Valid Case for Duplicate Photos

I think that's a valid exception. Cross referencing multiple aircraft on a single photo is not yet available.

Ken

I'd say that using the same photo for two different postings is just fine - I've done that with some (although I crop to more center the one highlighted).

I think the issue is something I am sort of guilty of. E.g., I took a string of great shots of Air Force One on final approach and they were all good so I posted all of them - 10 shots very similar. So now there are only four spaced apart.

Most of the shots I've posted like that are air show stuff, with the same plane in various positions. That's what I've seen with many others who post shots at those kind of shows. So I'm cleaning mine up - and I've gotten rid of 130 so far. (Shucks, and I was only 9 shy of 10,000)

Some others I had similar were old 35mm shots taken at the Air Force Museum. I had kept them posted to show how they used to be displayed, but the shots were virtually identical, although years apart. So I have just kept the new digital stuff.

I do think it is a good idea to cull the identical or virtually identical stuff.

Looking through my stuff is going to be a pain in the @$$ for duplicate or similar shots.

I tried checking some of the common warbird plane shots that I have probably 30-40 of that plane at different locations. I didn't see any identical or that close to identical. A couple borderline to close though.

However if I get a particular P-51 at Sun N Fun and I get it at Titusville in a similar or same shot due to both locations having similar lighting conditions (Facing north) does that count?

One of the problems I will probably run across is getting the same plane on different days from the same location. I can pretty much guarantee I have some Southwest shots of a particular 737 I got on approach to MCO from my location and may have gotten it again a month before from the same location. That is going to be possible with maybe different lighting conditions for Southwest 737s at MCO or TPA - where SWA dominates, or Air Tran and Jet Blue planes at MCO. I might even have similar Virgin 747s at MCO due to only certian 747s being used out of LGW and MAN to MCO. While at MIA I might have similar American 737/757 shots that I took from El Dorado location.

However I am cross referencing everything I post now to see if I don't already have it - especially Southwest planes at MCO (unless I know I don't have it like Florida One that keeps avoiding me)

What exactly are the new rules for this?

I understand 15 shots of a common plane in one setting is really annoying - ie a regular Cessna 172, Southwest 737 etc.

I guess the announcement was too vague -

If I have the same shot of a Southwest 737 from MCO in similar lighting conditions that I took a year before but got it again a year later and posted it - is this going to count?

Or if I get a particular P-51 at one airshow with a similar pose and light at another airshow is this going to count?

Glenn Chatfield was telling me he was deleting some pictures he took at the US Air Force Museum that were similar - however one he took 10 years ago that he got from his slides, while he kept his more recent digital ones while he deleted the old slide shots.

Typically now in one setting - I like to post an approach shot from 45 degrees and a side shot for the more common types. For widebodies or more rare types I might get 4 different shots. For example if I am shooting at MIA and you are familiar with the El Dorado spotting location I get the LAN Cargo 777F come in - I will probably get an almost head on shot (if good quality), a 45 degree shot, a close to as possible side shot (to big of a plane to fit in my 70-300 lens from side) and the 4th shot from behind with MIA tower or Cargo City in the background.

Similar shots from different location or different photographer or different time do not count.

We are try to stop the memory card dumping action, same photographer, same location, same aircraft, over and over, with very little difference in between.

Ken

I like to post an approach shot from 45 degrees and a side shot for the more common types. For widebodies or more rare types I might get 4 different shots. For example if I am shooting at MIA and you are familiar with the El Dorado spotting location I get the LAN Cargo 777F come in - I will probably get an almost head on shot (if good quality), a 45 degree shot, a close to as possible side shot (to big of a plane to fit in my 70-300 lens from side) and the 4th shot from behind with MIA tower or Cargo City in the background.

This is acceptable. But if you take 2 head-on shots, 2 45-degree shots (we know today's cameras are very fast, memory cards are huge, so clicking away is very easy), and upload them all, it is not acceptable.

Ken

Ok good, that clears it up because I did avoid posting some SWA 737 shots I had with the same N number from same location, just different day - but I'm not going to go back and post them now just because I am sick of posting SWA 737s myself - MCO is a busy but boring airport.

I understand the issue with memory card dumping. I don't believe I ever did anything like that even with something really rare, but I might have come close back when I started here.

I know I was careful when I was posting Thunder Over Michigan 2010 shots when I had 8 B-17s and a B-24 to shoot and they each made about 8 passes that I only took a couple of the best of each and posted - maybe a couple shots of the pass at various angles and a couple landng shots.

