Lately I've kept getting pegged with the same rejection reasons for almost every photo (usually low contrast, blurry, or soft) after waiting over 16 days to have images screened. Ever since the queue got backed up last month, my acceptance rate has nosedived and there appears to be a direct correlation between the two. This leads me to ask... were quality standards heightened on this site recently? I upload to several other sites and it has been nowhere near as stringent as it has been on A.net as of late. Uploading here over the past month has been the most frustrating it has ever been during my entire time on here. It's to the point where I'm considering pulling all of my photos from screening until the queue gets shorter.

I'll add that I have changed absolutely nothing with regards to camera settings or my editing workflow.

Speaking just for myself, I do tend to screen a little more black & white when the queue is high like it is now. But that doesn't mean enforcing stricter standards. If anything, I feel like I accept more. Screening black and white in this case means that I spend a few seconds less when looking at a photo. So if it looks good at first glance, chances are I will accept faster. So it doesn't really differ all that much from normal, aside from going through my screening batch faster.

Not sure if that helps though, I haven't rejected a photo of yours recently. Will have a look at the photos you linked in the other thread later.

Well I've had a look at your screening log and can only see three low contrast rejections. That C-17 made it in a reupload, the AA had more like unfavourable harsh light.
Other than that a few of your landing shots look indeed slightly blurry. Without seeing the original a bit hard to tell what's the reason for it (there could be several).
All in all I can see no extremly harsh rejection there.

So I am sorry to say but I don't think it is a case of higher standards to the site. If you want we can offer dedicated help for some of the shots,

Based on the shots in your Feedback thread:

B6 and BA look slightly blurry, but borderline. I've seen the same or slightly worse accepted.
AA looks a bit more blurry than borderline.
AS definitely looks blurry.

JKPhotos, I had about 5-7 more shots in my queue but I deleted them after those three initial rejections. All were taken on the same day and I didn't feel confident enough to have them screened anymore.

Vikkyvik, that's what really gets me the most. They aren't the most spectacular, but I've had worse get accepted somehow, so I figured those would have had at least some sort of chance. I guess not though.

I believe I'm starting to push my current Nikon 300mm beyond it's limits. Currently looking at several different lenses, mainly the Sigma 100-400mm and 150-600mm lenses.

Yes ,quality standards changed, my account had deleted ,and i created account again ,i uploaded same photos those had accepted years ago , but rejected this time

Runway28L wrote:

Vikkyvik, that's what really gets me the most. They aren't the most spectacular, but I've had worse get accepted somehow, so I figured those would have had at least some sort of chance. I guess not though.

It is what it is. Borderline shots will by definition sometimes get accepted and sometimes get rejected.

ufospotter wrote:

i uploaded same photos those had accepted years ago , but rejected this time

How long ago were they accepted?

vikkyvik wrote:

ufospotter wrote:

i uploaded same photos those had accepted years ago , but rejected this time

How long ago were they accepted?

Just for full disclosure;
He got banned (+ all photos deleted) on his first account back in March for continously uploading and appealing marginal and unfixed photos, for which he had been warned plenty of times. Plus leaving 'fuck u' comments under photos and posting similar texts on the forum and via E-mail. The ban was set until the end of September 2019. On April 1 (no joke), his second account got banned as he uploaded the exact same unfixed marginal photo that got his first account banned. Then he made a third account (different name than the other 2), which we intended to let him have as long as he didn't cause a scene again. But then he changed that account to his original name, leaving us little choice to ban that one until September as well.

As Vik mentioned, borderline shots can go either way every time, but in this case the learning curve seems to be very flat.

The headscreener upstairs, please talk to your conscience, and it's a bit of a human nature,
"He got banned (+ all photos deleted) on his first account back in March for continously uploading and appealing marginal and unfixed photos," Every time I reupload the photo, I edited it, but screeners didn't look carefully, and then arbitrarily said there was no change.
This time, I didn't violate any rules for uploading pictures. I just wanted to use the original name. As a result, it was banned. It was really a mess. Is this their world, and there is no justice?

I think the above justifies my reasoning for the need of a thread where the crew post a look into the nasty emails and messages they get, because they’re a good lesson in what not to do, and they’re funny!

vikkyvik wrote:

Runway28L wrote:

Vikkyvik, that's what really gets me the most. They aren't the most spectacular, but I've had worse get accepted somehow, so I figured those would have had at least some sort of chance. I guess not though.

