Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JP.net new standards?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Andy,
    You don't like the picture of my yellow fire engine?

    Jeff

    Comment


    • #17


      What about my plow shot?
      Runway 33L is on that hill behind the plow.

      Comment


      • #18
        Come on guys, lets drop the issue. It's over. the point is clear - from both sides.
        "The Director also sets the record straight on what would happen if oxygen masks were to drop from the ceiling: The passengers freak out with abandon, instead of continuing to chat amiably, as though lunch were being served, like they do on those in-flight safety videos."

        -- The LA Times, in a review of 'Flightplan'

        Comment


        • #19
          It's a 'shoe in'. Upload that puppy.
          I'll bet that snow plow driver has JP net on his laptop in the seat next to him via WiFi..... so it's aviation related...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Skymonster
            Well I just knew someone would have to drag a.net into it Its a shame that a genuine view from a photographic contributor here has been dragged down to an A versus J debate again But Garry, just for your information, I wouldn't work for a.net if I didn't support and agree with the standards applied there, so please don't try to imply we're a bunch of drones that just do the boss' bidding.

            There's a place for pictures of fire engines (and my forthcoming airport bus pictures) although at the moment I'm damned if I know where it is - one thing for sure is that in my opinion it isn't airliners.net nor is it jetphotos.net. And yes, you're right, its only one shot NOW, but as you well know one shot sets a precedent, and the next guy to upload a "newsworthy" picture of a fire engine will be upset if his doesn't get accepted, which in turn at best leads to a disgruntled contributor and at worst eventually risks pollution of the site.

            So, in closing, my opinion again, reinforced... Accepting stuff like fire engines detracts from the true purpose of this site. Bluntly, it puts me off contributing original work here as I have done recently - you may think that's my loss, but I think its yours. If this site wants to be somewhere for a bunch of mates to show off their airplane pics (which it clearly is not right now with the regularly increasing standards) then its fine to include fire engines. If on the other hand you want it to be taken seriously as a source of good quality airplane photos, I sincerely suggest you ditch the idea of accepting more pictures like that.

            Andy
            Andy,

            Can't agree with that:

            "Personally, I love these kinds of shots. But Johan has made it known that he does not, and we have to apply his rules."

            From Charles Falk, current screener.

            "Photographs are screened on the sole basis as to whether or not the picture contributes to the collection according to criteria defined by Johan"

            From Colin Work, former screener.

            And I take it you remember our conversation regarding my radar screen pics?

            My conversations with two others from the screening team have made it very clear that you have zero leeway, or discretion. It's uphold Johans "edicts" or get the boot.
            So, I'm sorry but I beg to differ.

            If you can tell me hand on heart that you agree 100% with all Johan's views, criteria and standards, then I'll retract that statement.

            It is a very worthwhile point to mention again, that this kind of thread would be deleted over there, because no questioning is permitted of the screening process or screening team. There is no transparency or accountability.

            You may say its another a v j debate, I just pointed out some things, as I am not allowed to express them over there due to censorship laws imposed.

            I think this has been totally blown out of all proportion, there is one photo out of 174,000.
            And the fact is it is not just any old picture of a fire truck, it is on its roof involved in an accident. If someone else uploads one like that, then yes there is a precedent, but there are no shots of any airport vehicles in any other situation so I fail to see where the precedent has been set in that regard. I mean airliners.net has one pic on its database of a radar screen, that hardly set a precedent did it????

            Andy if you really feel that you don't want to contribute pictures here based on the acceptance of one picture, then that is your perogative, at least here we don't simply tell you if you don't like it then leave, as is done elsewhere.
            We'll take comments and criticsism on board, if changes need to be made for the benefit of the contributors we will do that.
            After all the contributors are what make the site and they (not the site owner) are the most important people.

            I have the utmost respect for you Andy as a person and a photographer, I don't want that to become clouded by this discussion, but I do find it strange that you criticsise this site, when there are problems over there.......for example baddouble. It would be nice to see some of those problems addressed before we start on here.
            While we are inching standards up, I believe we are getting it right judging by the lack of criticsism and the continued positive nature of the contributors here and the telling numbers of a.net contributors who are now showcasing here too.
            This site has much going for it (As does airliners it must be said), and I think its a bit iffy to base an opinion one 1/174,000 of its collection.
            Garry Lewis

            Air Team Images - www.airteamimages.com
            Air Traffic Controller - Toronto ACC (West Low)

            https://flic.kr/ps/AAWk8

            Comment


            • #21
              Im actually glad this was brought up...

              Andy:

              I can see your point, I myself would have probably not accepted it but Im not going to pull a photo just because I dont totally agree with it.

              To the rest:

              I think questioning of the screeners credibility and work is VERY important. Its also important for the normal users to question the administration and what they are doing and rules that they are setting. Nor Chris, nor me are running a dictatorship here, Theres no final decisions unless we feel its imperative to cut a flame war or there could be legal troubles, and we certainly wont close, delete, ban just because of questioning and say "its up to the admins" to determine that and you have no say in it.
              Legia Warszawa - Duma Stolicy Polski
              Sail the Smooth Skies to ORD with the 767-300ER

              Photos: http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=5
              http://www.jetphotos.net/members/viewprofile.php?id=5

              Comment


              • #22
                I agree also, that shot doesn't fit the theme of this site. It is not aviation related unless - that truck had been hit by a plane or, that truck was putting out the fire on a plane. OR, that truck was being loaded on a pallet onto a cargo jet for transport somewhere else. Otherwise it should go on rescuetrucks.net.

                I do like the mountain shot, even though the plane is not in the shot. It fits the theme because you'd have to be onboard a plane in order to take that shot. So a plane is involved whether you see it or not.

                Oh well....just my two cents and unless i get a job soon, two cents is about all i am going to have left!

                bruce
                View my photos at JP.Net
                Home Airport: Jackson - Evers Int'l (JAN) - Jackson, MS
                Camera: Canon 50D, 100-400L/17-85 lenses

                Comment


                • #23
                  G'day
                  Great photo of the overturned Aviation Fire engine!!
                  As for its inclusion on the site,fantastic!!
                  How many times has anyone here seen an overturned aviation fire engine?
                  Leads to a great story in itself as to how and why it overturned?
                  As to the plough,police and buses well if you can't see the difference well there's really no point in trying to explain it to you.
                  Given i have been flying aeroplanes for 20 years and photographing the for 26 its the first time I have ever seen an aviation fire engine inverted at an airport.
                  Great photo!!
                  And well deserving of inclusion from the interest point of view alone.
                  Given the logic of some a burning 747 surrounded by fire engines with people pouring down the slides would be rejected for having too many other objects in frame!!
                  Take to pic for what it is,interesting aviation related matter.
                  Enjoy and remember as you don't see this to often.(As opposed to ploughs,buses cops).
                  Enjoy

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Darren Howie
                    its the first time I have ever seen an aviation fire engine inverted at an airport.
                    Hopefully the last as well...! Who cares how the damn thing ended up on it's roof? Next thing we are going to see is a picture of one of those damn mobile kiosks with a flat tire! When was the last time we all saw a picture of that? ....this isn't "Firetrucks.net" is it? This is getting rediculous.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Reminds me of an image I had rejected a while back on JP..even lost the appeal.. no big deal. It was from the Dayton Airshow..featured a Dayton Fire Truck next to Wright-Patterson AFB Fire Truck. One was the puke green and the other Fire Engine Red. Thought it looked good..no image quality issues (that I can remember).

                      But anyway, I don't think this over-turned firetruck image should be too upsetting. Its well known that many people do not want to see helicopters, Military aircraft, blimps, single engine props, gliders, routine overcast approach shots at JFK and Heathrow, airliner interiors, crooked ramp shots, "overviews" of regional airports shot from the ground from about half a mile away that feature a small group of non-distinct 2 story buildings. All these images can be found on both JP and AN - they're added almost daily.

                      When the years pass, some off-beat images become interesting. Even when they are not "newsworthy". Infrastructure changes over time and it gains value as an historical document. That doesn't mean horrible gate shots dominated by jetways have to be added.

                      I think the screeners at both sites deserve a break. It must be difficult to avoid erring on being too lax or too strict.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Reminds me of an image I had rejected a while back on JP..even lost the appeal.. no big deal. It was from the Dayton Airshow..featured a Dayton Fire Truck next to Wright-Patterson AFB Fire Truck. One was the puke green and the other Fire Engine Red. Thought it looked good..no image quality issues (that I can remember).

                        But anyway, I don't think this over-turned firetruck image should be too upsetting. Its well known that many people do not want to see helicopters, Military aircraft, blimps, single engine props, gliders, routine overcast approach shots at JFK and Heathrow, airliner interiors, crooked ramp shots, "overviews" of regional airports shot from the ground from about half a mile away that feature a small group of non-distinct 2 story buildings. All these images can be found on both JP and AN - they're added almost daily.

                        When the years pass, some off-beat images become interesting. Even when they are not "newsworthy". Infrastructure changes over time and it gains value as an historical document. That doesn't mean horrible gate shots dominated by jetways have to be added.

                        I think the screeners at both sites deserve a break. It must be difficult to avoid erring on being too lax or too strict.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          A previous photo of this accident was included on JP on June 25, 2003 .. I didn't hear any complaining then.

                          Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how on earth a photo of an accident involving an airport vehicle can be classified as "non-aviation related."

                          We accept photos of runways, control towers, and airport terminals all the time -- none of which have any more "visible aircraft" in them, or are any more or less "aviation related" than a fire truck, especially one which has obviously suffered some sort of 'trauma.'

                          The hits on the original photo suggest that SOME people were interested in looking at it. Many more people than are interested in looking at the standard sideon shot of another A320 in perfect sunlight, mind you.

                          If you're not interested in it, what's the problem with just skipping over it, and moving to the next photo? Why seek to ruin it for the 1,400 people who DID want to see the image, just because it doesn't suit your specific tastes?

                          You can accuse me of starting AN vs JP bashing as much as you like, but I'll say this anyway -- This site prides itself on being slightly 'outside the mould' compared to the other one. I like that, as do obviously a lot of other people, who have made this site nearly half as busy as AN in a little over a year.

                          By the way, I screened and accepted (with a comment congratulation the photographer) the original photo, shown below:

                          [photoid=107651]
                          Trump is an idiot!
                          Vote Democrats!!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Chris Kilroy
                            If you're not interested in it, what's the problem with just skipping over it, and moving to the next photo? Why seek to ruin it for the 1,400 people who DID want to see the image, just because it doesn't suit your specific tastes?
                            Exactly.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              G'day
                              The only problem with that is it requires people to make a decision.
                              Something many have difficulty with these days!!
                              To look or not to look?
                              Tricky that one!!

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                While you are discussing standards may I ask about this shot:
                                [photoid=193972]
                                Am I missing something?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X