comments indeed do not apply to vintage photos. Here are a few random examples where I think stricter screening could be applied (or at least considered) to ensure a consistent level of high quality standards.

1. Lots of distracting clutter (fence, ramp equipment) in the foreground. Although not blocking any part of the a/c, it still takes away the focus of the main subject. Granted, it's the first photo of this particular a/c but I'm wondering if it would've been accepted if there were already a dozen photos in the db.

Do you think a better shot could have been taken? The sun angle was down the runway. The taxiway shot was blocked by equipment and again a poor sun angle. This particular shot was taken in the half a second the plane was positioned between stairs immediately to the right of the picture, and the terminal building just out of frame to the left. There's lots of ramp lice, but KTTN is the definition of ramp lice. It's distracting from the aircraft, but this site has never been solely about the aircraft....there are plenty of pictures where people or things like flowers are a big focal point. I'm not under and disillusionment that it's a beautiful photo, but I can tell you it was the best shot possible, it documents the reality of the airport, and it was kept to the bottom 20% or so, which has never been a problem in the 25 years I've been uploading. If screeners were to not allow it, then no one would have any idea what that plane looks like, and there'd be no photos from KTTN's ramp area.

planespot wrote:

Do you think a better shot could have been taken?

No, but is that the definition of a high quality shot? As mentioned, please disregard the fact that it's the first photo of this particular a/c.

planespot wrote:

If screeners were to not allow it, then no one would have any idea what that plane looks like, and there'd be no photos from KTTN's ramp area.

Just out of curiousity, have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps not each and every location around an airport may be suitable for taking HQ aviation photos? I can tell by looking at some of your other shots that you've been able to find more suitable locations at TTN.

But back on topic, what if another photographer shot this particular a/c on the same day at another airport under perfect conditions, but there was a small editing issue with the color settings, or exposure, or whatever. Would it be fair to have that photo rejected and yours accepted? And if so, why? That is the key question I am trying to figure out.

planespot wrote:

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your response. My comments indeed do not apply to vintage photos. Here are a few random examples where I think stricter screening could be applied (or at least considered) to ensure a consistent level of high quality standards.

1. Lots of distracting clutter (fence, ramp equipment) in the foreground. Although not blocking any part of the a/c, it still takes away the focus of the main subject. Granted, it's the first photo of this particular a/c but I'm wondering if it would've been accepted if there were already a dozen photos in the db.

Do you think a better shot could have been taken? The sun angle was down the runway. The taxiway shot was blocked by equipment and again a poor sun angle. This particular shot was taken in the half a second the plane was positioned between stairs immediately to the right of the picture, and the terminal building just out of frame to the left. There's lots of ramp lice, but KTTN is the definition of ramp lice. It's distracting from the aircraft, but this site has never been solely about the aircraft....there are plenty of pictures where people or things like flowers are a big focal point. I'm not under and disillusionment that it's a beautiful photo, but I can tell you it was the best shot possible, it documents the reality of the airport, and it was kept to the bottom 20% or so, which has never been a problem in the 25 years I've been uploading. If screeners were to not allow it, then no one would have any idea what that plane looks like, and there'd be no photos from KTTN's ramp area.

Cary, fantastic work!

I know exactly what you mean when you say that certain obstacles/clutter in the foreground are unavoidable sometimes. Thankfully, the screeners are more open minded than some on here and allow for such shots which are clearly still enjoyed by many.



I for one welcome these shots versus thousands of uninspired side on landing shots.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

planespot wrote:

Do you think a better shot could have been taken?

No, but is that the definition of a high quality shot? As mentioned, please disregard the fact that it's the first photo of this particular a/c.

High-quality aesthetic-wise? No. High-quality technically...yes, it's tack sharp at 100% over 8,000px width, with the aircraft filling the frame, no heat-haze, level, and the exposure is within normal tolerances.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

planespot wrote:

If screeners were to not allow it, then no one would have any idea what that plane looks like, and there'd be no photos from KTTN's ramp area.

