Many of us have also invested much time towards this site and seeing it trivialized by the inclusion of such images is what I find offensive.

The SXM shots have come to be accepted, from my point of view, because they show an iconic spotting location where aircraft on approach get closer to spotters/viewers than virtually any other airport in the world. For that reason, the motive of showing the people in the foreground does something.

Similarly, there are photos of spotting locations that show the photographers and their proximity to the "action" - these also have a motive for showing the people and the aircraft, in my humble opinion.

Andrei's images:
- The C-17 would have been better to me to have the scene clear, it is an airshow and there's nothing particularly motivating about having someone blocking your shot. On the other hand, it does show a spotter in action so could be argued to be similar to the SXM and spotting location shots.
- The P-40 doesn't seem to be particularly motivated in my view, not like he's marshalling the aircraft in or hand cranking the prop.
- The P-39 seems an awkward crop to include the photog, and you mention there were other rejection reasons.

Fortunately, a lot of photography is subjective, so no one will ever agree 100% what is right and what is wrong for some of these issues.

Regarding the comments by derekf, all I can say is that there are many who give feedback both positive and negative. At some point there must be some redeeming quality of the site or it's crew to comment on in a positive light. Those that harbour an overwhelmingly negative view are far in the majority, fortunately.

In terms of contributions, I acknowledge that without the photographers and content, this site would not exist. With almost 4,000 images now on the database, I can say that I thought I was putting time into the site as a photographer, but when I started screening it was a completely different level of time commitment. Would it hurt to acknowledge Royal's time contributions in your response stating how much everyone else contributes? That would be, nice. Positive even.

Pete

Quoting alevik (Reply 12): Those that harbour an overwhelmingly negative view are far in the majority, fortunately.

Wait, what? Think you meant minority.  

Regarding Andrei's photos, I think the C-17 shot is fine, and I'm a bit surprised it was rejected. The other two don't really do anything for me, regarding the inclusion of a photographer.

Quoting derekf (Reply 11): Many of us have also invested much time towards this site and seeing it trivialized by the inclusion of such images is what I find offensive.

I don't think anyone is out to trivialize your or anyone else's contributions to the database. But I think we've had this argument before.  

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 7): The C17 shot is lazy and the photog adds nothing to the shot. Better to wait for the scene to be clear.

You are missing the point, Royal. The photographer there is part of the motive. I wanted for the photographer to be in the picture and I waited for him to step in. I have another photo without the photographer but I chose not to upload it.

Therefore the shot is anything but lazy. You don't like it because it doesn't fit the A.net format - well, it is just an opinon and I can live with it. The A.net considers the motive unacceptable - so be it, I'll use it elsewhere.

You're right Vik - I meant minority.

Quoting alevik (Reply 12): On the other hand, it does show a spotter in action so could be argued to be similar to the SXM and spotting location shots.

Thanks for the detailed reply, Pete. The point of the C-17 and the P-40 shots was exactly that - to show a spotter in action, and frankly speaking, I thought the motive would be welcomed on A.net. Now I know otherwise.

As for the P-39, I only brought it up, because the photographer was mentioned in the screener's comment. It wasn't the main reason for rejection.

Quoting derekf (Reply 5): Many of us struggle to get photos accepted because the slightest variation blurry/grain/sharpness. Then something like this appears with a blurry aircraft that isn't even the main subject of the photos then it becomes less of a database but more like a desire to get the biggest hitting photos - regardless of merit.

I thought most here were aware of that and shot with that motive in mind. The old days of this strictly being a database are loooong gone. The result is that there are some nice artsy images here now, but that has opened the door to a slew of shots that seem ill-suited to aviation photography.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 9): Making a comment such as "makes a mockery of the whole database" is ridiculous. That's not contrarian, it's pathetic. Nothing but a cheap attempt to stir up trouble. As somone who donates a large chunk of their free time to makes this place what it is, I take offense to such statements.

