Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 110

Thread: Similar photos

  1. #41
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,518

    Default

    If it is just for hosting photos, why not picasa or flickr? I see them widely used to showcase a photogs portfolio.

  2. #42
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    73

    Default

    I'd like to do some print sales, and not need to worry about that myself - Zenfolio handles all of that, even shipping. Flickr or Picasa appear a bit generic - where the other one seems like I can customise/personalise it a bit more. But it also costs per year, but I do get a domain name in the costs, and I can certainly do some SEO to push up near the top of the ratings on the major search engines.

    I'll upload some things here though - but not everything. I'd been procrastinating about doing my own site for long enough, and did some designs (even coded one of them up in PHP) and got bored with them. So Zenfolio looks like a reasonable alternative.

    To be honest, my computer programming/computer building days outside of work are over, I get too tired. I just want to get something, have it work - and if it doesn't work - take it someone and ask them to fix it.

    I know Flickr has a number of options - might have another look at them.

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Sorry to bring this back up again, but I have a question about one of my recent rejections. As you can probably guess, it was rejected for similar, and strictly speaking the angles are the same. However, I felt that the framing and motive of each shot was sufficiently different to not be considered similar.

    The accepted shot is here:
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6990894

    And the rejected shot here:
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3257983

    Now aside from the fact that the category wasn't ticked (I could've sworn I checked it, but oh well...), I really don't feel that these shots are similar. The 2nd shot just shows so much more detail around the nose section, along with the reflection that really isn't all that clear in the original photo. It was also rejected on appeal.

    Out of the two photos, I really feel that the rejected one is actually better and would prefer that to be on. If there is a consensus that they are in fact too similar, would it be OK then to delete the original one from the database and upload the 2nd one?

    I might just also refer you to an example of when two such similar photos have been accepted (links provided with the photographer's permission):
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...6584675&nseq=1
    and
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...6584651&nseq=2

    I look forward to your responses.

    Cheers,
    Gareth

  4. #44
    Member Virgin777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Gareth , from what i see the 1st link is nothing more than a close crop of the already posted image , the reflections are identical.

    The 2nd shot is a totally different background .

    plus i also suspect the "double" rules have / are being altered since June 09.


    regards

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wembley, Greater London, UK
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Gareth - personally I don't think they are similar. Even though the second one is a close up version but (as you already said) there are details that are visible there which in my opinion makes it distinctly different.

    As Tony mentioned and I also realised that the "similar rule" are much more stricter now than before. However even with very strict rules applied I still fail to see them being similar. But that's just me

    .
    CheersAziz



  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    110

    Default

    Hi Guys,
    Thanks for the replies! I have another one that was rejected for similar that I'm rather confused about. It is this photo - http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3263159

    I appealed the rejection, and whoever replied kindly (and I mean that sincerely) went to the trouble of pointing out the shots to which this one was considered similar. These are the shots he linked me to:
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6618522
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6650764

    The first shot he linked me to was taken from a completely different location (but I understand that without knowing Sydney Airport, he would not be aware of this). The second shot, while taken from the same location, is simply an example of the sort of shot that is possible from the location - it doesn't actually show any of the location's attributes, like the fact it's on the mound above the roadway.

    By the same logic, one could argue that these two shots are similar because they are taken from the same location:
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...47995&nseq=323
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...47932&nseq=324

    I really find it hard to see how a spotting location shot could be considered similar to an aircraft or runway shot.

    I look forward to hearing your views on these.
    Cheers!

  7. #47
    Senior Member pilotgolfer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Grand Forks, ND
    Posts
    1,807

    Default

    Those last two are two totally different shots, and I don't really get why you compared them. They show different subjects with the first being the people, and yes, the C-5 is in the shot, but way back there, and the second being the plane itself.
    Plus, if shots were based on being taken from the same location like those two, then there wouldn't be near as many pics on here and we'd have to find a new place to shoot from every single time.

  8. #48
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,518

    Default

    Gareth, you had all your replies from the crew. The comparison to the two accepted shots you show is very pointless, as shown by Ryan as well.