It is what it is. Borderline shots will by definition sometimes get accepted and sometimes get rejected.

ufospotter wrote:

i uploaded same photos those had accepted years ago , but rejected this time

How long ago were they accepted?

About two or three years ago

airkas1 wrote:

Just for full disclosure;He got banned (+ all photos deleted) on his first account back in March for continously uploading and appealing marginal and unfixed photos, for which he had been warned plenty of times. Plus leaving 'fuck u' comments under photos and posting similar texts on the forum and via E-mail. The ban was set until the end of September 2019. On April 1 (no joke), his second account got banned as he uploaded the exact same unfixed marginal photo that got his first account banned. Then he made a third account (different name than the other 2), which we intended to let him have as long as he didn't cause a scene again. But then he changed that account to his original name, leaving us little choice to ban that one until September as well.

Ha. That's pretty funny. People take A.net way too seriously.

Runway28L wrote:

Lately I've kept getting pegged with the same rejection reasons for almost every photo (usually low contrast, blurry, or soft) after waiting over 16 days to have images screened. Ever since the queue got backed up last month, my acceptance rate has nosedived and there appears to be a direct correlation between the two. This leads me to ask... were quality standards heightened on this site recently? I upload to several other sites and it has been nowhere near as stringent as it has been on A.net as of late. Uploading here over the past month has been the most frustrating it has ever been during my entire time on here. It's to the point where I'm considering pulling all of my photos from screening until the queue gets shorter.

I'll add that I have changed absolutely nothing with regards to camera settings or my editing workflow.

I'm kind of on the same boat as you are, Evan; recently I had a couple of photos from my LAX trip that were rejected for various reasons - most notably, the AS B739, AA CRJ7, and the DL B712, all in which were last rejected for blurry and soft (all since were re-uploaded w/ downsized photo and an extra kick of sharpness); I'm starting to get discouraged with these rejections, as three of the photos accepted on a.net (AS A319, AA E175, and DL E175) were taken at the same site as these rejected photos stated earlier; not sure if I could rule out screener inconsistency, as all of these photos were taken under similar conditions, and also given that these photos were edited under the consistent workflow.

As you mentioned about uploading photos to other aviation photography sites, I had created one on another aviation photography site two months ago and as of date, I had at least 6 photos that were accepted over the other site that would not be passable on a.net; while I still stand by the strict a.net quality standards to upload photos and will edit my photos to a.net upload standards first, I feel like my time is no longer valued when it comes to waiting for my edited photos to be screened at a.net (~2 weeks compared to ~9 days at another aviation photo site). I understood that screeners have real-life obligations to carry, but was wondering if having more screeners would help alleviate the backlog of the screening queue?

Normally I don't want to be the person to rant about the screening process (as I do respect the screeners at a.net), but wanted to share my opinion about it.

Hi Victor,

I'm not seeing your post as a rant and I appreciate the honest opinion. But please allow me to be very honest then as well.
I do understand your point and that seemingly inconsistent screening is going on. I will never claim that we are 100% consistent, but I think you could also do better. Every time I look in your thread, I see the same kind of photos; taken in marginal/poor light and it reflects in the quality of the photos. In my mind I've tried to tell you this a few times, but perhaps not in strong enough words. Vik's words come into play again; the result can go both ways.

fsx98 wrote:

wondering if having more screeners would help alleviate the backlog of the screening queue?

More active screeners would. If the current set would be more active, then it would be fine as well. Although it's nothing new; in the summer months we usually see a peak in the queue due to screener holidays and then later in the year (at times) when summer is over and the weather becomes better for being indoors and editing.

airkas1 wrote:

Hi Victor,

I'm not seeing your post as a rant and I appreciate the honest opinion. But please allow me to be very honest then as well.
I do understand your point and that seemingly inconsistent screening is going on. I will never claim that we are 100% consistent, but I think you could also do better. Every time I look in your thread, I see the same kind of photos; taken in marginal/poor light and it reflects in the quality of the photos. In my mind I've tried to tell you this a few times, but perhaps not in strong enough words. Vik's words come into play again; the result can go both ways.

fsx98 wrote:

wondering if having more screeners would help alleviate the backlog of the screening queue?

More active screeners would. If the current set would be more active, then it would be fine as well. Although it's nothing new; in the summer months we usually see a peak in the queue due to screener holidays and then later in the year (at times) when summer is over and the weather becomes better for being indoors and editing.

