Someone just brought to my attention the following on a photo posted for A-7D 75-0400:

Once again the MILITARY SERIAL IS NOT THE DAMN C/N PEOPLE THE C/N IS D-450!!! LETS GET THESE THINGS RIGHT OR FORGET IT!! A shot of this taken the way it should be sun on and as close to side on as possible

A couple issues here, including an explanation. My primary photography with airplanes is Military. My civilian collection was just antiques and classics until shooting for aircraft recognition training. This particular aircraft profile was one I did early on and where the profile asked for "serial number," I put in the aircraft serial number. Now, what I later realized the profile was asking for is construction number or company serial number. Being military-minded I assumed the military serial went there. It wasn't until I had been posting for close to a year when I figured out that I should put in the C/N. Now, there have been some I have gone back and posted a correction, but I haven't reviewed all my postings to catch all of them.

Second issue, rather than make the complaints on his photo posting - which has nothing to do with the photo at all - all the poster needs to do is post a correction. I have posted many, many corrections to numerous profiles without ever making a complaint about the original profile errors.

Thirdly, I think it is bad form to use that photo description as a place to make those complaints.

Fourthly, the claim on that photo of what is the proper way to take the shot is a matter of opinion. To begin with, my shots were with my old 35mm and the shots were taken with a zoom lens because the Air Guard people at the time I took those shots wouldn't let me get close and I shot from in the street dodging cars! Those shots I posted are uncropped. As for the angle, I don't always like "as close to side-on as possible" because I like to show more of the aircraft's overall profile rather than just a side shot. You will see many, many of my shots from a quartering frontal shot. And I was certainly "sun on" with the one, but in order to get the other side of the aircraft I had to shoot the shady side - the sun isn't on both sides!

Lastly, if one wants to declare personal opinion as the proper method of photography and posting, then why don't we also express personal opinion as to how one arranges - OR DOESN'T ARRANGE - his gallery!

In Summation: if you see a mistake in a posting, send in a correction. If you want to offer information, e-mail the photographer. Chill out and enjoy the site!

Glenn

I agree with Glenn

Not every site has to be that certain major European run aviation photography site where if the shot isn't exactly perfect it is rejected.

Like Glenn says, sometimes you want to get a certain aircraft and there is a fence, distance etc that somehow doesn't make that picture perfect - or sometimes just not the perfect quality camera that took the picture.

I have posted a lot of pictures that I took of aircraft when I was a kid of planes that I can't just go and grab now with my Digital Rebel - yeah some of the quality was cheap from the cheap camera I had as a kid, but all that is left of that aircraft people are drinking beer out of.

As long as we can tell it is an aircraft I think that is sufficient, I don't want us getting overly fussy like that certain European site that rejected a few of my shots because the only reason they didn't accept the pictures was that they used filters to locate a couple dust spots on the picture.

Someone just brought to my attention the following on a photo posted for A-7D 75-0400:

Glenn

Dang! Nice to know that tolerance has not run wild with everyone! What a maroon :

As far as the C/N...I do every thing I can to make sure the information I post is correct...If I am not sure I don't post it..on some aircraft is not easily found.

The S/N and C/N information was rather confusing when I first started this game, I'm better now.

As far as photo quality goes...

I'm glad we have a place that is not so anal about the quality of shots...there are some shots of rare birds here that you will not find anywhere else, and that "other site" is missing out on a whole lot because of their restrictive policies...

and....Not all cameras in the past were 20MP - 800MM L series equipped machines....film cost money EVERY TIME you pulled the trigger.... :

Just a point of netiquette: Praise in Public, Criticize in Private.

The user in question has been posting very good quality aircraft photos, his subjects are in focus, well framed, well illuminated, and non-repetitive. Many of the photos are the first posting of an individual aircraft. He has traveled extensively this year to many airshows and has gathered ~14,000 photos. I wish I could get to all of the places he has been to this year. This user is generously sharing his aircraft photo collection. I would hate for this incident to scare him away.