Just out of curiousity, have you ever considered the possibility that perhaps not each and every location around an airport may be suitable for taking HQ aviation photos? I can tell by looking at some of your other shots that you've been able to find more suitable locations at TTN.

But back on topic, what if another photographer shot this particular a/c on the same day at another airport under perfect conditions, but there was a small editing issue with the color settings, or exposure, or whatever. Would it be fair to have that photo rejected and yours accepted? And if so, why? That is the key question I am trying to figure out.

Again, there were no better suitable locations....any of the other locations you see in my other TTN photos would have been much worse...I would know.

I think what you may be missing is that A.net has always been about image quality first and image aesthetics second. I'm not a fan of planes not being lit by full, low-angle sun, but plenty of photos get accepted that are less-than-ideal lighting (my own included), as long as they are technically acceptable. And as long as parts of the aircraft aren't blocked, or distractions are easily avoidable, it's not a rejection reason. It may not suit your or my aesthetic taste, but it's allowable. There are "creative" shots that don't fit my aesthetic tastes, but they are allowed. And back in the Kodachrome days, some people might not like any slides that weren't 50mm side ramp shots in perfect light.

KPDX wrote:

planespot wrote:

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Hi Paul,

Cary, fantastic work!

I know exactly what you mean when you say that certain obstacles/clutter in the foreground are unavoidable sometimes. Thankfully, the screeners are more open minded than some on here and allow for such shots which are clearly still enjoyed by many.

I for one welcome these shots versus thousands of uninspired side on landing shots.

Thanks Dylan, and nice shot of that DC-8! They were literally pulling one of the Skybus DC-8s out of the hangar when I did my last pass at VCV, so I couldn't get a shot. Glad you were able to

In the current discussion regarding GSE (ground support equipment) or anything else being in a photo, I think that as long as it’s not blocking the aircraft and not filling a large portion of the frame then it should be more than okay if the photo meets every other criteria for acceptance. The problem with purist thinking is that for some situations you will never get a truly unobstructed shot, and in the photo in question it adds to the shot imo.

For some time now I have had the impression that only heavily edited pictures are actually published here. Photos directly from the cam, scaled down, sharpened and added with a little bit contrast have no chance for beeing accepted anymore. Last year some some of my pictures were rejected because they supposedly had too much contrast. For a little more than half a year now, almost every image that has less than 30 (!) points of my editing scale has been rejected as being soft. Sometimes there is the reason that the pic should be underexposed and if it is uploaded a little bit brighter it is overexposed... Or is there a contest going on here which screener rejects the most pictures? By the way: screening spends mostly between 14 and 15 days. A new upload after editing the same time, so just a month. When I started here six years ago there was to wait only less than one week for a screener decision and there were much more pics in the queue. In any case, this is clearly too much wasted time for me. After all the rejections recently I've decided now to delete my last pictures from the queue. And photoshopped images are not really my kind of work. Many Thanks!

DEKRC wrote:

For some time now I have had the impression that only heavily edited pictures are actually published here. Photos directly from the cam, scaled down, sharpened and added with a little bit contrast have no chance for beeing accepted anymore. Last year some some of my pictures were rejected because they supposedly had too much contrast. For a little more than half a year now, almost every image that has less than 30 (!) points of my editing scale has been rejected as being soft. Sometimes there is the reason that the pic should be underexposed and if it is uploaded a little bit brighter it is overexposed... Or is there a contest going on here which screener rejects the most pictures? By the way: screening spends mostly between 14 and 15 days. A new upload after editing the same time, so just a month. When I started here six years ago there was to wait only less than one week for a screener decision and there were much more pics in the queue. In any case, this is clearly too much wasted time for me. After all the rejections recently I've decided now to delete my last pictures from the queue. And photoshopped images are not really my kind of work. Many Thanks!

Greetings. Sorry to hear about your recent results of screening. Perhaps if you can post some examples in the Photography Feedback forum, members can offer some specific feedback.

