Deliberate Duplicate Photos

mcmtanyel

I have uploaded the same picture twice: 758764.jpg and 758765.jpg because there are two distinct, identifiable planes (N439AW and N200UU) in it. I do not think there is a way to associate one picture with two different planes, so please do not delete either one of them.

FloridaMetal

Is that from that spotters park at CLT? I saw that from my plane when I was flying through, it looked nice. I also seen youtube video of the crazy singing lady that goes there when Lufthansa lands like she is doing some weird chant.

Probably what you should have done was make copies of both pictures and edited one to focus on the 757 and edited the other to focus on the CRJ - however it was also cool to get all 3 planes in at once - probably could have put the one with all 3 as an airport overview shot, so you could have made 3 pictures out of one.

MalcolmClarke

The uploading of an image to the database twice in two different profiles is quite acceptable if each aircraft is clearly shown in it's entirety. It would not be acceptable if one is partly hidden behind the other or if only a part of one of the airframes is visible.

Daniel's comment "probably could have put the one with all 3 as an airport overview shot" is not valid. This is clearly not an image illustrating any features of this particular airport.

Malcolm.

Admin.

FloridaMetal

I tend to disagree but not really going to encourage it if he already has the other two pictures for planes. Had he not posted the individual aircraft it could be an airport view shot to show how busy Charlotte is with US Airways planes by showing 3 planes I am assumming taxiing to take off - I am assuming this was shot from the overlook/spotting area because you can see Downtown Charlotte in the background and there are dual taxiways there I believe. You also see some hangars in the background, which qualify it as an airport shot.

However - if you already have the 2 planes individually, then I wouldnt encourage the 3rd - but it could qualify as an airport shot.

MalcolmClarke

Daniel.

Your response is not helpful.

On the one hand you say that "... not really going to encourage ...." and then you go on to try to make a case for the acceptability of this particular image in the airport section.

To follow your logic, a very large number of images of aircraft taken at airports would also qualify for inclusion in the airport section on the basis of the background detail. That is nonsense.

The site clearly has two sections, one for aircraft and one for airports and unless there is an exceptional reason, an image will not be permitted to appear in both.

I feel that there is no need for any further discussion on this subject.

Malcolm

Admin.

FloridaMetal

Just one more thing before it gets out of hand.

I have a shot on here of ATL that I took from their Concourse E (International) operations center (tower) that overlooks all of the gates of Concourse E. You can see several planes individually. I just made it an airport overview and put it in the airport section.

However one could see at least 6 out of the 12 or so aircraft where you could get a complete body of the plane and edit it in a way to make six seperate pictures of 6 different planes - that is cheating in my opinion but I don't see that as illegal. I don't think the quality of the shot if divided into 6 different pictures would have been good because at that time I was using a cheap digital camera that was only 4 megapixel I believe and that would have stretched out the pixels where it probably would have blurred the planes somewhat.

I chose to just make it an airport shot

GlennE.Chatfield

I have to agree with Malcolm on this one. If that shot doesn't show anything of the airport other than the pavement on which the planes sit, it should not be used as an airport photo.

Ztex

Well...Not really trying to be argumentative..but....

If you guys are going down this road of policing the airport photos you will be very busy.....

Just let me know how many of mine you will be deleting...

http://www.airport-data.com/photographers/Zane+Adams/Airports-Active.html

http://www.airport-data.com/photographers/Zane+Adams/Airports-Military.html

And make sure you tell everyone else....

http://www.airport-data.com/airport/random_photos.html

And do fire trucks, baggage carts and trash cans count?

: :

GlennE.Chatfield

Yep, there's many of mine which could go the way of the basket also.

The context of my statement was about the one photo being discussed. With two planes, a profile for each would be appropriate, but a third posting for the airport is what I don't see as proper.

FloridaMetal

Well what I meant was but didn't write correctly that you could either do a profile for either plane OR profile for the airport. I think the CLT overall picture is just as legit as Malcolm Clarks Alitalia DC-9 at Heathrow as an airport shot, where the focus is on the plane not the airport. To be fair though I could not see the tail number of the Alitalia and some of my old photos from the same era I put them as airport shots but I have been finding the tail numbers for them lately by looking for other clues and I might be able to identify that Alitalia DC-9 so he can put it as an aircraft shot.

MalcolmClarke

Ztex.

I find your remarks deeply upsetting not just for my sake but for the other members of the Admin team who have worked hard for all who have an interest in the site.

The photo of mine you choose for some reason to illustrate your strange message is a fairly old and unusual image of a DC-9 being prepared to be towed to stand. There is a wide and distant view across the airport including a Tristar in the distance.

However, since you seem to be so upset by its inclusion in the database, I have deleted it.

Malcolm.

Ztex

My remarks are not meant to be upsetting any more than other remarks in this thread have meant to be. I think that just about any shots placed in the airport section are viable and add to the overall depth of the site.

The only exception that I think would need correcting would be an obvious addition of an aircraft that should be in the aircraft section...I have seen photos in the Airport section of an aircraft with a valid/current registration clearly visible...and the photographer seemingly just threw it in the airport section to be done with it.

There is no reason to remove a photo because I pointed it out. I only did that to illustrate a point....there were absolutes being thrown down by people about what photo should be where and those same people were "guilty" of the same behavior....Just illustrating the absurd with the absurd.