  9. #49
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by g.forwood View Post
    Hi Guys,
    Thanks for the replies! I have another one that was rejected for similar that I'm rather confused about. It is this photo - http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3263159

    I appealed the rejection, and whoever replied kindly (and I mean that sincerely) went to the trouble of pointing out the shots to which this one was considered similar. These are the shots he linked me to:
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6618522
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6650764

    The first shot he linked me to was taken from a completely different location (but I understand that without knowing Sydney Airport, he would not be aware of this). The second shot, while taken from the same location, is simply an example of the sort of shot that is possible from the location - it doesn't actually show any of the location's attributes, like the fact it's on the mound above the roadway.

    By the same logic, one could argue that these two shots are similar because they are taken from the same location:
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...47995&nseq=323
    http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...47932&nseq=324

    I really find it hard to see how a spotting location shot could be considered similar to an aircraft or runway shot.

    I look forward to hearing your views on these.
    Cheers!

    Strip away the info for the shots and it becomes obvious...all three shots look the same...a long exposure light trail, of which you already have 2 uploaded as YSSY aiport overviews (regardless if it was a runway shot, a spotting location shot, a ramp shot), hence the similar rejection as this would have triggered our similars box on the screening page. You say it's a different location around the airport but you really can't make that out given it's dark, so they all look the same.
    The similars box would flag up that you entered YSSY as the location and the reg as required for an overview shot before you choose runway, spotting location etc. So the crew member would have looked at the photos the system flagged and given they look exactly the same as your other airport overview uploads, the rejection was given. If you'd already had a daytime shot for example of that location and then uploaded a night shot, no doubt the outcome would have been different.

    One could argue that you simply uploaded the shot with different info just to get another long exposure night trail on...but that wouldn't be the case would it .

    And I don't see your logic at all to the 2 photos you linked at the end. One is a shot of a spotting location, which is an aiport overview shot and one is a standard aircraft shot.

    I'm afraid we're pretty strict on airport overview shots as it is one category that is subject to abuse by our uploaders.

  10. #50
    Member Virgin777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Yeah , i agree with whats been said above , you are comparing pictures (C5) which are totally different with very odd thinking , i cant get my head round what you are getting at

    You cant really tell me that those 2 C5 shots are similar ???

    I need a lie down ..

    You take a very very nice shot by the way ...

    I would just quit the topic now

    cheers

  11. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wembley, Greater London, UK
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Hi,

    This one http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3273863 was rejected for being similar to this one http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...7008131&nseq=0

    Using my understanding and also what has been said on this thread and examples given - I fail to see how these two could be similar. I appealed and that also got turned down without any reasons given. I know that means the original rejection reason stands and in this case it is the similarity with the accepted photo. Would someone please open my eyes to the reasons or logic that is behind these two images being similar? I mean that in a good sense so I don't waste either my own or screeners time in future.
    CheersAziz



  12. #52
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DC10&MD11 View Post
    Hi,

    This one http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=3273863 was rejected for being similar to this one http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...7008131&nseq=0

    Using my understanding and also what has been said on this thread and examples given - I fail to see how these two could be similar. I appealed and that also got turned down without any reasons given. I know that means the original rejection reason stands and in this case it is the similarity with the accepted photo. Would someone please open my eyes to the reasons or logic that is behind these two images being similar? I mean that in a good sense so I don't waste either my own or screeners time in future.
    I looked at your 2 photos and I'm sorry but I'm failing to see how you can't see that they are similar.
    When screening we are looking for a difference in angle of more than 45 degrees if you are going to upload from the same sequence, of which yours isn't. Secondly, the major point of focus in both those shots is the fuselage... you aren't showing us anything different by zooming in/out slightly.

    Hope this helps.

  13. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wembley, Greater London, UK
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B7772ADL View Post
    I looked at your 2 photos and I'm sorry but I'm failing to see how you can't see that they are similar.
    When screening we are looking for a difference in angle of more than 45 degrees if you are going to upload from the same sequence, of which yours isn't. Secondly, the major point of focus in both those shots is the fuselage... you aren't showing us anything different by zooming in/out slightly.

    Hope this helps.
    Hi James - thanks for your reply. I take your point of difference of 45 degrees, however I believe that everyone agrees that's a rule of thumb and cannot be applied 100% of the time. Just like centring of an aircraft where due to specific scenario, shots with aircraft not centred might be allowed.