When I prepare pictures, I do minimal editing: leveling, resizing, brightness, contrast and sharpening as needed. Quite unlike what you said, heavily edited images are frequently rejected by screeners. And also, there is no contest among screeners to see who rejects the most. Within our acceptance standards, we do "Screen to Accept". As for screening lead time, with an all volunteer screening team we try to get to them as expediently as possible. I hope you will reconsider your decision to stop uploading.

Cheers,

Jehan

DEKRC wrote:

For some time now I have had the impression that only heavily edited pictures are actually published here. Photos directly from the cam, scaled down, sharpened and added with a little bit contrast have no chance for beeing accepted anymore. Last year some some of my pictures were rejected because they supposedly had too much contrast. For a little more than half a year now, almost every image that has less than 30 (!) points of my editing scale has been rejected as being soft. Sometimes there is the reason that the pic should be underexposed and if it is uploaded a little bit brighter it is overexposed... Or is there a contest going on here which screener rejects the most pictures? By the way: screening spends mostly between 14 and 15 days. A new upload after editing the same time, so just a month. When I started here six years ago there was to wait only less than one week for a screener decision and there were much more pics in the queue. In any case, this is clearly too much wasted time for me. After all the rejections recently I've decided now to delete my last pictures from the queue. And photoshopped images are not really my kind of work. Many Thanks!

Just from personal experience, I've experienced the complete opposite of what you've said here. The shots I've edited pretty heavily typically do the worst and few ever make it, whereas the shots that I've done very little to do just fine. I'd just keep working on refining your editing flow. I still crank out some terrible edits to this day! It's a constant learning curve.

planespot wrote:

I think what you may be missing is that A.net has always been about image quality first and image aesthetics second.

It seems you hit the nail on the head there, thank you for the insight.

Hello Karl

Thank you for pointing that one out and if we have made a mistake we are very sorry. I ask you please keep in mind the crew are volunteers and do the best they can.

You let us know about this one, why not the other a few weeks ago where two of us asked you to inform us so we could promote it it? Not a word from you until you see what you percieve to be a mistake by us. Why is it that Karl? You only focus on the negative.

Karl, we've been very accommodating to you in this thread for almost 2 years. 2 years in which all you have done is critisize us, any mistakes we make or what you perceive to be an injustice even when it is not your shot.. You're proud you gave up on uplading to our site and have been for two years. You take every opportunity to cast a negative light on the efforts of the volunteer crew or any mistake the site makes. Preposperous claims we're run by an oligarch when 11 team members make a collective decision..

Not any more Karl. Any further posts of yours which criticize the site without offering a solution that benefits the greater community will be deleted. We will no longer allow you to just take shot after shot at the site while providing no solutions which benefits the community. You chose to stop or significantly reduce uploading to this site and take every opportunity to tellanyone you think will listen. Every other photographer who has done that, said their piece and moved onto other sites to enjoy their hobby more and we wish them all the best. Just like you.

Now, with a recent post, you are criticizing the other site you chose to upload to instead of us. That is not acceptable and we will not tolerate any such statements as we coexist for the benefit of everyone who enjoys the hobby. Your problems with another site are not our concern. Furthermore they underscore you are the problem, not the websites that host aviation images..

Your forum account is now banned for 3 months to stop you from being so negative and most of all, competition or not, you are not permitted to disparage or be negative about other websites or complain one more time about you no longer uploading here. After 2 years we get it, okay?

Move on and we wish you all the best

I honestly stopped trying to upload images to A.Net. I don't know the secret handshake and the frustration is not worth it to keep re-uploading images. I understand Karl's frustration. I see some images posted on here that get me scratching my head. I worked as Airport Ops and also as a tower controller for years and have quite a few images to share. For now they will just hang in my office.

Think we could get this one without the dust spot on the sensor? Should be an easy fix.

Newark727 wrote:

Think we could get this one without the dust spot on the sensor? Should be an easy fix.

Good catch. I missed it. Thanks.

Daniel

Don't know why this quality is still acceptable in 2021.

Am I missing something here or....?