The only time I might get similar angles of a plane on take off or landing depends on the background - if its in front of a really cool landmark or some cool planes in the background etc.

Or you can do what I've just done and delete all of your photos from this Web site. When a previously "fun" Web site goes "corporate" all of a sudden and establishes a bunch of rules, then it is no longer "fun" anymore.

Fortunately, there are other aviation Web sites like Flightaware that allow the uploading of photos, so I don't have to give up my hobby.

I shall be logging out now. I shan't return.

When a previously "fun" Web site goes "corporate" all of a sudden and establishes a bunch of rules, then it is no longer "fun" anymore.

Hi David

I cannot see how you can justify this statement?

a bunch of rules have not been suddenly added as you claim. I have been uploading images to this site for many years and the rules have always been the same.

Before you upload, here're a few simple rules

1. Please use JPG format only.

2. Please fill all mandatory fields.

3. You must be authorized to submit the photo.

DO NOT copy any photo from other sites, it will be deleted without further notice.

4. Uploads should be at least 800x600 in size but not to exceed 3200x2400 pixels.

5. The filesize must not exceed 4MB.

6. Quality, light, esthetic and realism are important criteria, like in real photography.

7. Do not send the same or similar shots all over again.

8. A copyright notice will always be shown with the photo.

9. All photos subject to screening & approval.

10. By submit the photo, you grant Airport-Data.com and it's affiliate websites rights to reproduce and publish your photo.

11. Affiliate sites means sites owned and managed by same company and staff as Airport-Data.com. This does NOT include any third party sites owned by other person or business.

12. We will NOT sell any copyrighted picture in any way.

As the site has become more popular and grown very quickly, it became clear to Ken that he need some help with keeping the database updated and help with identifying the ten's of thousands of images that had been uploaded without any profiles or ID's.

Ken made a request in the forum's which any member could reply to offering help. With over 1700 member's who have added images to this site, it appears only a small handful were prepared to help out and 3 were added to the Admin Team.

Myself, Malcolm and Walt do this in our spare time and for free, and we do so for one reason only. That is to make this a better site for your aviation images. I don't know of any other aviation site that offers you before it appears on the site, then groups your image with images of the same aircraft from other photographers, but you can correct me if I am wrong.

True, the database still has many errors and gaps, but that is the main thing that the admin team are working on along with the help of several members who regularly post data corrections in the forum. By pooling all our knowledge and experience we hope to make this the best aviation site on the internet. Look at how successful the UNKNOWN thread has become in identifying previously unidentified images.

A worrying trend in recent months have seen a large number of duplicate or very similar shot's appearing from individual photographer's,

But rule no.7 has always been there "Do not send the same or similar shots all over again."

This recent trend lead to the message board notification.

Duplicate or identical photos

Recently we have noticed a very disturbing trend: more and more members uploading similar even almost-identical shots to the website. While we still proud ourselves as a no-screening, free uploading site, duplicated shots from same photographer adds no value to the site. Please refrain yourself from doing so.

So we have to emphasize our uploading policy again:

All uploaded photos are subject to screening by our admin team. We reserve the rights to delete any photo in our sole discretion.

Any duplicated or almost-identical shots from the same photographer will be deleted without notice.

Occasionally we will move photos between airport and aircraft section.

Please go through your gallery, check for duplicated or almost-identical shots and delete them. Your help is greatly appreciated.

Let's work together to make this site a better place for our hobby.

As far as I am aware, the majority of members seem to be happy to adhere to this simple rule and are reviewing their own galleries.

In recent weeks, I have also noticed a lot of new members coming to this site and adding their images, many of whom I recognise from various aviation forums and photo sites. Hopefully by continuing to improve the site we will continue to attract more new members.

regards

Chris

Well-said Chris. I love this site.

I see two main problems with photos beside the similar/duplicate shots:

1. Shots taken so far away as to not have much value.

2. UNKNOWNS which don't have any particular interest value (or at least in my very subjective opinion).

Much kudos to the admin team keeping up with all this stuff. I will continue looking at unknowns for those I can ID, as well as try to correct things I come across. I know most people aren't all that knowledgeable about aircraft, but if more of us who are get more involved in providing information for fixing IDs, etc, it would really help out the admin guys.

I felt I had to make this thread because I received a notice at sign on about having duplicate photos and I was all

That was a message sent to ALL members through the new Member Message Board because not all the members read the forums

I agree with Glenn Chatfield. I often use the rapid burst mode of my camera and get a number of shots like the frames on an old 8 mm movie camera. But I only upload the best frame from any sequence, and I make every effort to improve it in post-processing.