Thanks for the honest statement, Kas; as a plane spotter, I do my best to learn from past rejected photos, such as finding a perfect time and location to spot planes (in which conditions allow, such as having the sun behind the spotter's back), and also improve my editing skills on PS (adjusting contrast, exposure, and adding sharpness). Having read and understood your statement, I will ensure that any obviously backlit or poorly-lit photos will not be edited or uploaded.

Also thanks for the info on the screening processes in the summer and winter seasons; I'll keep that in consideration when uploading in various times of the year.

This might be a dumb idea, but I’m gonna float it anyway.
What about seasonal/temporary screeners? Uploaders who have lots of free time, and have a certain number of photos in the DB, and can be trusted to screen reliably, what if they helped out to knock the queue down in the peak months?
It would be a commit to thing as well and by no means permanent, or any screener special treatment etc.

I'll chip in on the issue of blurry images because I feel it perhaps needs addressing....

I see quite a few genuinely blurry shots in the feedback forum but some the screeners claim are blurry puzzle me at times; not because they're succinctly blurry but because it's impossible to tell at the (mostly) tiny sizes we upload at here. When I migrated to another site a few years back I started uploading at a minimum of 1400 pixels wide; on the odd occasion I chose to also upload here I again chose 1400 pixels (admittedly so I didn't have to produce two edits). I now upload at 2000 pixels and so coming back here and looking at images downsized to 1000 pixels is really a strain on my eyes. In my opinion it's just too small to properly pick out faults; not only that but I've seen perfectly sharp original images reduced to 1024 pixels and they look... blurry!

I also think the way modern sensors work is compounding the issue, as we lose sharpness on a per-pixel basis. To my eye images taken with the current crop of 24mp cameras just don't seem as sharp overall as those taken on cameras from 10 years ago. Kas and I had a discussion recently about CA along high-contrast edges, and how that can give the illusion of softness and, in some cases, blur.

In this day and age is it not time to up the minimum size to something greater than 1000 pixels? I know a multitude of sins can be masked at small sizes but conversely fine detail is often reduced or just not preserved at all. If we must stick with tiny images would it not be better to only allow it for images that push the envelope, i.e. those that are inherently going to suffer flaws? If a LH A320 isn't of sufficient quality to upload at a minimum of 1400 pixels, do we really need it in the database anyway? Having been viewing images of at least 1400 pixels recently it makes me realise just how aesthetically unpleasing these tiny images are. They may make a not-so-perfect image look better but they also can make great images look poor.

Karl

JakTrax wrote:

I'll chip in on the issue of blurry images because I feel it perhaps needs addressing....

I see quite a few genuinely blurry shots in the feedback forum but some the screeners claim are blurry puzzle me at times; not because they're succinctly blurry but because it's impossible to tell at the (mostly) tiny sizes we upload at here. When I migrated to another site a few years back I started uploading at a minimum of 1400 pixels wide; on the odd occasion I chose to also upload here I again chose 1400 pixels (admittedly so I didn't have to produce two edits). I now upload at 2000 pixels and so coming back here and looking at images downsized to 1000 pixels is really a strain on my eyes. In my opinion it's just too small to properly pick out faults; not only that but I've seen perfectly sharp original images reduced to 1024 pixels and they look... blurry!

I also think the way modern sensors work is compounding the issue, as we lose sharpness on a per-pixel basis. To my eye images taken with the current crop of 24mp cameras just don't seem as sharp overall as those taken on cameras from 10 years ago. Kas and I had a discussion recently about CA along high-contrast edges, and how that can give the illusion of softness and, in some cases, blur.

In this day and age is it not time to up the minimum size to something greater than 1000 pixels? I know a multitude of sins can be masked at small sizes but conversely fine detail is often reduced or just not preserved at all. If we must stick with tiny images would it not be better to only allow it for images that push the envelope, i.e. those that are inherently going to suffer flaws? If a LH A320 isn't of sufficient quality to upload at a minimum of 1400 pixels, do we really need it in the database anyway? Having been viewing images of at least 1400 pixels recently it makes me realise just how aesthetically unpleasing these tiny images are. They may make a not-so-perfect image look better but they also can make great images look poor.

Karl

In this day and age most photo hobbyist circles are chasing the megapixels, spending thousands of dollars switching to the mirrorless platform to get those fancy new Sony sensors and are primarily uploading to Instagram where all images are displayed at 1080 pixels, to be viewed on super sharp 8 inch phone screens. Makes a lot of sense, right?