Not to discredit the photographer but it looks like it was taken on a phone and cropped to infinity.

This image was accepted in error and will be removed. We do screen to accept but not this one

Regards,

Jehan

Question:
Are backlit photos acceptable now?




Only asking because I have a handful of backlit shots I can upload.

If not, then why is the shot above in the database?

- Miami

Have to agree with the above. It's not popular considering it involves a Head Screener, but considering how strictly screeners normally uphold the rules, how come these shots are being allowed? For what it's worth, I like these recently uploaded shots, but they're clearly backlit. Is this considered acceptable motive for a backlit aircraft? Would this apply to non-Head Screeners? Asking only in fairness to all uploaders on this website.

Hello All

Okay Garret we understand you don't like backlit and it's your choice as to whether you upload or not. Yes we now accept backlit but the reason for our change is mainly news and the following three images are examples we used from the community.







Backlit is backlit and these three shots made Top of the Day and received two Photographer's Choice awards. That broadbased community acceptance and recognition reflects an interest especially if it is newsworthy.

It is also giving photographer's the benefit of the doubt about not being positioned well due to a last minute runway change or in the case of the air to air not being able to position properly.

We respect if you are not a fan of these shots and ask you respect the owners right to afford benefit of the doubt for shots the community recognises as newswothy and interesting.

Hello Garrett

Thanks for your point of view and the image you mention was screened from our creative queue. If you're so frustrated with the site why are you uploading backlit shots?

Hello Garrett

No, it's not my website it belongs to VerticalScope. Your shot should stay as it's backlit and military which the community can use as a reference. You had one rejected too as the motove was poor so hopefully those two images you can use as a reference.We're still a database too. We document the movement of aircraft from the start to finish of their life. The other images you mentioned are all new registrations that have been flown straight from the production facility to long term storage. As a database those images are documenting the movements of the frames and a new rego has always been priority.

Yes, please bear with us on the acceptance guide as it's far too old and it needs a complete update with community input. A step by step approach is needed so updates can be approved by the Head Screening team. Just a note I'll be doing the updates and you're welcome to communicate if you or any you know have feedback or input you'd like to share

Regards

Paul

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

Thanks for your point of view and the image you mention was screened from our creative queue.

What makes that image creative?

Hello All

Your point of view is understood and this rule change has been discussed by the head screeners for three months. We've outlined some of the reasoning for it too and it appears many are okay with that. Looking at some of the examples provided it's clear our global community has started to see the benefit which is also reflected by the views and community awards they recieve.

I took this photo in 2014 and sat on it. Two years ago I uploaded it under the "creative" category but it got rejected. A very similar photo was just recently published. Should I try again?

Hello Arfbool

Yes you should as that is the type of shot this rule change is designed to now accept should the edit meet our guidlelines.

First of all… Stop censoring our views!

Second.. I joined this site because it WAS challenging to have your photos accepted. Now we have eased back on the guidelines and basically anything is acceptable? That took the fun away from uploading because I can literally go to any other site and have my photos accepted without a problem. I can go to one particular site that can lead me to have my photos on FlightRadar24 where millions of people use on a daily basis. That’s a lot of publicity right there and that site is pretty easy to get accepted. HOWEVER, I chose not to because it is not challenging to get your photos accepted and I like a little challenge. A little challenge certainly helps me become a better photographer and photo editor.

By the way… When your photo gets rejected, you’d get this message:
“Don't worry, everyone has their photos rejected from time to time. Our standards are very high. It is and should be difficult to get photos accepted.”

Well, it WAS difficult to get your photos accepted but now? Not anymore. I can shoot automatic and have my photo accepted with these new guidelines.

Very disappointed with what airliners.net has become and I think I speak for a lot when saying that.

- Daniel

Also, how can I get into contact with VerticalScope?

Just in case you missed it, I'll ask again:

vikkyvik wrote:

What makes that image creative?

PanAm_DC10 wrote:

Your point of view is understood and this rule change has been discussed by the head screeners for three months.

Discussed for 3 months, yet not communicated with the photographer community. Just with the screeners who then get to start uploading shots.

Seems pretty silly to me. A simple forum post would have given people notice. Two minutes of someone's time.

I found two good examples here of what everyone is disgruntled over I think. Why would you even upload or accept such a backlit version of this shot? Can the helicopter not fly up-sun of the subject?

tlewis95 wrote:

I found two good examples here of what everyone is disgruntled over I think. Why would you even upload or accept such a backlit version of this shot? Can the helicopter not fly up-sun of the subject?

Great point! +1

Hello Miami

Thank you for your point of view and your preference for our site is appreciated. I touched base with the moderators and you've not had any posts removed from this thread In no way are your views being censored as stated.

Backlit was not the only rule addressed in addition to HIF, LIF, air to ground, drone, distance and cropping. As manager the HS were informed at the time I refrain from uploading to avoid any conflicts.

In regard to the Lufthansa Cargo both are great shots within our rules. As a screener if I come across such images it's best to look at the photographers perspective. Were they in a helicopter or light aircraft. Both are commonly used in the Northern Hemisphere which is not my experience here and as mentioned when I rejoined this thread benefit of the doubt applies for air to air as positioning may not be exactly what the photographer is hoping for. I am aware how the Saudi shots were taken and it's very impressive.

It's good to see more images being uploaded and with the one accepted for Garrett it would be nice to work further on defining what is best for the community. This forum is here for all to ask about the rules, standards and the ability to learn so members enjoy their hobby more. Please keep that in mind and hopefully the quality of posts will improve.

Hello Garrett

Okay, thank you and please understand this is a moderated forum. I've bent a rule by asking your double post be archived, not deleted. My understanding from our email exchange is that you were not being censored.

May I ask why someone else receiving a valid ban by the moderators is more important for you than an offer to work on an edit of your shot? I only ask to ensure the best quality image is available for the community to use as a reference.

Thank you

tlewis95 wrote:

I found two good examples here of what everyone is disgruntled over I think. Why would you even upload or accept such a backlit version of this shot? Can the helicopter not fly up-sun of the subject?

I like to think of it this way:
A backlit, side on, shot from the ground, photo of some common 777 would be rejected for backlit as it's not a very cool photo and not special.
On the other hand, an air-to-air or air-to-ground photo of any aircraft that happens to be backlit would be accepted (assuming nothing else is wrong) as the angle is much cooler and adds a nice photo to the database.

Tim

Crosswindphoto wrote:

tlewis95 wrote:

I found two good examples here of what everyone is disgruntled over I think. Why would you even upload or accept such a backlit version of this shot? Can the helicopter not fly up-sun of the subject?

I like to think of it this way:
A backlit, side on, shot from the ground, photo of some common 777 would be rejected for backlit as it's not a very cool photo and not special.
On the other hand, an air-to-air or air-to-ground photo of any aircraft that happens to be backlit would be accepted (assuming nothing else is wrong) as the angle is much cooler and adds a nice photo to the database.

Tim

Looking forward to the new acceptance guidelines with the definitions of "cool" and "not cool"

Crosswindphoto wrote:

I like to think of it this way:
A backlit, side on, shot from the ground, photo of some common 777 would be rejected for backlit as it's not a very cool photo and not special.
On the other hand, an air-to-air or air-to-ground photo of any aircraft that happens to be backlit would be accepted (assuming nothing else is wrong) as the angle is much cooler and adds a nice photo to the database.

If we're going to use subjective terms such as "cool" and and "special", then you may as well modify the acceptance guide to read:

Awesome shots will be accepted. Lame shots will be rejected.

What is so bad about backlit shots? If they are technically good, why not?
The two MD11 shots are very good examples. One can argue the backlit shot is even better (I know, I'm opening a can of worms). The colors in the shadow area are very nice while in the sunny side shot the details around the cockpit are completely blown out.
So which one is better?
IMO with the dynamic range of todays camera technology there is no argument against a good backlit shot.