No announcement yet. new standards?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • new standards?

    One question, since when did start to allow airport vehicles into the database???


  • #2
    My impression was that all aviation related pictures were allowed, with obvious exceptions of course.


    • #3
      If you scroll down, you will see the date the photo was entered.

      Dec. 4th would be the day :P :P


      • #4
        I'm sorry, you must have this site mixed up with another one that struggles to allow these photos, and other Aviation related ones.


        • #5
          So does that mean I can submit this picture I took of a Los Angeles World Airport Police Car driving down a road near Los Angeles Intl???


          • #6
            Are you trying to stir up anything?

            My photos on Flickr


            • #7
              I think you'll find the overturned Fire truck has news content. The Car does not. If however the car had been hit by a falling plane, i am sure that it may be added.

              does this satisfy your curiosity


              • #8
                I accepted that one-and not without a good deal of consideration. IMO the picture is clearly aviation related since it pictures airport serice vehicles but putting that aside it pictures something very rarely seen at an airport and would thus be of of interest to our members and other site visitors.

                Sorry if some of you disagree, but this is not I have plenty of pics in my personal collection of things that I see at the airport which I think are interesting or funny-regardless of whether a plane is involved or not, I know won't take them but if ever find a time where I have no airplane pictures to work on I might upload some of them.

                My gallery of transport and travel pictures.

                Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!


                • #9
                  ahhh, thanks for clearing it all up


                  • #10
                    Shame to see an airplane database get polluted with fire engines. Anyway, I take on board the "newsworthy" comment and when East Midlands takes delivery of its brand-new airside CoBus next week I'll be sure to upload a picture of that too!



                    • #11
                      I agree. I see no value in having that shot in the database, when other people have at least included an aircraft in their shot and had them rejected. What is up with that? That photo is grainy, not level, and soft. I would have expected it to be rejected if it was an aircraft.

                      I like the police car shot better.

                      Here is my fire truck entry....


                      • #12
                        This is kinda turning into a "where's the aircraft?" type thing

                        rejected for "where is the aircraft"

                        I think it is pretty aviation related..

                        BTW, I am fine with my photo being rejected and that one being accepted (except for what Jeff said about it being grainy, etc.), but the point I am trying to make is JP should not be accepting pics of aiport vehicles unless there is maybe something special, like it is putting out a fire on the aircraft or spraying the runway, and things like that. But that one pic just does not show anything aviation related.


                        • #13
                          An interesting subject, I'll chip in with my thoughts:

                          1. Would I have accepted it?
                          No, I wouldn't. However I totally respect Matt's decision and he has provided a great explanation and it has merit.
                          As Chris has not pulled it, that decision has been vindicated.

                          2. Is it interesting?
                          Well, yes it is. How many Airport Fire trucks have I seen on their roof?.........0

                          3. Is it Aviation related?
                          Just about, it's tenuous, but it is airport related, and I guess you can make a case that if you accept airport interior shots, then this one, due to its interesting nature merits a look too.

                          4. Andy Martin's comments:
                          "Shame to see an airplane database get polluted with fire engines. Anyway, I take on board the "newsworthy" comment and when East Midlands takes delivery of its brand-new airside CoBus next week I'll be sure to upload a picture of that too!"

                          Well this site is not like the one you work at, and thank God it isn't.
                          This site is prepared to consider all kinds of shots, angles, artistry and on occassions things out of the ordinary.
                          That is one of it's successful attributes. At least here a shot is considered, it's merits are weighed up and at times added when is not dumped with badmotiv (there is an e on the end of motive - has nobody ever told him that?? ), just on the basis of the whims of the site owner who has admitted he knows bugger all about aviation photography.

                          Andy, if you can get a shot of that fire truck on its roof, please upload it
                          Otherwise lets show a little perspective, one shot hardly constitutes pollution.
                          If that is the case based on the first 10000 uploads at another well known site, it should be renamed "crap, grainy, unlevel, baddistance, badscanned, badmotiv(e)"
                          One picture a database doth not make :P

                          5. Jeff, that shot is badangle
                          I see what you say, but Matt has explained his reasons, and you can either accept them or not.
                          I think his explanation covers a lot, and at least here the screening team are prepared to come out, explain themselves and yes, even admit we can make mistakes and get it wrong.
                          At first I was amazed this shot was accepted, but I see Matt's reasons and the shot has grown on me. It's unusual, interesting and totally unique to jetphotos. And we have to see reason here, if this had not been on its roof in an accident it would not be up.
                          I think at the very least Matt deserves a bit of credit for fronting up and explaining himself.

                          I know would appear to be a double standard................but:
                          Your mountain is a nice shot, however it is not really aviation related.
                          The fire truck is..........just, and is of a unique event.

                          I hope that this adds to the debate, there is nothing wrong with a bit of discussion..........something we are not afraid of here.

                          Comments, critical or otherwise, are welcome, as always.


                          Garry Lewis

                          Air Team Images -
                          Air Traffic Controller - Toronto ACC (West Low)



                          • #14
                            I'm also prepared to admit my mistakes, and having read through this thread again it does seem that many members and contributors feel a bit short changed by this picture so perhaps this sort of picture isn't what people want to see. All the crew members at JP work to a common goal which is too keep our contibutors happy as best we can to ensure that we don't start losing photographers and their images in the way that Anet has in recent months and with that in mind I apologise to anyone that feels I have acted wrongly by accepting this picture.

                            Final thoughts from me on this matter, I would rather see this than see yet another unmotivated cockpit shot from inside a 737NG-and that is purely my personal opinion, not JP policy in any way

                            Time to go do some screening I think.......

                            My gallery of transport and travel pictures.

                            Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!


                            • #15
                              Well I just knew someone would have to drag 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 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 nor is it 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.