Not strange at all....not "upset"

My comments also have zero to do with the hard work done by the moderator staff to this point. There have been several corrections to my additions to the site, and they are much appreciated in the fact that they add to the accuracy of the site.

One of the attraction to this site from the beginning has been the freedom with which we are able to add photos to the collection. I have been a champion of the site since arriving here in 2007. The freewheeling nature of the site leads to it's own set of troubles, some of our photography is not the best, some of our data is wrong or incomplete and some of our photos may be in the wrong category. (we are limited to two).

But Ken has done a great service to the collecting of aero photos. I applaud him and all the mods for that.

We need to figure out what type of site we want...the freewheeling thing that Ken set up or the over structured thing of Airliners dot net?

my 2 cents worth of course.

Zane

Bluedharma

We need to figure out what type of site we want...the freewheeling thing that Ken set up or the over structured thing of Airliners dot net?

Zane

Very good point Ztex. I agree, "One of the attraction to this site from the beginning has been the freedom with which we are able to add photos to the collection. "

Ken Wang

It's never my intention to become another airliners.net. This site distinguish itself from others by being self regulated and loose moderated. I want to keep it that way.

Ken

FloridaMetal

Malcolm

I'm in the opinion that the Alitalia DC-9 should not be deleted from the airport section but see if we can find a registration for it which I was going to try to do for you. I love the Pan Am L1011 in the background too.

My point was that Mcmtanyel could have made his picture into an airport shot (if he didn't choose the 2 airliners) because you are seeing some airport buildings too as well as the nice skyline of Charlotte in the background. His photo was taken from the viewing area at CLT (I only been thru there once and I know where that shot is). He is also showing how busy CLT is by showing the 3 planes on seperate taxiways lined up and you know there are probably another 10 planes lined up not shown in the picture as there was quite a line for that runway as I was going through there. I took some pictures but their quality is bleh because it was taken out of a dirty airplane window. I think the CLT picture is just as legit for airport picture as the LHR picture.

I don't want us becoming another airliners.net. I don't feel like spending 6 hours in photoshop. Airliners.net mods are a bunch of noobs that only know digital photography and make you lighten an aircraft so much that the sky is that unnatural cyan color. Jetphotos.net has gotten worse than airliners.net as of recently. I have a friend who has his pictures accepted on airliners.net but rejected on jetphotos.

ChrisHall

I have been watching this thread with interest to see how it unfolds. Everyone has made valid points as to whether a photo should appear in the aircraft or airport section.

My interpretation of a photo within the airport section which has an aircraft in the image depends on what is added in the description box and what story it tells to the person viewing the image.

Here are two of my images in the airport section taken from exactly the same location.

http://www.airport-data.com/airport/photo/027645.html

http://www.airport-data.com/airport/photo/017669.html

In both images, the reg number's of the aircraft closest to the camera is clearly visible, but the description helps to explain the images.

When I monitor images uploaded to the airport section, the description is just as important to me as the image. But, if I see a photo of an easily identifiable aircraft with no reason within the description to include it in the airport section, then I will move it to the aircraft section.

I agree with Daniel who said "you could either do a profile for either plane OR profile for the airport." but not both.

I again agree with Zane "One of the attraction to this site from the beginning has been the freedom with which we are able to add photos to the collection."

What other site allows you to organise your images into folders and files that you choose?

I don't want to see this site go down the road of Airliners.net or other site's that have screener's and have some other person decide what should and should not be uploaded. Lets be realistic here, 90% of the images on this site would not get accepted onto some of the aviation sites who have screener's. To me, the content of an image can sometimes be more important than the quality.

I have recently had problem's with a site where I have several thousand images uploaded were some of my images were rejected for too close cropping, only to see a screener's image accepted with similar cropping.

The only person who should decide what is uploaded here is the photographer, with the exception of duplicates and "card dumping" those people can use flickr for that. Both subjects have been well discussed here and the majority of contributors accept this and are self moderating.

Lets keep the opinions and suggestions coming in a civilised manner so we can all work together to continue to help this site improve and grow.

regards

Chris

Admin team

FloridaMetal

Chris - I got a buddy who has over 100 photos on airliners.net but still gets rejections sometimes for the stupidist reasons. One of the times he got a rejection that said "motive" and that was it - the picture was perfectly fine as he was showing the United 737 special paint Eco Skies with a Frontier aircraft in the background - lighting perfect, sharpness perfect, centered etc. There is a lot of favoritism on some of these sites - I have had mine rejected there because I pissed a few people off in the past, then they will accept their buddies who have shots that are unnatural color, too dark and I have seen the crooked horizon accepted there. After I had a shot rejected in 2006, where the only reason they could reject it was they used special filters and found a dust spot that could not be seen with a naked eye - I stopped attempting there 2006, never tried again. Then I discovered this place and put most of my attention here.

Those Manchester shots could go either way as you say. You could have done just the First Choice reg but I do like the line up of Monarchs so in that case the airport shot is better. I probably would have done 2 seperate shots - zoomed in on First choice to just get that and make it an aircraft shot. The put a wide angle lens on and got the line up of planes and made an airport shot out of it.

FloridaMetal

Cool someone from St. Pete Beach, my weekend hangout.

ChrisHall

Cool someone from St. Pete Beach, my weekend hangout.

If you meet him, tell him to stop spamming the forum :