Spotting Location

[Mengelaus]

Hello again. It's been almoust a month now. Did you take any decision regarding my problem?

B rgds Andrei.

[g.forwood]

I would most definitely welcome a review of these guidelines - I had this shot rejected for there being no airport in view. I think it is quite clear from the altitude and attitude of the aircraft that the runway is very close.

This is by far the most popular spotting location at OOL and I think (with all due respect to JP and the screeners) that it's just stupid not to allow these shots on, regardless of what the guidelines say. This shot, and all the ones above, very clearly show what the view is like and the area in which the shots are taken. Also, this shot of mine was accepted, with no part of the airport in view.

I can understand that JP doesn't want shots taken from some guy's back yard showing an aircraft at 5000ft, but I think these shots all clearly show their proximity to the airport. Perhaps the guidelines could be re-written to suggest that the proximity of the location to the airport must be clear, rather than having the airport itself in view. I should also point out that the guidelines do not require the airport to be in view, but merely state the airport should be in view.

I hope this hasn't come across as rude or angry, as that is most definitely not my intention. I just feel that I have a quality shot that has been rejected for a rather silly reason... I might just also add that some of the best spotting locations I've been to don't even have a view of the airport, rather they are in the pefect position under the approach.

Cheers,

Gareth

[brianw999]

Gareth,

Spotting location is a matter of constant discussion in the crew forum but there is one glaring omission from the first image you show. There is nothing in the remarks giving a stranger any information on how to find the location. A GoogleEarth location (which you gave in the remarks for the second image) might well have got the first shot accepted.

Regards,

Brian.

[Alberto U.]

I won't link to the photo as respect to the photographer and because I have no problem at all with the picture itself, but there is a picture of a spotting location where there is no aircraft visible and it's just a bunch of people wandering about, some not even spotting (there are pax with suit cases, etc.) . In the upload guidlines it clearle states that at least one ac must be seen ... so the question is; have the rules changed?

thanks in advance

[seahawk]

I guess you mean my shot

[photoid=6872165]

The terrace is located on the roof of the terminal, so you are standing above the planes.

Plz compare to

[photoid=6376936]

So due the the many people you do not see the runway and the planes.

[AJ]

I am sure that Alberto means your shot Stefan as he has linked it on SimplementeVolar.com complete with a thumbs down to JP!

[seahawk]

Maybe he will reply and let us know if the explanation if sufficent for him, as in fact he is correct that my shots did brake one of our own guidelines.

[Alberto U.]

AJ, why take this personally? I didn't link the photo and just asked a simple question here but you go tell publicly that I did link the photo somewhere else?
And you also forgot to mention that the thumbs down was not to JP per se, but to the breach of one of your own rules, and if you would care to go through the thread where you saw this picture linked, you'll see that it's not an "anti jp" thread. In fact, I am one of those that usually defends jp among my friends down here.

Stefan, yes, I was talking about your shot, but again this is not against you or your shot. I just asked if there was a change in rules. I appreciate the example you gave, and I see the point behind the picture, but I honestly still don't understand how the rule indicating that at least one plane should be visible applies.

Having said that, I honslty don't mind the picture being in the db, not at all, and I hope you, nor AJ nor anyone else take this personally.

rgds

[seahawk]

No, I do not take it personally and I would have no problem with deleting the photo from the database. As a screener I should follow the guidelines to the point and you are right, that I did not when up-loading the shot. Due to my position as a senior screener I want to lead by example.

To defend the fellow screeners who voted to accept, I like to say the following.

Plz remember that the guidelines says "should" and not "must". We have accepted spotting locations with very little airport in view. often not much more than a part of the perimeter fence and an aircraft in view. In those cases it makes sense to demand an aircraft in view to show that the spot is near an airport. In that case I think nobody will doubt it was taken on the visitors terrace.

And finally some info why I took the shot and why you do not see an aircraft:

I tried to show the huge number of visiotrs that came to the airport the day when the A380 from LH visited Düsseldorf. So there are many people in the photo which do not really look like spotters.