The first edit is to correct any unlevel shot, then crop unwanted background so the aircraft fills the frame. Then I adjust sharpness, lighting and contrast, before resizing to upload size, usually 1024x768 pixels.

I don't see much point in uploading a shot of an overfly when the plane looks like a mosquito in the middle of the screen. And I get tired of seeing hundreds of photos of B737's or A320's against a blue sky. I have taken a dozen or so just to have some in my portfolio, but I won't keep photographing them. I guess I'm a photographer, not a spotter, so it does not interest me which airframe is operating what flight - but that's just me. To each his own.

Regards,

Peter.

I have a lot of similar, but not identical or duplicated aircraft photos for two different reasons the Admin Team may not have been aware of. I consider these photos valid for this site in two regularly occurring circumstances.

First, SZP (as does many other airports) offers free Young Eagles flights using mainly the four same aircraft, two Navions, a Cheetah and a Champion. The kids love to get photos of the aircraft flight they have had their first aircraft ride in. If their parents take a photo, it is on the runway's boarding side and they shoot into the sun frequently, while I am usually across the runway taking photos of the boarding, taxi, holding short, taking the active, takeoff roll, on final and landing roll. These sequences tell a small story. On occasion, I have been asked to ride along to get in-flight Young Eagles shots. As a pilot over 45 years, I consider the nationwide YE Program extremely important in fostering aviation and a possible career path for these kids.

Second, SZP offers a heavy, daily schedule of flight training using primarily the same C150s and high-wing Bellancas, with a couple of C172s also. Students vary on a daily basis and I take a lot of these training flight photos on final and near touchdown, many in crosswind correction conditions. These flights are either dual instruction or solo, and often of the first solo. The students are most grateful for these shots that are dated and the metadata time of shots establishes exactly who was flying what and when. I get requests for these photos as they see me shooting and inquire. The shots help them document and critique their flying skills. I have had many conversations with students about the photos and their requests for them. I have hobby cards that have the A-D site address on them which makes it easy for their requests. I don't sell my photos, but respond to legitimate requests, media or otherwise.

So...does this example fall into the acceptable category? If not I will go through my stuff and see what else there is....And there'll be no whining about it from me. : :

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N234TK.html

So...does this example fall into the acceptable category? If not I will go through my stuff and see what else there is....And there'll be no whining about it from me. : :

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N234TK.html

Personally I think it does not, though I won't call it excessive either. We have seen 4 or 5 sequential shots, that made us worried.

Thanks for understanding.

Ken

I only see 2 shots of the Beech, did you have more than 2 then delete a bunch of others because I post 2 shots of most aircraft for an approach and a side view, and maybe 3 shots for an approach, side and 45 degree rear view of something a little more unusual.

I agree with Glenn about somewhat increasing the quality of shots on here too - I don't mean become like that big wellknown aviation site where they reject everything that isn't over photoshop processed but like Glen said - something that is too distant to recognize and left with people just putting as "Unknown", really grainy shots taken with digital cameras (I am sure I have a few that I took with my old point and shoot on here), or really bad photo decapitations:

Not where you are intending on getting the front section of an aircraft or a certain part of the aircraft but it is well centered and looked like you intended on just getting that part of the aircraft - ie like a 747 on approach getting the hump and the engines of the plane up close - that is not a decapitation...

What I am refering to as a decapitation is where a person chopped off a section of the plane but there is a lot of background showing with the plane not centered - ie a plane landing and missing the front 1/4 but the other side of the picture is showing all sky with plane poorly centered.

I have a few like that I took with a film camera and scanned on here. With a film camera it was easy to do decapitations because you didn't know what you had until you developed the picture - but with most people using digital cameras and software that allows you to center a picture now.

I guess it would be a gray area. I think common sense would apply depending on the age and rarity of the shot I mean if it was someone who took a film picture of a rarely shot British bomber from the 1960s or 70s where the photo was decapitated or someone who has a flying B-58 from 1968 by film that was decapitated - keep the shot because you are considering in 1968 all cameras were film, not the greatest quality cameras and you probably wouldn't see that plane in anyone elses's shot.

What I am refering to are pictures taken in the last 5-10 years of a common Cessna 172, Southwest 737 or other aircraft that probably have 50 pictures for that registration taken by a digital camera that are decapitated that we should consider removing.

Daniel,

Just the two shots. I have tried to keep from posting too many like this. I will admit that I have from time to time. Reasoning? The first shot is a nice 3/4 front shot, the second has a nice profile with the whole registration number visible.

I will try to go through my stuff and see what I can remove that are egregious.