Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JP.net new standards?

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

  • AJ
    replied
    I can understand that Chris, thanks for responding guys!

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Kilroy
    replied
    Originally posted by AJ
    Thanks for your reply Grant. Does Chris review every photo added to the database or do the screeners need to bring any low standard shots to his attention?
    Unfortunately, with the amount of photos added each day, I can't do that. I do agree, however, that the photo in question should never have been accepted, and I've removed it from the database. I'm not a fan of doing that (removing a photo once it's been accepted), but this was clearly a screener mistake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Katamarino
    replied
    Ewwww, nasty photo

    Leave a comment:


  • AJ
    replied
    Thanks for your reply Grant. Does Chris review every photo added to the database or do the screeners need to bring any low standard shots to his attention?

    Leave a comment:


  • GrantT
    replied
    Originally posted by Bruce
    plane with a missing landing gear?
    It's there, it just very hard to see with it being so dark.

    AJ,

    It's pretty normal for screeners to let one by (as has been pointed out in this thread) that actually isn't to standard, if Chris decides to take it off he will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce
    replied
    plane with a missing landing gear? Well....not a very good shot IMO with that color fringing on the right.

    bruce

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Darren Howie
    replied
    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!!

    Leave a comment:


  • AIRLNRGUY
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Kilroy
    replied
    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]

    Leave a comment:


  • cicadajet
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • cicadajet
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffinDEN
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darren Howie
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X