Valid Case for Duplicate Photos

[Ztex]

So...does this example fall into the acceptable category? If not I will go through my stuff and see what else there is....And there'll be no whining about it from me.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N234TK.html

[Airport-Data]

[Daniel Compton]

I only see 2 shots of the Beech, did you have more than 2 then delete a bunch of others because I post 2 shots of most aircraft for an approach and a side view, and maybe 3 shots for an approach, side and 45 degree rear view of something a little more unusual.

[Daniel Compton]

I agree with Glenn about somewhat increasing the quality of shots on here too - I don't mean become like that big wellknown aviation site where they reject everything that isn't over photoshop processed but like Glen said - something that is too distant to recognize and left with people just putting as "Unknown", really grainy shots taken with digital cameras (I am sure I have a few that I took with my old point and shoot on here), or really bad photo decapitations:


Not where you are intending on getting the front section of an aircraft or a certain part of the aircraft but it is well centered and looked like you intended on just getting that part of the aircraft - ie like a 747 on approach getting the hump and the engines of the plane up close - that is not a decapitation...

What I am refering to as a decapitation is where a person chopped off a section of the plane but there is a lot of background showing with the plane not centered - ie a plane landing and missing the front 1/4 but the other side of the picture is showing all sky with plane poorly centered.

I have a few like that I took with a film camera and scanned on here. With a film camera it was easy to do decapitations because you didn't know what you had until you developed the picture - but with most people using digital cameras and software that allows you to center a picture now.

I guess it would be a gray area. I think common sense would apply depending on the age and rarity of the shot I mean if it was someone who took a film picture of a rarely shot British bomber from the 1960s or 70s where the photo was decapitated or someone who has a flying B-58 from 1968 by film that was decapitated - keep the shot because you are considering in 1968 all cameras were film, not the greatest quality cameras and you probably wouldn't see that plane in anyone elses's shot.

What I am refering to are pictures taken in the last 5-10 years of a common Cessna 172, Southwest 737 or other aircraft that probably have 50 pictures for that registration taken by a digital camera that are decapitated that we should consider removing.

[Ztex]

Daniel,

Just the two shots. I have tried to keep from posting too many like this. I will admit that I have from time to time. Reasoning? The first shot is a nice 3/4 front shot, the second has a nice profile with the whole registration number visible.

I will try to go through my stuff and see what I can remove that are egregious.

[Daniel Compton]

Z, not sure which shots you are talking about.

I'll use an example using some of my shots what I mean.

Here is an example of a decapitation. However the plane was too big to fit in my lens so I decapitated the nose and the rear tail section. This was taken with a film camera back in DEN in 1996 and is the only picture on a-d that exists of this plane and Aviateca 727-200. I originally had the wrong registration not knowing anything about Mexican registrations and put XA-51J, but found it was XA-SIJ - however no photos or profile existed of this plane so I went and built a profile for it anyway. I would probably keep this plane because its rare on here. However if I did the same to a Southwest 737-300/700 in current c/s (if you have a Southwest 737-200 in old colors that would be different) or an American 757 etc or for the Europeans on here a Ryan Air 737-800 I would definitely delete it.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/XA-SIJ.html

Here is an example of what I mean by a decapitation - this is from the same trip, this case a Frontier 737-200. I chopped off part of its nose, but what is most important about Frontier? The animal on the tail. This was taken in 1996 with a film camera, plane was moving and I was focusing on the tail had no idea I chopped the nose. If I was at DEN today and a Frontier A319 was about to taxi under that bridge and I chopped its nose I could look on my LCD screen and see I missed it and grab it again

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N212US.html

There are only 3 shots of this air frame on here - I have the only pictures of it in Frontier colors, someone else has it in US Air colors so again it isn't common. However if this was a Southwest 737-700 in the current scheme I would definitely delete it.

I would call the below an intentional decapitation and it was taken by a digital camera. I was trying to zoom in on the lady nose art on a Virgin Atlantic 747, I have several similar shots of different Virgin 747s. What I did BAD here was the editing, and I don't have the original since it got lost on my old computer. While the intention was to decapitate the rest of the plane to get a close up on the nose art, I left too much blue sky on the right side:

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/387118.html


I should have made it look like this instead -

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/306741.html

Although I still could have centered it better because look at the open sky above it.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/536164.html

This would be more even other than a little open sky between the nose and edge of picture

I know I probably too have some common aircraft that are really bad shots on here, but with 36,000 pictures to go through, it will take a while before I find all of them. A lot of the unacceptable shots I have will be between 2002-and 2006, when the only camera I had from 2002-early 2005 were disposable cameras I bought at Walgreens when something special was coming in to the airport or if I went on a little trip and I was grabbing planes out the airport window - all before I posted anything online but later scanned on here. Then from early 2005 to June 2006 I owned a junk Nikon point and shoot - took decent pictures up close but distant or flying shots sucked.

Those would be candidates for replacement

Along with "dark shots" of common aircraft - ie a Southwest 737 that I have 20 pics of on here where the sun is in front of a cloud - I know I have a bunch of those. I will keep the pics though for more unusual aircraft.