As much as you may believe that, he makes a valid point. The a/c is blurry, and the photo's inclusion calls into question just what the purpose of the site is(about which there has been much conjecture). I would think that a member with over 2k photos on this site is not commenting merely to stir up trouble, and that as a screener, you would be prepared to encounter opinions contrary to your own without resorting to calling the behavior pathetic and feeling offended by it.

Flashback to 2004.

Rule Change: Half-naked Woman (by Administrator Dec 10 2004 in Aviation Photography)?threadid=160540&searchid=160540&s=00153016#ID160540


sidenote: I am still miffed that my photo did not get in back in 2004 but on the bright side,it is really popular on Myaviation! !  
MyAviation.net photo:

Photo © Suresh A. Atapattu

I wonder if these photos would be acceptable here nowadays:

MyAviation.net photo: Photo © Andrei Bezmylov

MyAviation.net photo: Photo © Andrei Bezmylov

MyAviation.net photo:

Photo © Andrei Bezmylov

They are not half-naked, and they are hot just hot babes - they are crew members  

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 20): They are not half-naked, and they are hot just hot babes - they are crew members

Lol..but i think i would reject them for being crew on a B-1B ( speaking as a biased B-52 guy)  

The aircraft is blurry, soft and oversharpened. As such, if this was shot anywhere else it would be rejected without a doubt. The only feature that got this accepted was the cynical use of a possibly underaged female showing her shapely backside. It has been said by crew here that people on the beach is a feature of these SXM shots.......I could accept that if it wasn't for the fact that virtually ALL beach shots from SXM feature young, sexy females and are essentially doing nothing more than hit seeking by doing so. You can move further up the beach closer to the road and get a much more balanced wide angle shot of the aircraft which is what I always thought that this site was all about.

[Edited 2014-03-04 10:53:52]

I think the shot is very well done and honestly, it's the type of shot I would seek if I ever get to SXM. And I don't mean that to be perverted...to me this shot offers a glimpse of what it's like to stand on that beach.

Not everything is tit for tat. Get over it.

All spotters who share photos from that wonderful beach please continue to share and continue to hit seeking   You got my vote!
Personally I will never tired of looking at SM photos no matter if they have female in frame or don't.
I appreciate everyone of you who travelled many miles to get to SM, waited for aircraft, had an idea in mind and finally shared his work. Assume it is not an easy journey and deserves hits and hit seeking if you call it this way.

Brgds, Yerbol

Well, the shot is in the Photographer's Choice Photos. Thus, I suppose, the photographers have spoken.

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 24): Well, the shot is in the Photographer's Choice Photos. Thus, I suppose, the photographers have spoken.

I wouldn't put much weight into that given the previous PC winner.  

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 25): I wouldn't put much weight into that given the previous PC winner.

Maybe, but still - it is only photographers who are allowed to vote.

People want to see those shots, it is logical that the site caters for those wishes.

Last I looked this was called airliners.net not beach_babes.net or whatever and judging by the comments underneath the photo, I would suggest that there are many other more appropriate websites if you want to leer at women in bikinis. Presumably the rule as mentioned in the link in Post 18 is no longer applicable.

There have always been controversial photos added to the database, this week's PC is testament to that, but this one clearly contravenes the rules as stated above (unless of course these have been changed).
We are not allowed to include comments that are clearly designed with the intention of generating hits. Why is this any different?

So if that image was exactly the same but in place of a nice looking female body it was a pasty fat dude it'd still have been accepted? Not a chance.

Quoting derekf (Reply 28): Last I looked this was called airliners.net not beach_babes.net

It's also not....

canyons.net:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Jim Raeder


clouds.net:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Oleg V. Belyakov - AirTeamImages


city-lights.net:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Dan Vincent - New England Airports


volcanoes.net:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Sigurdur Stein Matthiasson


northern-lights.net:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Tom Collins


ships.net:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Andrew Hunt


mountains.net:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Jens Mattner


I didn't add a single one of those photos to my "Landscapes" album due to the aircraft in the frame. Every single one of them has something non-aircraft-related that caught my eye, and turned the photo from "just another airplane" into "wow, this is really cool".