    WRT - the fuselage being the focus, I think in vast, vast majority of aircraft photos the fuselage will be the main focus anyway, it is almost impossible not to

    Please consider my following points:-

    1. The entire length of the fuselage is the main focus on the accepted photo.
    2. the wing and front section of the fuselage is the focus in the rejected photo.
    3. Either wing is barely visible in the accepted photo but the entire right wing and both engines are visible in the second photo.
    4. Although the difference in angle of view might not be more than 45 degrees, but I believe each shot offers perspectives which are unique to each shot.
    5. The nose section is barely visible in the accepted shot, where as it is quite prominent in the rejected shot.

    These are my specific reasons (that came to my mind in ten seconds) why I believe that the shots are not similar.
    CheersAziz



  14. #54
    Senior Member PMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bradford, UK
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    Sure there are differences, Aziz, but consider it from another viewpoint. Why didn't you press the shutter release a few seconds earlier and have a completely different angle that's in no way similar? This is really how we have to approach screening similars, if there was the option to take something very different then why upload something that's broadly similar? (Which it is - there's no argument that it's more similar than it is different.) It's clear you disagree with this and that's fine, but unfortunately disagreeing with it won't change the fact that there are certain restrictions we have to apply in the interest of consistency, and if we accepted images like yours we'd then have to allow a huge number of others in as well. I'm sure you can see how this would become a bit of a nightmare!

    Sorry mate, I really don't want to sound harsh but this is the kind of topic we could discuss for the next year and never really get anywhere with it. I understand it can be frustrating at times but it's just kinda the way it is in this case unfortunately. Personally if I'd had this image rejected for similar then I'd be finding ways I can get different angles into what I shoot, imagination and experimenting both being two huge things that should be a part of any photographers approach.
    Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

    My images on Flickr

  15. #55
    JetPhotos Crew B7772ADL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Surrey, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    2,881

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DC10&MD11 View Post
    Hi James - thanks for your reply. I take your point of difference of 45 degrees, however I believe that everyone agrees that's a rule of thumb and cannot be applied 100% of the time. Just like centring of an aircraft where due to specific scenario, shots with aircraft not centred might be allowed.
    But the JP community is ALWAYS banging on about how we should be more consistent in our approach to screening, so we have to draw the line somewhere and unfortunately your 2 photos have fallen foul of this as the screening guideline is 45 degrees. As Paul says, the similarities in the shots far outweigh the differences. One of the shots will have to remain in your personal collection I'm afraid.

  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wembley, Greater London, UK
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B7772ADL View Post
    But the JP community is ALWAYS banging on about how we should be more consistent in our approach to screening, so we have to draw the line somewhere and unfortunately your 2 photos have fallen foul of this as the screening guideline is 45 degrees. As Paul says, the similarities in the shots far outweigh the differences. One of the shots will have to remain in your personal collection I'm afraid.
    Hi James - I will be the first one to be asking for consistency. I am even prepared to be the fall guy if this is to be the new standard going forward . This is certainly not the standard that's been in the past and there are many examples of that on this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by PMN View Post
    Sorry mate, I really don't want to sound harsh but this is the kind of topic we could discuss for the next year and never really get anywhere with it. I understand it can be frustrating at times but it's just kinda the way it is in this case unfortunately. Personally if I'd had this image rejected for similar then I'd be finding ways I can get different angles into what I shoot, imagination and experimenting both being two huge things that should be a part of any photographers approach.
    Hi Paul - At least we agree that we could go on for years like this . I have at least given specific reasons and pointed out why I think they are different, rather than just saying "yes they are similar" or "no they are not similar". You have even admitted that they are different. So at least I managed to got some point across

    As for creativity, while I am no David Bailey (in fact way, way too far from it) but I would like to think that I do have a relatively creative portfolio on jp. Not my opinion but I have received many, many appreciative e-mails from fellow spotters and people in general who has seen my pics. As an old school spotter the classic side on shots are my stock shots but there are also lot of varied ones too.

