Full members photos, not so full sometimes

I have seen during the time some not so good, low quality photos posted by full members and I would like to point it out and ask for some other members's opinion about this

This is the latest photo that got my attention:

https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/980211/t-314-switzerland-air-force-aerospatiale-as332-super-puma/

With all due respect, this photo does not have a place on this website. The level of blur it is beyond any acceptable standards even for an exposure like that. To bad full members take a gain like this out of the "no screening" perk their status on A-P.net comes with.

In my opinion, the more we see photos like this the more the quality of the website will drop and for sure it is not a thing we want, do we?

For mentioned picture, I think you got a point.

For the rest of it I would like to refer to a song in the motion picture Frozen: "Let it go, let it goooooooo......."

And this has got a watermark:

https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/884839/za713-royal-air-force-boeing-chinook-hc-4/

...

Watermark is a totally different story. Each photographer chooses how to protect better his work.

Yes both images were reported and have been removed.

Hi, there´s another photo with visible watermark, and watermarks are not permited for upload on this website:

Is your photo a .jpg file?

Is the photo less than 3 MB in size?

Is the longer side between 1024 and 1600 pixels (1920 pixels for Full Members)?

Is the aspect ratio between 1:1 and 16:9?

Your photo must not contain frame or visible watermark.

This COPY from the upload rules.

The photo: https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/980516/j-5021-switzerland-air-force-mcdonnell-douglas-f-18c-hornet/

@Lien, that is an excellent example, however I don't entirely blame the photographer. The way I organize my files (as I'm sure many others do too) is to have different file names for the same photo. For example, I'll have a photo renamed for dedicated use to facebook, my website, AP.NET etc. It's likely the F-18 shot was simply the wrong file selected for upload. Now, it should be his responsibility to review his shots uploaded into the database, but mistakes happen.

I wanted to add something and also ask how an image can be reported?

So this example here:

https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/978624/airport-overview-airport-overview-people-pilot/

Is also something I don't understand. I may be wrong, but this would have been rejected with "not enough aviation" for me...

Leo, i uploladed this picture as a full member so sreeneers were not in decision process if publish or not publish it.

I agrre with you that there is maybe not enough aviation in this picture, but thats why a added explanation text .

The raeason why i published this picture is to show that in Batajnica, Sebia were 5 MIGs 29 given as a gift from Russia to Serbia and which high ranking people were present. I believe its interesting for us as a spotters. If not i have no problem to delette it.

Thank you for understanding

Igor

I knew the story behind the photo Igor so it's cool. It sounds like about 250 million in updates needed to modernize them and then you will have a pretty decent air force upgrade. Thank you Mr P :-)

Guys. Commenting on specific photos of other photographers is rude. If there is an issue you feel you have with things send an e-mail to the admins. If there is no e-mail sent then you don't have a real issue and you are just venting in front of the world. That never helps anybody.

Good point, Jetzguy! I know I have started the thread pointing out to a photo but it was meant as a general issue and not directed to someone specifically

I agree! I also part of the part I see in users with full gaps poor-quality photos!