Makes about as much sense and scrutinizing sharpness at such small resolutions these days. But that’s just my opinion.

I make prints nowadays, and there's only so much a 96 DPI monitor can show. Sometimes, density is a good thing. Looking at a proper photo on a retina screen or even just making a reasonable print can make even an average photo look nicer. Living the 42 MP life and haven't looked back in two years.

Crosswindphoto wrote:

This might be a dumb idea, but I’m gonna float it anyway.
What about seasonal/temporary screeners? Uploaders who have lots of free time, and have a certain number of photos in the DB, and can be trusted to screen reliably, what if they helped out to knock the queue down in the peak months?
It would be a commit to thing as well and by no means permanent, or any screener special treatment etc.

Honestly I would rather prefer someone like that as a permanent screener over just seasonal.

Well, I can say that I’m like that, but I’m not sure if I have the qualifications for it....

Speaking of quality standards, how come this blurry photo got accepted and even promoted on FB?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Italy-A ... ER/5591835

Simply put: it’s a fantastic looking shot, the blurriness is minor and the angle is great, unless it was really blurry, there isn’t a need for a rejection.

It is indeed too blurry and was accepted by mistake. The photographer has been notified already and the shot will be removed.

I have to agree that the angle and the motive are great, but in this case the quality just isn't there.

Cheers,
Miguel

Miguel1982 wrote:

It is indeed too blurry and was accepted by mistake. The photographer has been notified already and the shot will be removed.

I have to agree that the angle and the motive are great, but in this case the quality just isn't there.

Cheers,
Miguel

Only saw on my phone. Looked like a nice shot...

airkas1 wrote:

He got banned (+ all photos deleted) on his first account back in March for continously uploading and appealing marginal and unfixed photos, for which he had been warned plenty of times. Plus leaving 'fuck u' comments under photos and posting similar texts on the forum and via E-mail. The ban was set until the end of September 2019. On April 1 (no joke), his second account got banned as he uploaded the exact same unfixed marginal photo that got his first account banned. Then he made a third account (different name than the other 2), which we intended to let him have as long as he didn't cause a scene again. But then he changed that account to his original name, leaving us little choice to ban that one until September as well.

As Vik mentioned, borderline shots can go either way every time, but in this case the learning curve seems to be very flat.

There are no words!

I think so, looking at fr24 and saw a shot that was cropped horribly with one wing totally missing with the top of the fuselage. I guess it just depends on the screener.

NwaAviator wrote:

I think so, looking at fr24 and saw a shot that was cropped horribly with one wing totally missing with the top of the fuselage. I guess it just depends on the screener.

I'm afraid you are talking about another site if coming from fr24...

Miguel1982 wrote:

It is indeed too blurry and was accepted by mistake. The photographer has been notified already and the shot will be removed.

I have to agree that the angle and the motive are great, but in this case the quality just isn't there.

Cheers,
Miguel

I guess the same applies to this one: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Romania ... -C/5628777

I knew this would be the photo concerned. It has our attention and will likely be removed. Obvious bad quality.

Still remains a mystery how such (obviously bad quality) photos are being accepted while other (higher quality) photos are being rejected. Sure, once could be an accident, but now it's starting to make people raise their eyebrows regarding the screening policy/consistency.

There was one on the front page yesterday that was clearly unlevel....

Karl

airkas1 wrote:

I knew this would be the photo concerned. It has our attention and will likely be removed. Obvious bad quality.

Instead of removing it, it has been made Photographers Choice? Can't take this stuff seriously anymore.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Instead of removing it, it has been made Photographers Choice? Can't take this stuff seriously anymore.

Some things require a bit more delicate approach, which takes time. Plus the crew has no control over PC, so we didn't 'make it' PC.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

Still remains a mystery how such (obviously bad quality) photos are being accepted while other (higher quality) photos are being rejected. Sure, once could be an accident, but now it's starting to make people raise their eyebrows regarding the screening policy/consistency.

I think generally some common sense has to be applied. The 178th plain landing shot of a Lufthansa A320 or the 256th of a KLM 747 might be rejected although it might only have minor issues. Still a spectacular uniqe shot might be accepted despite some issues. I see nothing wrong with that, and I bet most people would agree on that. While some might see it as a database, I strongly believe nice & unique shots made airliners what it was and hopefully still is.
Still of course it cannot go so far to accept clearly blurry shots, but again mistakes happen. We have no influence on Photographer's choice as crew members, honestly I sometimes feel like some photographers do have a big influence on what becomes PC , but again this is out of our reach. And for that I can only invite people to vote more, that would it make much harder.