Also the spotting terrace is on the roof of the terminal. Higher than the tailfins of a typical narrow body airliner.

Because of all this I admit that I would have added it, when screening such a shot from another up-loader, as I think it is obvious that this is the spotting terrace (one of the most famous in Europe) and so there is reason to accept the shot.

And because of that I have left it to the admins to decide what to do with the pic. I do not want anybody to believe that we screeners are getting a better treatment in screening, than the average up-loader, but also I think the motive is ok for a spotting location, even if one point of the guidelines is not met.

[Alberto U.]

Stefan, by all means my intent was never to have the picture deleted! And I hope it doesn't get deleted. Originally, all I asked was a question regarding if the rules had changed, given that the SL has been a constant debate for some time. I appreciate the explanation, especially since I had no idea this terrace was such a well-known place in Europe, and it's certainly a place I would love to visit sometime.

Again, to the admins, please do not delete this picture!

I hope no harm was done

[seahawk]

Well, there is simple solution. If you have a question ask. I would gladly have explained the SL rules to you. I think we all agree that the guidelines can only be specific for the typical case. There are a surely few locations where you will have to brake the rules to accept the pic. At LHR it would also be very hard to show the airport at some spotting locations.

And I would also be happy if you could post a few words explaining the problem in the other forum, where my pic is discussed.

[LX-A343]

We do accept photos which do breach one of our rules and we do reject photos which at first sight meet all the rules. Why?

• Because photography is not an exact science, the guidelines are an attempt of creating criteria of what is acceptable and what not.
• Because we are human and make mistakes sometimes.

Check the spotting location category in our db. You will find many photos which do not include any aircraft for example. This category was implemented with a service for photographers in mind. It's sad to see how it is misused at times.

BTW, Alberto: you're wrong with your assumption. It's not our problem. As of now it seems the problem of you and your mates.

[Alberto U.]

Stefan, that's all I did in fact, I simply asked if the rules had changed, nothing more. Now that the explenation is clear, I don't see the problem. I don't understand why some staff members get all defensive. I still believe this is the friendly site it always was, but it seems that asking a question can create differences here that were not my intent.
I will link the thread in our forum so everything is clear there as well

Gerardo, I wasn't implying a mistake was made, I just asked if the rules had changed. And about the problem you mention, I just said that I had been very dimplomatic, so if there was a problem, it was definitely not on my side since I had said nothing to offend anyone. I was referring to the problem being on JP's side if you thought there was one.


ps: When I saw the picture and asked the question, I hadn't even realized a crew member was the photog, so don't take this as an attack to jp or it's crew.

[gatto-777]

I am sure that Alberto means your shot Stefan as he has linked it on SimplementeVolar.com complete with a thumbs down to JP!

Alberto is asking a simple question here. I suppose that any of us who has a photo on line in any database and it's checked for thousands of people daily can expect that not everybody likes all of them and can make a critic. I have more than 900 hundred in j.net and my girfriend thumbs down when she doesn't like one of them.

AJ, you are very fast to say thumbs down is about jetphotos but you are wrong. We are talking about one photo and I suppose you can accept that like seahawk did. There are some other questions in site related forum that expects fast answers like this.

seahawk, thanks a lot for your answer. You can besure that our discussion is not about your person.

BTW, Alberto: you're wrong with your assumption. It's not our problem. As of now it seems the problem of you and your mates.

Thanks for the concern but actually we are very happy talking about aviation photography. I've had some rejections of spoting locations with 2 aircrafts in frame but nevermind, it's part of this "game", and my right to make an opinión about a picture it can't be a problem.

Gatto-777

[LX-A343]

Thanks for the concern but actually we are very happy talking about aviation photography. I've had some rejections of spoting locations with 2 aircrafts in frame but nevermind, it's part of this "game", and my right to make an opinión about a picture it can't be a problem.

Gatto-777

Yes, I read your opinions. As you can imagine, I disagree on most of them and there is really no point in telling us nicely worded made-up stories.