Airplane Pictures home

Home » Forums » Aviation photography » Full members photos, not so full sometimes

Full members photos, not so full sometimes

Vali Muresan 

Member
Joined in January 2016
Posts: 11
Posted 25 October 2017 - 14:03 CET

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?

Coenraad Balt 

Member
Joined in January 2013
Posts: 33
Posted 25 October 2017 - 15:07 CET

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......."

LIEN 

Member
Joined in February 2017
Posts: 49
Posted 25 October 2017 - 15:43 CET

And this has got a watermark:

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

...

Vali Muresan 

Member
Joined in January 2016
Posts: 11
Posted 26 October 2017 - 08:00 CET

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

Michael Carbery 

Head admin
Joined in June 2008
Posts: 1112
Posted 26 October 2017 - 11:36 CET

Yes both images were reported and have been removed.

LIEN 

Member
Joined in February 2017
Posts: 49
Posted 26 October 2017 - 15:31 CET

Hi, thereĀ“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/

Jan Jasinski 

Full member
Joined in November 2010
Posts: 74
Posted 26 October 2017 - 16:19 CET

@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.

Leo Niemann 

Member
Joined in April 2016
Posts: 1
Posted 26 October 2017 - 16:46 CET

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...

Igor Kmet 

Full member
Joined in September 2013
Posts: 80
Posted 26 October 2017 - 20:16 CET

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

Jetzguy 

Member
Joined in July 2016
Posts: 62
Posted 26 October 2017 - 21:22 CET

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 :-)

Jetzguy 

Member
Joined in July 2016
Posts: 62
Posted 2 November 2017 - 19:35 CET

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.

Vali Muresan 

Member
Joined in January 2016
Posts: 11
Posted 3 November 2017 - 10:00 CET

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

Jump to the top

Log in to post in the forum.

Terms and Conditions | About | FAQ | Photo Use | Privacy Policy | Online 1792 (117 members)
© 2006-2017 Airplane-Pictures.net | E-mail us: Team@Airplane-Pictures.net
All photos are copyright © to their respective photographers and may not be used without permission.