That would be fine if it was applied fairly to all photographers instead of just a chosen few.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

but now it's starting to make people raise their eyebrows regarding the screening policy/consistency.

By "now" you mean for the last 15 years?

JKPhotos wrote:

Still a spectacular uniqe shot might be accepted despite some issues.

I believe there are other websites for that, e.g. airplane-pictures.net. Isn't the A.net philosophy to display high quality photos, regardless of whether these are plain landing shots or spectacular unique shots?
I'm also curious how exactly PC works. As a photographer we can vote once every 12 hours. Does that mean that there are 2 photos per day selected as PC? Sometimes a photo becomes PC even days after it has been added to the database. I noticed as well that frequently half of the PC photos is taken by just one photographer out of the PNW region. Sure, most of these are high quality photos, but also just plain taxi or landing or ramp shots. Makes me wonder why similar photos (regards to quality/style) of other photographers are far less likely to become PC.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

JKPhotos wrote:

Still a spectacular uniqe shot might be accepted despite some issues.

I believe there are other websites for that, e.g. airplane-pictures.net. Isn't the A.net philosophy to display high quality photos, regardless of whether these are plain landing shots or spectacular unique shots?

Yes, A.net's philosophy is to display high quality shots, right. Generally this includes every kind of shot. If a shot meets the quality standards it will be accepted an then it is no matter if it's the 100.000th BA 320 from Heathrow or an spectacular air to air shot. My point was only that if we have shots with little flaws, that plain one would be more likely to get the boot than a very unique one, where small issues can be forgiven. This includes a small number of shots that are typically seen by several screeners.
And these can be from everyone. Everything else is just an assumption and simply not right. You would be surprised how many rejections some people that are very prominent on the frontpage still get.

I think there is a huge difference to airplane-pictures and that is when it comes to editing as they allow all kind of processing and their main focus are creative shots (though of course creative is always open for debate) whereas for airliners anything creative is just an add-on and overprocessing is not allowed. I think both database shots and others can coexist and don't see a major issue here.

dutchspotter1 wrote:

I'm also curious how exactly PC works. As a photographer we can vote once every 12 hours. Does that mean that there are 2 photos per day selected as PC? Sometimes a photo becomes PC even days after it has been added to the database. I noticed as well that frequently half of the PC photos is taken by just one photographer out of the PNW region. Sure, most of these are high quality photos, but also just plain taxi or landing or ramp shots. Makes me wonder why similar photos (regards to quality/style) of other photographers are far less likely to become PC.

Generally a shot within 7 days of an acceptance can get voted for PC and yes the award changes every 12 hours. And as mentioned before the threshold is low - I would say (though I have no evidence for this) often 3-4 votes might be enough. I think there is much more going on there and that the story is different that one might think at first, for example as soon as any shot is positively commented by a certain user it is sure to later have the PC award. There were already discussions about this but with apparenty people also voting to discredit others I am personally totally lost on it.
But again if more people would vote there wouldn't be such issues.

I’ve just had another nit picky rejection including blurry. When will the shot that is the subject of this thread going to be removed?

Maybe you can post the nitpicky rejected shot here? Blurry is typically not used for nitpicking and I struggle to see why a blurry should be acceptable?

Just because some blurry shots go through it is like no reason that others are now acceptable? Honestly that is like arguing just because some were not caught speeding you feel the right to drive 100 where usually the Limit says 70 as well.

As for the deletion, don’t ask me why but it usually takes a bit.

JKPhotos wrote:

Just because some blurry shots go through it is like no reason that others are now acceptable? Honestly that is like arguing just because some were not caught speeding you feel the right to drive 100 where usually the Limit says 70 as well.

I think the point is that it can be frustrating for photographers to get rejections for minor issues or issues that aren't even there (i.e. when they are accepted on appeal or rejected on appeal for fewer/different reasons), while photos with major issues do get accepted.
Or, to go with your metaphor: if all drivers get lasered it can be frustrating for the guy driving 75 to get caught while the guy driving 100 passes without consequences because he has a nice car.

My appeal for blurry and four ( 4 ) other rejection reasons was turned down, but reduced to just blurry and quality, with the personal message that it was obviously blurry and not a rare airframe in the DB. That’s fine. However a HS has said in this thread that the Mig is “obvious bad quality”. There are 27 shots of this aircraft in the DB. My question now is how many shots does it take for an aircraft to be deemed not rare?

