Deliberate Duplicate Photos

[mcmtanyel]

I have uploaded the same picture twice: 758764.jpg and 758765.jpg because there are two distinct, identifiable planes (N439AW and N200UU) in it. I do not think there is a way to associate one picture with two different planes, so please do not delete either one of them.

[Florida Metal]

Is that from that spotters park at CLT? I saw that from my plane when I was flying through, it looked nice. I also seen youtube video of the crazy singing lady that goes there when Lufthansa lands like she is doing some weird chant.

Probably what you should have done was make copies of both pictures and edited one to focus on the 757 and edited the other to focus on the CRJ - however it was also cool to get all 3 planes in at once - probably could have put the one with all 3 as an airport overview shot, so you could have made 3 pictures out of one.

[Malcolm Clarke]

The uploading of an image to the database twice in two different profiles is quite acceptable if each aircraft is clearly shown in it's entirety. It would not be acceptable if one is partly hidden behind the other or if only a part of one of the airframes is visible.

Daniel's comment "probably could have put the one with all 3 as an airport overview shot" is not valid. This is clearly not an image illustrating any features of this particular airport.

Malcolm.
Admin.

[Florida Metal]

I tend to disagree but not really going to encourage it if he already has the other two pictures for planes. Had he not posted the individual aircraft it could be an airport view shot to show how busy Charlotte is with US Airways planes by showing 3 planes I am assumming taxiing to take off - I am assuming this was shot from the overlook/spotting area because you can see Downtown Charlotte in the background and there are dual taxiways there I believe. You also see some hangars in the background, which qualify it as an airport shot.

However - if you already have the 2 planes individually, then I wouldnt encourage the 3rd - but it could qualify as an airport shot.

[Malcolm Clarke]

Daniel.

Your response is not helpful.

On the one hand you say that "... not really going to encourage ...." and then you go on to try to make a case for the acceptability of this particular image in the airport section.

To follow your logic, a very large number of images of aircraft taken at airports would also qualify for inclusion in the airport section on the basis of the background detail. That is nonsense.

The site clearly has two sections, one for aircraft and one for airports and unless there is an exceptional reason, an image will not be permitted to appear in both.

I feel that there is no need for any further discussion on this subject.

Malcolm
Admin.

[Florida Metal]

Just one more thing before it gets out of hand.

I have a shot on here of ATL that I took from their Concourse E (International) operations center (tower) that overlooks all of the gates of Concourse E. You can see several planes individually. I just made it an airport overview and put it in the airport section.

However one could see at least 6 out of the 12 or so aircraft where you could get a complete body of the plane and edit it in a way to make six seperate pictures of 6 different planes - that is cheating in my opinion but I don't see that as illegal. I don't think the quality of the shot if divided into 6 different pictures would have been good because at that time I was using a cheap digital camera that was only 4 megapixel I believe and that would have stretched out the pixels where it probably would have blurred the planes somewhat.

I chose to just make it an airport shot

[Glenn E. Chatfield]

I have to agree with Malcolm on this one. If that shot doesn't show anything of the airport other than the pavement on which the planes sit, it should not be used as an airport photo.

[Ztex]

Well...Not really trying to be argumentative..but....

If you guys are going down this road of policing the airport photos you will be very busy.....

Just let me know how many of mine you will be deleting...

http://www.airport-data.com/photographers/Zane+Adams:1461/Airports-Active:7313:1.html

http://www.airport-data.com/photographers/Zane+Adams:1461/Airports-Military:8893:1.html

And make sure you tell everyone else....

http://www.airport-data.com/airport/random_photos.html



And do fire trucks, baggage carts and trash cans count?

[Glenn E. Chatfield]

Yep, there's many of mine which could go the way of the basket also.

The context of my statement was about the one photo being discussed. With two planes, a profile for each would be appropriate, but a third posting for the airport is what I don't see as proper.

[Florida Metal]

Well what I meant was but didn't write correctly that you could either do a profile for either plane OR profile for the airport. I think the CLT overall picture is just as legit as Malcolm Clarks Alitalia DC-9 at Heathrow as an airport shot, where the focus is on the plane not the airport. To be fair though I could not see the tail number of the Alitalia and some of my old photos from the same era I put them as airport shots but I have been finding the tail numbers for them lately by looking for other clues and I might be able to identify that Alitalia DC-9 so he can put it as an aircraft shot.

[Malcolm Clarke]

Ztex.

I find your remarks deeply upsetting not just for my sake but for the other members of the Admin team who have worked hard for all who have an interest in the site.

The photo of mine you choose for some reason to illustrate your strange message is a fairly old and unusual image of a DC-9 being prepared to be towed to stand. There is a wide and distant view across the airport including a Tristar in the distance.

However, since you seem to be so upset by its inclusion in the database, I have deleted it.

Malcolm.

[Ztex]

My remarks are not meant to be upsetting any more than other remarks in this thread have meant to be. I think that just about any shots placed in the airport section are viable and add to the overall depth of the site.

The only exception that I think would need correcting would be an obvious addition of an aircraft that should be in the aircraft section...I have seen photos in the Airport section of an aircraft with a valid/current registration clearly visible...and the photographer seemingly just threw it in the airport section to be done with it.

There is no reason to remove a photo because I pointed it out. I only did that to illustrate a point....there were absolutes being thrown down by people about what photo should be where and those same people were "guilty" of the same behavior....Just illustrating the absurd with the absurd.

Not strange at all....not "upset"

My comments also have zero to do with the hard work done by the moderator staff to this point. There have been several corrections to my additions to the site, and they are much appreciated in the fact that they add to the accuracy of the site.

One of the attraction to this site from the beginning has been the freedom with which we are able to add photos to the collection. I have been a champion of the site since arriving here in 2007. The freewheeling nature of the site leads to it's own set of troubles, some of our photography is not the best, some of our data is wrong or incomplete and some of our photos may be in the wrong category. (we are limited to two).

But Ken has done a great service to the collecting of aero photos. I applaud him and all the mods for that.

We need to figure out what type of site we want...the freewheeling thing that Ken set up or the over structured thing of Airliners dot net?

my 2 cents worth of course.

Zane

[Bluedharma]

[Airport-Data]

It's never my intention to become another airliners.net. This site distinguish itself from others by being self regulated and loose moderated. I want to keep it that way.

Ken

[Florida Metal]

Malcolm

I'm in the opinion that the Alitalia DC-9 should not be deleted from the airport section but see if we can find a registration for it which I was going to try to do for you. I love the Pan Am L1011 in the background too.

My point was that Mcmtanyel could have made his picture into an airport shot (if he didn't choose the 2 airliners) because you are seeing some airport buildings too as well as the nice skyline of Charlotte in the background. His photo was taken from the viewing area at CLT (I only been thru there once and I know where that shot is). He is also showing how busy CLT is by showing the 3 planes on seperate taxiways lined up and you know there are probably another 10 planes lined up not shown in the picture as there was quite a line for that runway as I was going through there. I took some pictures but their quality is bleh because it was taken out of a dirty airplane window. I think the CLT picture is just as legit for airport picture as the LHR picture.

I don't want us becoming another airliners.net. I don't feel like spending 6 hours in photoshop. Airliners.net mods are a bunch of noobs that only know digital photography and make you lighten an aircraft so much that the sky is that unnatural cyan color. Jetphotos.net has gotten worse than airliners.net as of recently. I have a friend who has his pictures accepted on airliners.net but rejected on jetphotos.