I do believe that Glenn is right in complaining about other peoples photos in your aircraft description field is in poor taste. When I find something that needs correcting I'll send an email directly to the user. I suspect many contributors here have received emails from with my rather canned subject line "Registration Number Correction" Most contributors are gracious about these messages. Several contributors including myself enjoy the challenge of help other contributors identify their "UNKNOWN" aircraft.

The specific complaint about data errors in a manually created profile may need some elaboration. All of the U.S. military aircraft profiles are manually created. If a profile doesn't exist a user may create a new one. Once the data is submitted, the only way to modify this profile is to send a correction notice to the website's administrator. There is a form/webpage to send in these corrections. It may take a few days before the correction is applied.

The forums are a much better place to talk about aircraft photography techniques. I'm sure a lively and informative discussion would be appreciated.

Hi

I have actually had assistance from Glenn on proper N numbers and or C/N with some of my postings.

I appreciate the time and effort, not to mention the images that Glenn has brought forth.

I am new to this site...I have posted at Airliners in the past, but found the over bearing manner of rejections of submitted images total distasteful.

Now that I have found this new home for sharing and gazing, I find it quite sad...that there are still those few who can make it this way for the many!

My best advice is to not let it get the better of you, when all is said and done!

Even though it is often much harder to do than it is to say :)

Keep up the great work, keep posting and uploading

Best Regards,

IFlySky5

N53Q

WMC-TV Memphis

Tim when you say this guy collected 14,000 photos everyone is going to point the finger at me thinking I am the guilty party hehehe.

I wasn't aware you could post in people's descriptions.

I have seen some great quality pictures on here and some really bad quality pictures on here - mine are somewhere in between I would guess - I do have some terrible ones posted from cheap film cameras - basically anything I took prior to June 2006 were done with either film cameras or my cheap Nikon point and click - most everything since was taken with a Canon Digital camera.

The weather doesn't always cooperate - I gotta deal with the thunderstorms every afternoon from May - Sept here in Florida, so that means clouds that interfere with my shots. No matter how much you edit at least with my software - it just doesn't work like the sun.

Again to agree with Mr. Chatfield, you just can't always get that right angle or spot due to that security fence or other obstruction. For example at NBAA this year I had problems getting right angles for the corporate jets just because the planes were packed in so close - so I got some rear shots or even shots into the sun.

Daniel,

I wasn't referring to you. You already have over 16,000 photos posted. The contributor in question stated in one of their photo descriptions they had 14,000 photos they would be posting. So, you'll most of you all will be moving down a notch on the top photographers list.

Tim,

I know you weren't refering to me, that was a joke.

I have more than 16,000 on its way too - I want to keep my crown. Some guy on myaviation.net has 22,000+ pictures, I only have 7500 there so no way I will catch up to him.

The good thing is I found out I can copy my photos from a CD from the computers at my work at Orlando Airport since I work overnights and nothing happens here at this time - I can do this to stay awake now.

Mr. Robertson probably will keep his spot too - I am willing to bet he isn't done with his OSH photos on here yet

Wow! I have 3 photos on my aviation.net!

One is the ONE photo I have on AL.net, the others are rejects from AL.net

I had no idea they were there.... :?:

http://myaviation.net/search/search.php?uid=21343

By the way, everyone can rest easy because I did submit a correction for the c/n for that plane, as well as going through all my A-7 shots and submitting corrections also. I need to get the time to go back through all my shots to see what needs corrected in the c/n data. Since I started with attack planes, I know most of my A-birds will probably be incorrect. But I promise to fix them!

Glenn

I received an e-mail from the gentleman who made the comment and he assured me his comment was a general statement and not directed at me personally. He has also removed the comment from his posting.

Glenn

Ztex,

If you were posting on airliners.net at the bottom of the page you have three options airliners.net, airliners.net/myaviation, and myaviation.

If you selected the button to post on both - if you got rejected on airliners.net you will still get them posted on myaviation.net

I guess I had forgotten about that. I have never gone looking for my shots there so it really didn't stick in my head.

Thanks!