What a nice thread. A half-baked idea snowballs into cutthroat hypocrisy, and the only consensus appears to be the fact that one can't be reached.
I actually sent Johan an email regarding the 'badmotiv' rejection a photo of mine
received (only tiny version available). The gentleman posing with his aircraft does bear significance to the Concorde, and that should make all the difference. I'm biased, but also think it's safe to say there's not too much butt-cheek visible.
I believe the administration should heed to what Airliners.net has become, and revise, if not disregard what their initial intentions were however many years ago. The site and its photos have inevitably grown into an ENORMOUS aviation-empire, and having policies that reflect the ideas of one or a small group of individuals has been proven to be lethal.
Regardless of what one may think of blondes, brunettes, and redheads in bikinis, jumpsuits, or evening gowns, what the vast majority visit the site to see (and I'm straying slightly off course here) should be taken into account. Photos that make the most popular lists or have an enormous number of hits are an obvious sign that people like what they see, and want more of it. Why isn’t it apparent that this is not being recognized? Is it at all? I’m a hit junkie, absolutely, but use those numbers as a way of determining what I can do to push my own limits and please others in the process. It’s a win-win situation, at least for me. Until I get one of those rejections, of course.
I digress. Anyway…
Stevenson's shot topped off the first page of the all-time most popular shots here, taking 15th place (or so I read). If you (meant ambiguously) think just the 40-someodd photographers in this thread are all the people you need to convince of revisions to and new rules for the photo database, think of Chui's portrayal of juicy steaks and dental floss got the attention of more than 20,000 people in less than two days. There’s no way, as has already been proven on a minute scale, that this is going to be received with smiles and flowers. I’m interested in seeing how this is going to be broken to them without Johan getting superfluous emails.
Yes, people don’t (well…shouldn’t) DEPEND on these shots, but they are an integral breath of fresh air that is practical and relevant at the same time. ‘Practical’ and ‘relevant’ are definitely subjective adjectives but I’m not going to talk about that.
It's clear, yet debatable, that the subject of the VS
promo shot was a bit off target--and that helped with the overwhelming success of the shot--but (haha) it's conceivable, and actually true, that the same 20,000 people are on the verge of viewing G.P.K. Savit's shot of the same aircraft with much more of the aircraft in the frame. I admit that I was surprised at seeing Sam's shot uploaded, but didn't object. Nor did I object to Brian's or Derek's. And I sure as hell wasn't the only one.
How pertinent a subject is to aviation is definitely a major concept on the table here, at least for the Hooters and Virgin images. It's already been said, so I'm not drone on, but airline employees have every right to be pictured in their workplace, choreographed poses or not. Inaugural celebrations are also entitled a place on this website, Branson's unique style notwithstanding. And not just on an occasion or as a rarity. If need be, make a new section for the human element that has EVERYTHING to do with the site and what it’s intended to depict; reinstate the photos that were pulled and their respective hits; do whatever, Johan, but the worst thing you can do—and are doing—is nothing at all. It’s the least that can be done as a common courtesy to both employees and photographers (although it is just a half-baked idea). It’s more relevant to improving the site in general, but broadening the horizons for A.net so it has something new to look forward to in addition to the onslaught of takeoffs, touch downs, side ons that we see.
Correct me if I’m wrong (which I may very well be in the premature stages of this incident).
Tamsin, with all due respect and then some, your comments make no sense to me. The photo of Miss Europe 2003 is excessively redundant. We already know what the model looks like (she also seems to be quite a presence on the aircraft, or lack thereof, that's behind her). I've had photos rejected for a bit of an engine being cut off, but it seems if Gluteus Maximus does the job in covering up any photographic blemishes.
There is more detail in the woman's fingernail than there is on the plane. Cuticles are hardly relevant to this website, so that must mean it is perfectly appropriate for this thread.
It's extremely clear that the woman, although significant in her own right, bears no relation to the aviation industry or anything this website currently claims to be interested in. You see a more favorable difference in this photo when compared to those that have been pulled? Pray tell.
You also say that Johan is tidying up an area of uncertainty, where it seems as if he has done nothing more than create one. Sorry, but actually reading the thread does have its perks.
Okay folks. Happy Holidays!
(When addressing ‘Brian’, please specify ‘Futterman’ or ‘Stevenson’.)
[Edited 2004-12-10 22:54:37]