Quoting derekf (Reply 28): There have always been controversial photos added to the database, this week's PC is testament to that

Why is that photo controversial? It's certainly not setting a new precedent for accepting airplane lavatory area photos...

Vik - you make an interesting point above. I don't have a problem with any of the photos that you have used as illustrations, but the reality is that they have nothing at all to do with an aviation 'database'. They have a justifiable place in an 'aviation photography' site. But essentially they are examples of landscape photography. As has often been said of such 'landscape photography' acceptable on A.net - the view out of the window needs to be appealing/striking, or else it will be rejected. A bland sky with a bit of wing in it, irrespective of whether it is perfectly sharpened, with ideal contrast, won't cut the mustard. So it is the 'quality' of the non-aircraft subject that is key.

I am going to resist making a value judgement at this point about Timo's photo just now. I accept the argument that the people on the beach and their reactions to a low flying aircraft at SXM can be seen to be part of the motive. The 'bottom' line (excuse the pun) is that this photo has been so popular specifically because of the young woman's (possibly teenage) body prominently placed in shot. Is Alex right - would a 'pasty fat dude' (thanks - that made me laugh!) in her position have made any difference? The question is whether A.net believes it is appropriate to essentially generate revenue (which is what hosting photos here is all about) as a direct consequence of a young female body. I would be fascinated to know whether she is aware that a significant proportion of the (now) 45,000 internet views relate directly to her backside, which has become the subject of lewd comments posted with the photo.

I realise this is getting uncomfortably close to a discussion on sexual politics once again (as in the thread previously linked a few years ago) - but essentially this is what we are talking about here.

Cheers.

Paul

If you can't see that there is a difference between nice airborne shots and a beach shot such as the one in question then I'm afraid I can't say any more.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 30): Quoting derekf (Reply 28): There have always been controversial photos added to the database, this week's PC is testament to that Why is that photo controversial? It's certainly not setting a new precedent for accepting airplane lavatory area photos...

It's a joke and makes a.net a laughing stock. The bucket was probably worse though.....

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 29): So if that image was exactly the same but in place of a nice looking female body it was a pasty fat dude it'd still have been accepted? Not a chance.

Exactly - it is a photo accepted for generating hits. Simple as that.

Quoting derekf (Reply 32): The bucket was probably worse though.....

The person who started the thread is actually the proud autor of the backet shot.

Quoting derekf (Reply 32): Exactly - it is a photo accepted for generating hits. Simple as that.

Hits keep the site going.

Why in the world are some saying this woman is possibly underage? What about the other woman on the right? Maybe Timo needs to check their ID's before taking a shot with a woman in it! I was there for 3 days last November and that is the SXM scene, I wish I could have pulled off a shot like that. Timo does an awesome job on his SXM shots. By the way some are talking on here, it sounds like the aircraft is a dot in the photo, sure seems very prominent in the frame to me.

From what I understand, topless women are also part of the SXM scene. Will they be next ? Why not, I mean they are bound to generate lots of hits and that's what matters isn't it?
As far as age is concerned, the photographer will know, he will have asked for her permission won't he?

Quoting Psych (Reply 31): but the reality is that they have nothing at all to do with an aviation 'database'. They have a justifiable place in an 'aviation photography' site.

Well I think that's the crux of the matter - in the old days, it was without question an illustrated database. Now this is maybe not so clear... so lots of grey areas.

As an aside, that was partly why I stopped uploading here - I was more interested in photography than recording aircraft. Indeed, as I get older, more and more I find it is context and human interest that make significant photos - by and large, these are the images that stand the test of time beyond the realm of hobbyists. Not that there is anything wrong with the illustrated database concept - just not my thing any more.

As to the picture in question ... I have no problem with it. It says more about the St Malo experience than many others. I do think the juvenile comments are out of order (does no one moderate these?). I think when we look at images we bring our own biases into the experience - these need to be put to one side when criticising an image.

While the photographer may well have been trying to garner hits, I can't see this picture is exploitive in any way - its akin to street photography ... this is what was seen.

Suresh's pic is arguably more exploitive in so far as it looks posed (not necessarily a bad thing), but presumably with consent. It is undoubtedly a more compelling image than thousands of other approach shots without a model, but not suited for the illustrated dtabase. (Incidentally, there is a problem with the left hand frame edge, so should have been rejected anyway!).

Ultimately, it appears that A.net is still an illustrated database with exceptions. Hence there will always be grey areas, and debate. The only solutions would be to eliminate all exceptions (which would be sad), change A.net to "aviation themed photography" which would doubtless upset the core membership, or just accept it is an imperfect world and find something more important to worry about.

Cheers,

Colin

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 35): Why in the world are some saying this woman is possibly underage?

Maybe I raise the question as someone who is the father of a teenage daughter, acutely aware of how men can behave around such young women.

"......just accept it is an imperfect world and find something more important to worry about.'

That's a fair comment Colin. I have to say it is nice to see a debate going on in the Forum - that's appealing in itself.


Paul

[Edited 2014-03-05 04:36:00]

Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 29): So if that image was exactly the same but in place of a nice looking female body it was a pasty fat dude it'd still have been accepted? Not a chance.

Quoting derekf (Reply 36): From what I understand, topless women are also part of the SXM scene. Will they be next ? Why not, I mean they are bound to generate lots of hits and that's what matters isn't it? As far as age is concerned, the photographer will know, he will have asked for her permission won't he?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong - I do not have time to search the database - but shots featuring both of the above at SXM have been accepted before. I know I saw a shot years ago featuring a topless woman.

I'll side with Royal on this one. The shot was accepted because it depicts a typical scene at SXM. That scene just happens to include bikini-clad women.

Quoting derekf (Reply 32): If you can't see that there is a difference between nice airborne shots and a beach shot such as the one in question then I'm afraid I can't say any more.

No, Vik makes a great point.

[Edited 2014-03-05 05:06:40]

Quoting derekf (Reply 28): Last I looked this was called airliners.net not beach_babes.net

Last I looked, this was called airliners.net, yet you have lots of fighter jet photos in your portfolio  

And your point? If you have one.

Quoting derekf (Reply 41): And your point? If you have one.

My point is if you're going to get into the semantics of the site name, Timo's shot has more relevance than many of your photos.

[Edited 2014-03-05 08:03:57]

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 30): Why is that photo controversial? It's certainly not setting a new precedent for accepting airplane lavatory area photos...

Except...when I uploaded a photo of the Ethiopian 787's lavatory in September of 2012, I was rejected and told:
"Whilst we may have accepted images of toilets on occasion in the past, we no longer accept images of onboard lavatories/rest rooms."

Really?. You know exactly what I mean. Airliners.net has included all aircraft for a while now. 12 years I think.

I'd rather people clicked on my photos because they found the aircraft subject interesting rather than any incidental object.
It is pretty obvious from the composition that the inclusion of the girl was deliberate rather just another part of the scene.

It's a shame that you've chosen to make it personal, when as Paul Markman said, the forum was getting a long overdue shot in the arm.

Quoting derekf (Reply 44): Really?. You know exactly what I mean. Airliners.net has included all aircraft for a while now. 12 years I think. I'd rather people clicked on my photos because they found the aircraft subject interesting rather than any incidental object. It is pretty obvious from the composition that the inclusion of the girl was deliberate rather just another part of the scene. It's a shame that you've chosen to make it personal, when as Paul Markman said, the forum was getting a long overdue shot in the arm.

How am I making it personal? I'm just using your logic against Timo's shot and applying it to you. Have you taken pics at SXM? Beach-goers are a natural piece of the scene, and even if you try to avoid them, chances are that someone will still walk into your shot at the last moment. It's not like you can just wait a minute for someone to move away from an aircraft, like at an airshow static display. Do you think all pictures at Maho Beach with a girl in a bikini should be rejected?

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 39): Someone correct me if I'm wrong - I do not have time to search the database - but shots featuring both of the above at SXM have been accepted before. I know I saw a shot years ago featuring a topless woman.

Because I had a few minutes

View Large View Medium Photo © Daniel Werner

View Large View Medium Photo © Mario Serrano

(second one was the first I could find, couldn't care too much)

Quoting derekf (Reply 32): Quoting baldwin471 (Reply 29): So if that image was exactly the same but in place of a nice looking female body it was a pasty fat dude it'd still have been accepted? Not a chance. Exactly - it is a photo accepted for generating hits. Simple as that.

Dudes (maybe not quite as prominent as the girl, but I don't have all day to peruse the DB looking for examples):

View Large View Medium Photo © Anthony Guerra - AirTeamImages

View Large View Medium Photo © Sam Chui

View Large View Medium Photo © Maxou

View Large View Medium Photo © Timo Breidenstein

View Large View Medium

Photo © Maxou

Quoting derekf (Reply 32): If you can't see that there is a difference between nice airborne shots and a beach shot such as the one in question then I'm afraid I can't say any more.

Nice airborne shots that don't feature an airplane very prominently? But OK, I'll play:

mountains.net:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Daniel T Jones


rainbows.net:


View Large View Medium

Photo © C.L. Weldy


moons.net:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Mark Garfinkel


sunsets.net:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Sampo Kiviniemi


northern-lights.net:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Jason Pineau Photography


volcanoes.net:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Eggert Norðdahl


Again, every shot has something non-aviation-related that made me click on it.

Quoting andrew50 (Reply 35): Why in the world are some saying this woman is possibly underage? What about the other woman on the right?

No idea - my only thought is that it adds to the argument to remove the photo. It's a silly thing to bring up, though. Last I checked, underage women are allowed to wear bikinis and go to beaches....

Quoting derekf (Reply 36): From what I understand, topless women are also part of the SXM scene. Will they be next ?

Have a look through SXM photos.

Quoting ckw (Reply 37): or just accept it is an imperfect world and find something more important to worry about.

      

Quoting planespot (Reply 43): Except...when I uploaded a photo of the Ethiopian 787's lavatory in September of 2012, I was rejected and told: "Whilst we may have accepted images of toilets on occasion in the past, we no longer accept images of onboard lavatories/rest rooms."

OK, fair enough, I'm not familiar with that rejection.

Quoting planespot (Reply 45): Beach-goers are a natural piece of the scene, and even if you try to avoid them, chances are that someone will still walk into your shot at the last moment.

Yes...but don't you find it at all odd that they mostly seem to be attractive, perfectly framed and exposed young ladies ? I have no problem with the female form but when it's blatantly used to generate hits then I have to question the motives of the photographer and also the site publishing them.
An interesting thought occurs. I don't know a lot about American and Dutch laws but I would stab a guess that the young lady in the picture concerned could possibly have a good case for a law suit against the photographer and a.net on the grounds of invasion of privacy ? It's going to happen one day.

Quoting brianw999 (Reply 48): Yes...but don't you find it at all odd that they mostly seem to be attractive, perfectly framed and exposed young ladies ? I have no problem with the female form but when it's blatantly used to generate hits then I have to question the motives of the photographer and also the site publishing them.

Umm, isn't that the idea when trying incorporate anything else in the frame with an aircraft? Framing is important and so is subject matter. That goes for EVERYTHING in photography.

I've taken shots that include something else that I hope catches interest and generates views. I've tried it with fireworks, for example. What's the difference?

I don't get the fuss. Seriously.