BTW there are 29 shots of my rejected airframe in the DB.

I've had a look and yes it is blurry unfortunately. I have no idea why high contrast and underexposed weren't mentioned anymore, as yes it is quite contrasty and underexposed as well (just saying in case you want to upload another shot of that sequence in the future).
And I didn't screen your shot, but to me the screening result does look as fair as it gets. I'll refrain from posting the shot here...unless you want that.

Generally we would make only exceptions on a ultra rare aircraft that has less than 10 shots in the db and where it's obvious that there will not be a lot of additions in the future.
As for a Vietnam 350 we will have more than enough shots in a short time, so sorry but that 29 shots in the db is no argument I am afraid.

Let me also say that generally I try to rather put one rejection reason to many, then one to less. What we want to avoid these days is that you work on a reason upload a shot again and it gets rejected for another thing that wasn't mentioned before (as this is really demotivating and not fair). So if a shot gets rejected we might add something that wouldn't be enough for a standalone rejection but that might be better to work on as well. So please don't take it as a prove how wrong screeners are if some reasons were removed, I mean if the appeal doesn't go through the first screener was somehow still right, as in your case.

The reason I mentioned the number of shots was because the screener alluded to the rarity of the Mig being the reason it was accepted and mine was not. There are 770 Romanian Airforce Mig 21 shots in the DB and only 440 Vietnam Airlines A350 shots. Julien, it would be naive to think that a handful of photographers don’t receive special treatment on this site. There are discussions about this on another website that you frequent. I would suggest that this photographer ( whose shots as a rule I find very interesting) has been asked to remove it, as was another of his recently, and he has refused or somebody with more authority than the Screeners/Head Screeners has told them to let the issue go.

johnr wrote:

, it would be naive to think that a handful of photographers don’t receive special treatment on this site. .

I've been a screener since 2015 and unless I've been living under a rock, I have seen no evidence that certain photographers receive preferential treatment. Also I don't see how that would benefit the site or any particular screener. Admittedly there are some photographers that upload images in abundance which explains why the absolute number of images accepted for a certain photographer may be higher. Also as has been discussed on other threads, the use of social media facilitates front page billing; some photographers use that to their advantage. The fact that poor quality images get accepted and acceptable quality images get rejected is to be expected since we screeners are subject to errors in judgement. In the former case, special circumstances also play a role in acceptance. The appeal process continues to be a way for photographers to request a final review.

I am aware of the perception out there that there is heavy favoritism in the screening process. From my experience I am not seeing it.

Jehan

I think you can see the actual results. Some photogs (and screeners) upload actual garbage that gets accepted. The average shooter, lets use me as an example; I would never have such images accepted (I would also never even upload such shots, but that is a different story). I personally see rejections for very small flaws, some which I successfully appeal. But if you compare my rejected shot to the same accepted shot it is obvious they aren't being screened the same.

If you would like examples, just ask. I'm not posting to embarrass anyone, but actions (some getting garbage accepted, others seeing perceived flaws as a reason to reject) speak louder than words (everyone is treated the same). I really don't have a problem if some are treated different than others, that is the world we live in. But please, don't tell me such behaviour doesn't exist.

*edit for typo

johnr wrote:

My appeal for blurry and four ( 4 ) other rejection reasons was turned down, but reduced to just blurry and quality, with the personal message that it was obviously blurry and not a rare airframe in the DB. That’s fine.

Why don't you post the shot? Then we can all have a look.

johnr wrote:

My question now is how many shots does it take for an aircraft to be deemed not rare?

If I recall correctly, when I was a screener, ballpark was less than 5 shots for an aircraft to be considered rare.

For what it's worth, I agree on that MiG shot - don't know why it hasn't been removed.

Rare in my book means a very small amount of photos in the DB, usually combined with several years between the current and last upload of that aircraft.

Re: MiG-21:
No-one has told us to let it go and I’m still very much on top of that. Unfortunately the photographer has put us between a rock and a hard place, which is why I’d like a full set of HS & Paul’s opinion. If that weren’t the case, the photo would’ve been long gone already. Not everyone has responded already. I really don’t want to get into more detail than that, so you’ll just have to trust me on this. So while you may not see any progress, don’t confuse that with no progress at all.

But then again, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant and/or unfounded speculation.