    Anyway we are now moving away from the main topic of similar or not so similar. On that respect let's agree to disagree and move on . I think we all have made our points and people can draw their own conclusions from them.
    CheersAziz



  17. #57
    Senior Member PMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bradford, UK
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DC10&MD11 View Post
    You have even admitted that they are different. So at least I managed to got some point across
    I didn't say that at all, I said there were differences but they're more similar than they are different. There's a big difference.

    At the end of the day it lies squarely on you to make sure your uploads meet the site requirements, so there are really no "own conclusions" to be drawn from any of this. The site guidelines are very clear and all we can do is explain why an image was rejected, it's up to you to reduce the chances of rejections. I stand by my point that had you taken the image a few seconds earlier you could have had a totally different angle which would have avoided a rejection. As a photographer this is exactly how you need to be thinking and you don't need to be a David Bailey or a Henri Cartier-Bresson to do that. All you need to do is just think 'how can I make this different?'
    Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

    My images on Flickr

  18. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wembley, Greater London, UK
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PMN View Post
    I didn't say that at all, I said there were differences but they're more similar than they are different. There's a big difference.
    Hi Paul - - I laughed out loud when I read that, really funny (and I mean in a real fun way).

    I said we should move on but after a long deliberation I decided that I will make just one last point. I listed a few points on why I think they are not similar. I would like to know if you agree or disagree with them. Also since I am so blind on this particular similarity issue then may I ask to list a couple of points as to why and how they could be considered similar? This will help me in future and also save screeners time by me avoiding the same pitfalls again.
    CheersAziz



  19. #59
    Senior Member PMN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Bradford, UK
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DC10&MD11 View Post
    I would like to know if you agree or disagree with them. Also since I am so blind on this particular similarity issue then may I ask to list a couple of points as to why and how they could be considered similar? This will help me in future and also save screeners time by me avoiding the same pitfalls again.
    This is the important thing mate, it doesn't matter one iota whether I personally agree or disagree because I'm screening for Jetphotos, not myself. My own personal opinion doesn't come into it one little bit. Only one point needs listing here and it's the most fundamental guideline we have on similars - that there should be at least 45 degrees difference between the two. That's unequivocal; there's less than 45 degrees difference. So regardless of minor differences by the site guidelines they're similar due to the lack of difference in angle, and that's why it was rejected. I have to be honest, I'm really not understanding why this is such a difficult concept to grasp and I don't in any way intend that to sound patronising. I'm genuinely puzzled as to why, despite the fact our most basic guideline says this is unequivocally similar, you still point out the minor differences rather than the overwhelming similarities.

    If I'm being entirely honest I'd also have added contrast and soft to the rejection. The quality of the accepted image is infinitely better than the reject.
    Last edited by PMN; 01-08-2011 at 12:07 AM.
    Seeing the world with a 3:2 aspect ratio...

    My images on Flickr

  20. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Wembley, Greater London, UK
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PMN View Post
    This is the important thing mate, it doesn't matter one iota whether I personally agree or disagree because I'm screening for Jetphotos, not myself. My own personal opinion doesn't come into it one little bit.
    Hi Paul - I believe that your invaluable inputs to these forums are from a jp screener perspective. When I said I would like to know your opinion then it always implies that it is from the capacity of you being a screener on jp. Never from your personal, personal point of view and I mean that in a good way.

    Quote Originally Posted by PMN View Post
    Only one point needs listing here and it's the most fundamental guideline we have on similars - that there should be at least 45 degrees difference between the two.
    As you mentioned that the 45 degree is not a RULE. It is a GUIDELINE, just like centring of an aircraft. i.e. shots like these http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.p...6954914&nseq=0 are accepted although the aircraft is not centred. The way I view it is that I was being imaginative to get a different perspective. Which is quite possible to achieve (without getting more than 45 degrees lateral movement) as there are both lateral and vertical movement of the aircraft.

    You know best about the softness and contrast. If those were mentioned either in the original rejection, or in the appeal or even on this thread then I would not have dared to question those . Simply because not only am I not an expert on those subjects but those are very subjective as well. Where as the question of similarity is almost mathematical/logical/geometical. In other words I would have found it more acceptable if the photo was rejected for being "crap" rather than being "similar" .
    CheersAziz



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •