Hi, so on a cold day like today in Florida I like to go thru photos of many airports especially in Poland and USA. I'm surprised how few photos there are in the database for year 2018!!! There are a bit more for 2017, but nothing like 2013-2016!. Did photographers here loose interest? or harder to get photos approved? Overall it is disappointing to see so few new photos. Thanks!

Do you have any examples of what you mean? Many photos have been added in 2018, but perhaps not from smaller airports. I would contribute that mostly due to no-one being there and uploading their photos to A.net.

An interesting topic. When there is conjecture you go to the numbers. 2013 - 162,907 uploads. 204 - 172,566. 2015 - 165, 035 and 2016 - 131,769. That’s an average of 158,089. In 2018 the total uploads was 97,159..... that’s a reduction of about 40% which is a disturbing downward trend

As stated in a similar thread on the other forum, the trend is more and more towards social media platforms, instant gratification, etc. Not to mention, there are photos on the front page of this site with less than 1000 views. That was simply unheard of ~10 years ago, where front pagers would routinely get 10k+ hits. Brands that don't change...quite simply, die. I hope the new owners of the site realize this, or perhaps that are just "running out the clock" on the site's value...time will tell. A shame really.

There are spotters I run into routinely at airports who have *never heard* of Airliners.net. That is not an exaggeration.

It also doesn't help that it takes 8+ days to get a photo screened here. Where are all of the screeners?

KICT wrote:

It also doesn't help that it takes 8+ days to get a photo screened here. Where are all of the screeners?

8+ days? I remember when the queue was in the neighborhood of 3 weeks!

I think it is obvious that the overall interest in the site is decreasing (Views on the frontpage almost at an alltime low, even newsworthy stuff struggles to break the 10K view barrier, as mentioned before much less uploads). No doubt that the exposure one gets here is still good, but it is nowhere near it was 5 years or even 2 years a go. What does worry me a bit that it seems to go a bit more down every year. I don’t what happened in that time but I noted a significant drop in views on the frontpage starting ~ October 2018.

I agree that the main reason for that is the emergence of social media platforms, sure a main competitor might have more uploads these days, but views on frontpage there are still significantly lower on a.net.
Today there are just plenty of opportunities to share your aviation shots with a large number of other enthusiasts and surely some of them are just easier to handle with less potential of being frustrated.
Some of the site’s struggles and the infamous relaunch certainly didn’t help either. But I think even without them the trend would be there.

As Moose noted the queue used to be way longer and some 4 years back I was happy when my shots were screened within 14 days. Back then apparently no one cared, people where still uploading a lot. I don’t think that is a main issue. Especially as quite a few shots can get priority these days and I struggle do see the difference if the 256th Lufthansa 747-400 shot of a certain frame gets added immediatley or after 8 days.

Without doubt, in my view, the reason is social media. It provides an immediacy with which a site such as this that uses screening cannot compete. Unfortunately it appears to me that many photographers, as well as photographs, are no longer here. As a long time member and contributor to the conversations over on the 'Aviation Photography' forum I am often struck these days by the degree to which that 'room' is now deserted. In the old days you could open the door, enter the room, find friends and engage in a number of conversations - that doesn't seem to happen to anything like the same extent any longer, which is a shame. Only in the 'Civil' forum is there the bustle of much activity.

In the 'old' days this was one of the top, if not the top, places people wanting aviation photos would come. I wonder now whether those same people go first to other well known general photo-sharing sites first - I would be interested to know. Are your requests for photo usage not like they once were?

Paul

An interesting topic; allow me to give you my take on this, as a once regular uploader......

Aviation photography has become a competition, and I find myself increasingly wanting to be alone at the airport, away from those who are only interested in hits. here's nothing wrong per se with hit-seeking, however I feel that it totally undermines the basic ethos of the hobby. People have, I find, generally become less friendly, and far more prone to conflict with other photographers. Self-promotion is the order of the day, as opposed to a shared interest that should be creating bonds rather than shattering them.

There are people who zoom off home a nanosecond after the day's star visitor, eager to get the first image online - each to his/her own but is this really an interest in aviation or an interest in one-upmanship? Maybe both at best?

Maybe it's just me but, in this climate, I'm far less inclined to share my images. The only person who regularly sees my photos these days is me, and as long as I satisfy my own criteria, I ain't too bothered about who else might be paying attention.

It's a shame but, certainly at my local airport, the days of hanging around for hours on end, casually chatting to those with a shared interest, are mostly gone.

On a final note - and perhaps a thought for a separate debate - I can't help but feel that the screening here is now a case of (mainly) young guys, perhaps with a point to prove, trying their hardest to find fault with our images. I may well be wide of the mark but it's unrealistic to think that every screener is always 100% fair and impartial.

Perhaps a very negative view and certainly not the succinct answer to the original question, but I imagine there are others who feel the same.

Karl

JakTrax wrote:

An interesting topic; allow me to give you my take on this, as a once regular uploader......

Aviation photography has become a competition, and I find myself increasingly wanting to be alone at the airport, away from those who are only interested in hits. here's nothing wrong per se with hit-seeking, however I feel that it totally undermines the basic ethos of the hobby. People have, I find, generally become less friendly, and far more prone to conflict with other photographers. Self-promotion is the order of the day, as opposed to a shared interest that should be creating bonds rather than shattering them.

There are people who zoom off home a nanosecond after the day's star visitor, eager to get the first image online - each to his/her own but is this really an interest in aviation or an interest in one-upmanship? Maybe both at best?

It's even worse on social media, which is why I hardly ever engage with anyone on there anymore unless it's those that I know or trust. Just post the pics for people to see them and be done with it for the most part.

Perhaps going a little off-topic, but there's a lot of negative effects created by social media. There's a current mentality that any criticism, even if it's constructive/helpful, is bad and mustn't be tolerated, lest we offend anyone. Part of a wider culture, I know, but it's not particularly helpful to those just starting out because it gives them a false sense of their ability. We've all seen clearly poor images overrun with comments to the tune of, "Awesome shot"; if people believe they are already at their best, there's little incentive to try and improve, and the shock of helpful criticism is often too much for them.

You improve as a photographer by embracing reality, not revelling in the glory of a thousand hyperbolic comments praising your work.

Karl - you write very well. I’ve always noted this, whatever the topic area. Obvious evidence of a good old fashioned education.

Paul

The quality of the images being accepted are nowhere near what they were ten years ago, good or bad that's just how it is. While not nearly as bad as other places, I see a lot of images where I can't even believe the person was at the airport, much less taking pictures. Then I see comments like "great image" or "that's a quality photo." It's totally bizarre. And, Karl is quite right; tell them how it is and watch the venom flow.

Things like high ISO and noise reduction kill the quality of a photo; even a camera with incredible ISO performance, the Dynamic Range drop-off from ISO 200 to ISO 800 is something like four full stops; that is a massive amount. It absolutely kills a shot. the colors and details are just mush. I do think challenging conditions can make for dramatic effect, for instance a plane under reverse thrust on a wet runway, but standing outside taking standard shots in poor conditions is a waste.

As for Social Media, the current staff does a good job of getting newsworthy stuff added to the site. I uploaded quite a few new regs consistently and the service level is quite good. I don't think queue times hurt the user or the site for newsworthy stuff. For the person mentioning how long the queue used to be, that was with 15,000 images waiting to be screened. I believe the current average level is closer to 5,000.

Anyways, the quality of the site will never be what it once was, but don't we all wax nostalgic from time to time? So many talent photogs who have come and gone. And many of the best photogs were also screeners. I've always hoped the site would move back towards the days of what it used to be; the best aviation photography website, with the highest quality images. That's how you make it unique, you don't compete with sites that have a low (or non-existent) barrier to participation.

JakTrax wrote:

On a final note - and perhaps a thought for a separate debate - I can't help but feel that the screening here is now a case of (mainly) young guys, perhaps with a point to prove, trying their hardest to find fault with our images. I may well be wide of the mark but it's unrealistic to think that every screener is always 100% fair and impartial.

No-one has a point to prove as far as I can tell and we do not try our hardest to find flaws. In addition, I really don't see see why age is relevant here (also depends on your definition of young). We have no age restriction, what matters mainly is that someone is mature enough and takes good quality photos. Whether that's someone in their 20's, 30's 40's, etc. doesn't matter in my opinion. But if it helps to form a mental picture, I'm willing to bet that at least 90% of the screening team is 30+. I actually have no idea about the age of my colleagues and honestly I'm not fussed enough at all to want to know. I'm probably in the bottom third of the spectrum though.

Kas, I wasn't attacking the screening team as a whole (there are those who apply common sense, yourself included) but the evidence suggests that some do indeed look to reject rather than accept. You only need look in this forum to see some of the ridiculous rejections, many of which are overturned by way of appeal. Any position that offers influence and jurisdiction over others will inevitably attract those who like to abuse power - I'm not suggesting that's the case with any member of the current team but it's happened in the past so it's not unreasonable to assume it could happen again. You can't change human nature unfortunately.

I did say I could be wide of the mark; I'm just throwing out my opinion. The dynamics of the hobby are certainly changing but I think it has to be mentioned that there are many who stopped uploading due (at least in part) to poor and unfair screening decisions.

JakTrax wrote:

...evidence suggests that some do indeed look to reject rather than accept. You only need look in this forum to see some of the ridiculous rejections, many of which are overturned by way of appeal.....

clickhappy wrote:

The quality of the images being accepted are nowhere near what they were ten years ago, good or bad that's just how it is.

I think the 2 comments above show that the perspectives differ. I fscreen to accept. Does that men some images that are added are not perfect? Yes, but they are acceptable. I typically reject for major flaws or multiple minor flaws. If I can't decide, I leave it for review by another screener. BTW, I am a 30+ screener

Having said that, the market has changed over the years on account of changing tastes, competing platforms, etc. We need to adapt in order to survive...and I for one hope we do.

Cheers,

Jehan

I have a few points to add to this. You guys covered the all the social media points. However, coming from someone who uploads to Instagram (just for fun), there is a huge compitition to get photos uploaded to (how should I call it?) “the other site.” Likely of course, your photos will display on FR24 if it gets accepted. Which wraps itself into the gratification of seeing your photos displayed on FR24. Ive noticed “the other site” has ~10-11K photos in queue, whilst airliners has ~4-5-6K photos in the queue. The majority of photos in the other sites queue come from instagram photogs wanting to see their photo on FR24. (There are of course the few that just upload to each site for the fun.) the other site I’ve noted is more passive on rejection/acceptance. Which suits the Instagram photogs who have some flaws in their photo that may lead to a rejection.
Don’t take my insight as a criticism to either site (airliners included.) I have had an overall lovely experience with airliners and hope that it survives as well.
Just my 2 cents.
Have a great day.
Tim.

I personally think the 'other site' doesn't feature the same quality we see here, but as Royal pointed out the bar for screened photo sites seems to have been lowered of late. I guess it's the old 'if you can't beat them....' adage.

It's a sad indictment of the direction in which the hobby's heading when people strive so hard to get their images viewed on FR24. I really do feel that the aim of the game is now to amass as many views as possible, rather than showcase high quality images; it of course begs the question: are half these people actually interested in aviation or are they just desperate for exposure? A good way to perhaps partially answer this question is to determine how many of these individuals were present on the scene during the film/slide era - again, not a conclusive method but it could offer some insight.

Things move on but, in our hobby's case, I'm not convinced we're going the right way. At the end of the day other people's preferences are none of my business and don't affect me, however I've witnessed people arguing with each other (with venom, I might add!) over who got a photo uploaded or published first. It's pathetic, frankly.

JakTrax wrote:

A good way to perhaps partially answer this question is to determine how many of these individuals were present on the scene during the film/slide era - again, not a conclusive method but it could offer some insight.

I know you said partially, but I don't see how shooting film and interest in the hobby are connected. Different era, different equipment. Not having any slide/film photos says nothing about ones interest in aviation. Taking myself as an example, I'm too young to have taken slide/film photos, but I have a huge interest in aviation and have had that for as long as I can remember. It's not our fault that we didn't grow up when film cameras were state of the art. Nowadays people grow with a Canon 1DX. Huge difference and says 0 about the level of interest in the hobby.

JakTrax wrote:

I've witnessed people arguing with each other (with venom, I might add!) over who got a photo uploaded or published first. It's pathetic, frankly.

Not trying to disprove this as I'm sure it happens, but I haven't witnessed much of that myself. My most recent experience was 2 weeks ago at LHR. I was taking night photos and fully expected to be the only only one there. Much to my surprise, another photographer had the same idea. I find it only natural that one says hello in such a situation and upon hearing his name I immediately realised he is a photographer here as well. We ended up chatting and taking photos for a few hours that night as well as the next morning.

Like I said, Kas...... partially......

The gist is that some people only seem interested in taking photos of aircraft (and other things, for that matter) because of the exposure/views it gets them. There are many, many exceptions, of course, but I know folks my age (40) who only decided to pick up a camera and start shooting aircraft once the social media revolution had begun. Coincidence in every case?

As I said earlier, how people view their pastime is none of my business, but this whole social media thing seems to have become a fierce competition; one that often leads to jealousy and bickering. I sincerely doubt this will prove a positive step for the hobby.

JakTrax wrote:

The gist is that some people only seem interested in taking photos of aircraft (and other things, for that matter) because of the exposure/views it gets them.

Allow me to take this concept and turn it sideways, Karl. I take photos because I enjoy creating beautiful images. That's why I have many of my photos on the walls of my apartment, even though almost no one besides myself ever sees them. I also find immense enjoyment in sharing my photos with others, because I like seeing the emotions they can evoke. That's why I actively share my photos here, on Instagram, and in a few Facebook groups. So while I'm not only interested in photography for the views, the act of sharing and getting views does bring me much joy.

Kaphias wrote:

JakTrax wrote:

The gist is that some people only seem interested in taking photos of aircraft (and other things, for that matter) because of the exposure/views it gets them.

Allow me to take this concept and turn it sideways, Karl. I take photos because I enjoy creating beautiful images. That's why I have many of my photos on the walls of my apartment, even though almost no one besides myself ever sees them. I also find immense enjoyment in sharing my photos with others, because I like seeing the emotions they can evoke. That's why I actively share my photos here, on Instagram, and in a few Facebook groups. So while I'm not only interested in photography for the views, the act of sharing and getting views does bring me much joy.

Well I can personally fully agree with that. I started the hobby as a youth in the film / slide era and and when I begun I basically shared my photos with that one friend that was also interested in aviation and with my family. While maybe they appreciated the Wunala Dreaming Qantas I bet that they could not care less if any obscure DC-10 was special or not. Later I began to share my shots with other spotters I knew while being on the usual spotting points. Still it was limited..
I took a long break from this hobby and when I started shooting again 2012 I really enjoyed the way how I could suddenly share my shots with people that are really interested then. I got to know quite a few interesting persons that way and of course it is nice to get some feedback and to share the shots with thousands of others.
But for all the hits discussion. Of course it is cool when a shot of mine gets 10K+ views for example, but in the end what does it bring to me? I mean it's not like youtube, I get nothing from it. Funny enough those few shots I've ever sold where basically none of my most "popular" ones.
And generally I think that this assumption (that is always looming) that if someone clicks on a shot he likes it is just not true. I mean I usually click on shots that look really nice but also on those that look really questionable to me and for sure it also happens that a thumbnail looks promising but the original is somehow dissapointing.

Otherwise I haven't noticed a significant drop in quality over the last years. I think while rules were more strict some years back these days there is more common sense applied on some shots that might not be perfect, but are still interesting. I for myself appreciate that.
Sure I might find a questionable (non-special) shot here and there but that was always the case.
And while I still get rejections I don't understand or that I find rather picky it used to happen much more often in the past that I really had the feeling someone screened my shots to reject them. These days that happens much less based on my personal experience.
I also do not see it as a problem if screeners are younger these days (though I cannot tell if that really is the case). I mean some years back there were really times where I honestly thought the team could need some fresh blood, especially concerning sizes. For example why I still get "better smaller" these days it happens much, much less.

Going the way of the other site is a bad idea. Quantity never beats quality, whenever I flip through the shots of my homeaiport there I basically stop after 2 pages because it is just very boring. And I don't want to even mention the quality of some of these shots.

What I do like though is the discussion. It just shows that there is some passion left for the site....

I think some are missing my point here.

Yes, everyone gets some satisfaction out of other people looking at and (presumably) enjoying their photos, however my point is that the obsession for hits and praise is, in some cases, turning otherwise decent people into narcissistic, overly competitive drones. And most of it is the fault of social media.

I can't help but feel that the hobby in general is now less friendly; many seem to form cliques and view other groups or individuals with suspicion, lest they present some from of competition.

There are people out there who will withhold info simply because they want exclusive images - is this really how we want our hobby to move forward?

I'm aware that there are still some very friendly (and very modest) guys out there, but it strikes me that attention seekers are exponentially on the rise.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is an element of the screener group that screen to reject.

johnr wrote:

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is an element of the screener group that screen to reject.

Perhaps some empirical evidence or data to support your contention"???

Jehan

Jehan, I don't claim to be an expert on the composition of the current screening team - nor do I want to get into this debate in this thread - however I have spoken with many ex-screeners (including heads) who have all told me that, at least in the past, favouritism and bias have been rife. The recent evidence is in the perplexing rejections highlighted in this very forum (how many times have you yourself stated that you fail to see anything wrong with a rejected image?), and the fact that so many of those rejections seem to breeze in following appeal.

I'm all for a website which controls quality by screening but it is, undeniably, an elitist process which will invariably attract those with an elitist mindset (both screeners and photographers). That's just human nature.

Luckily for those seeking advice in this forum, the screeners who frequently offer their views here (chiefly you and Kas) don't appear to have that elitist mentality, but I can bet at least one or two members of the team do. You cannot possibly know the inner workings and intentions of people living thousands of miles away from you, with whom you only communicate every now and then via a keyboard.

I'm not being anti-screener here - I'm simply being pragmatic.

I find it very refreshing to read a thread such as this - though I don't understand why it is placed here, as opposed to the Aviation Photography Forum itself.

This issue of screening consistency has been talked about as long as I have been a member here - and my professional background can vouch for the accuracy of what Karl says about human nature! But specifically relating to this thread's main theme, I have to say that I think we now live in a world where less and less people are prepared to accept 'delayed gratification', when they can get immediacy from posting on social media. Screened sites such as this may well maintain a quality standard not found elsewhere, but a potential uploader has to weigh that up as against factors such as how many people may view her/his image; likelihood of the image reaching those with whom they want to interact; risks of what they consider to be a high quality image being rejected for relatively minor flaws ... and the list goes on. There can be no doubt that far fewer people appear (to me) to view images than in years gone by, and that is no surprise given the variety of options available to them on the net. Also A.net cannot offer the number of views that the competition can (unless you get to the Top 5) - which is not how it used to be a few years ago.

I sometimes question why I continue uploading here - not least because I am just hopeless when it comes to rejections I have concluded that I still feel an attachment to this site, which played such a key part in my life some years ago when I really got into aviation photography. I certainly miss the interaction with many people, inside and outside of the Forum, which used to be the case. Though I am out and about by the perimeter a lot less than Karl, I too have witnessed some dodgy behaviour from some people, less keen to talk about their favourite spots for getting the best angle for their photos/their editing workflows etc. Thankfully they are outweighed by those I have met who are friendly and ever ready to offer help.

There is no doubt that potential uploaders are increasingly 'selective' about what they want - e.g. the potential for JP to offer exposure to the world via FlightRadar24. I was reading recently with some interest how some people try all sorts of tricks to cheat the system in order to maximise views ('twas ever thus) - so hit seekers remain, just as in the days of the 'waving pilot' and 'hit seeking comments' that were discussed here years ago. I do think the point is valid that elements of social media have been 'bad' for the effect they have had on that all too human competitive instinct.

Maybe some believe that A.net cannot offer the 'shop window' for aviation photography that it used to be. I have avoided most of social media platforms, and so I remain here - getting older with the rest of my colleagues.

Good to read the debate.

Cheers.

Paul

Jehan....taking my last page of accepted photos as an example which totals 36 shots on my iPad 13 of the 36 were accepted on appeal after initially being rejected for what were frankly nonsense reasons. That’s 36% of my shots have been accepted on appeal. If you include the shots that I’ve appealed for nonsense reasons that have had the original rejection reason overturned only to be rejected by the Head Screeners for a completely different reason then this figure goes up to about 45%. Of the 6 shots that are featured below one of my shots when viewed 3 of the 6 were rejected for ridiculous reasons then accepted on appeal. Thats 50%. Whilst on the subject of empirical evidence and on a similar note to my initial response to this thread I’ve been uploading to this site for over ten years now. In 2013 I had 427 shots accepted, 2014. - 359, 2015 - 317, 2016 - 252, 2018 a lowly 125 and so far in 2019 a total of ZERO. The trend with my shots closely mirrors the site statistics in general. I find little motivation to upload here at all these days for many reasons not least of which is the screening which I’ve discussed but also the obvious favouritism that certain uploaders constantly receive. The site has become an exclusive boys club and the rest of us are just here to make up the numbers. In my view the site is in terminal decline and just waiting for the owners to unplug the life support. I hope I’m wrong because I don’t want my efforts of the last ten years to simply evaporate into cyberspace.

John, Thanks for responding with some data from your side. I looked a the screening log for 2018 as well, and discovered the following based on 31 members of the screening team (including head screeners):

Average % of rejected images per screener = 44%
Number of screeners above the average: 10 of 31 (32%)

These numbers may be skewed towards the high side since it includes head screeners who typically handle appeals only.

While the statistics from the site does indicate a group of screeners that have a higher than average rate of rejection, I don't know if it is accurate to conclude that it is due to reasons such as egos or being an exclusive boys club etc. Per the data, the majority of the screeners have rejection rates that are lower than average or slightly higher than average which leads me to think that there are a few screeners whose rates are keeping the average up at 44%.

One could slice and dice this data to draw any conclusion one desires, but your point makes for good feedback for the site. Even if there is a perception of favoritism or irrational screening, that is not a good thing. It's a challenge trying to maintain high standards vs. trying to compete with the many social media sites where attention and accolades seem to be free flowing. With regards to some photographer's images appearing on the front page more than others, often that seems to be driven by external links to social media platforms (e.g. FB), and in some cases, illicit means to boost views. I've been a contributor to a.net since 2006 and have about 3,000 images. I've been on the front page less than 5 times and most because my images were selected by the editors to be featured on the a.net FB page. FYI, as freakish as it sounds, I have no social media accounts.

Anyhow, good discussion and good feedback. I too hope that the site will grow while maintaining a high standard for aviation photography.

Jehan

johnr wrote:

Whilst on the subject of empirical evidence and on a similar note to my initial response to this thread I’ve been uploading to this site for over ten years now. In 2013 I had 427 shots accepted, 2014. - 359, 2015 - 317, 2016 - 252, 2018 a lowly 125 and so far in 2019 a total of ZERO.

John, have you also uploaded the same amount of photos in those years or has that been declining as well? Not trying to prove you wrong, but you are talking numbers in a situation where percentage says more.

johnr wrote:

The site has become an exclusive boys club and the rest of us are just here to make up the numbers.

I remember this was said years ago as well, when the likes of Sam Chui were still uploading.

johnr wrote:

In my view the site is in terminal decline and just waiting for the owners to unplug the life support. I hope I’m wrong because I don’t want my efforts of the last ten years to simply evaporate into cyberspace.

We've recently had an internal E-mail thread and were assured again by our higher ups that they have all the best intentions for the site. They provided an inisght of what's going on under the hood and it turns out that Demand Media/Leaf dropped the ball (as I'm sure we all know by now). The current owners inherited a less than good site and their teams are working behind the scenes to make sense of the mess that it is. In any case, I do not believe that the screening process makes this site terminal and a quick check on the queue shows that the daily uploads are still at the level they were 2 years ago. If less images got accepted, then either people uploaded less good photos, we got a little more strict, or it's combination of both. And in case of #2, that's why we have the appeal function. I agree things need to be kept fair and that favoritism has no place here. But trust me, we notice trends as well and always take action when we notice a significant one.

jelpee wrote:

These numbers may be skewed towards the high side since it includes head screeners who typically handle appeals only.

To add to that, I think the numbers are not super skewed, as some of the HS also screen the other queues on a fairly regular basis.
Ratio also depends on whether you get handed a good or bad batch of photos to screen. But in the end it likely balances out.

Out of curiousity, I looked up some numbers.
NOTE: These are photos that were taken in those specific years, not the amount of accepted photos per year. Also take into account that many users upload photos more than a year after they were taken.



Possible significant events:
2016: late June/early July, site relaunch by Demand Media.
2015: August, competing site gets absorbed by a well-known flight tracking site.
2007: Johan sold the site to Demand Media/Leaf.

From this data, it seems that the hobby is still very much alive, but the numbers have definitely shifted. This can be attributed to many reasons, some of which may be quality/screening standards, user familiarity, user preference (for whatever reason), social media influence and a difference in benefits offered (exposure, badges, games, whatever).

Thanks to you both, Jehan and Kas, for your expert input to this discussion. The numbers make for interesting viewing.

I still think this thread is in the wrong forum . Also, apologies if I have broken a rule in my previous post, but I thought the days when we weren’t allowed to say the name of 'the other site' (rather like not saying Voldemort in Harry Potter) were long gone.

Paul

And Air Team Images is now uploading images to RadarBox...although most if not all the images do not identify the photographer: just shows "AirteamImages.com" in the copyright bar.

And there, I mentioned a competitor site by name!

Jehan

No worries Paul, sites may be named as long as not an advertisement. I assumed everyone knows I was talking about JP.

I forwarded this thread internally too and one of the screeners made a valid observation that it's a little early to consider those 2018 numbers as definitive. He mentioned that just in the last 24h we had 113 images from 2018 added, 255 in the last 48h.

I had to look up RadarBox and I guess they made a deal with ATI for images.

Hi all,

I haven't posted in the forums for quite some time so no clue if I still got the hang of it...
This here is an interesting discussion though and it's nice to see some well known "old" names here, so I thought I'd chime in.

The initial question was about the 2018 shots. I believe they will get into the database within the next coming months. Not everyone uploads their shots straight away. I, myself, have only got around 50 shots in the database from 2018 but another couple hundreds waiting on my hard disk. If you look for how many shots have been added within the last 12 months you see that the number is almost 130.000 which would suggest a stable average number for the last 3 years.

The discussion has been revolving around JP, FR24 and social media. Yes, the competition has grown in number, hardly in quality. It is no secret that this cost A.net a number of uploaders and photos. Is that a bad thing? I think not, it is just an evolution and one that is not limited to aviation photography. Photography in general has evolved so much within the last one or two decades and the emergence of social media platforms gives the people complete new possibilities to share their work. I believe this trend will normalize itself within the next years and separate those who merely hunt for views with photography being their way of getting them or if people really like (aviation) photography and are willing to commit the time and work to improve.

On the other hand, the competition gives us the opportunity to question ourselves and ask ourselves what we want A.net to be. And if we find the right answers it will help us to develop the site into the right direction and make it fit for the future. That is a task we need to work on and I hope we can manage to find good answers.

As some guys have already said, it makes no sense to try and compete with sites who put quantity over quality. We have to find our niche. This still is quality and used to be our database. The database has gotten a big hit during the site restructuring and I am not sure we can get it back to what it was before.
Then, in my opinion we missed a great chance of expanding the site's horizon photography wise a couple years ago. There was the intention under the so called "creative rule" to allow more uncommon shots in. This was a welcome move away from the technically impeccable sunny side-on photo and could have attracted a good number of enthusiastic photographers. Here putting the emphasis on 'photographer' versus 'spotter'. Sadly, the "creative rule" was badly handled and after a couple months hardly anything was left from the once good intention. Sure, we still get the regular out-of-the-ordinary shot but they are rare.

There is lots of work to do as the site needs to evolve if it is to survive. Future will tell whether we were fit enough to do so.

Cheers,

Thierry

I'm in agreement with much of what Thierry says above. But I'd like to elaborate a little and ask exactly what is creative?

Trends are (or used to be?) set here - we all remember when the LAX overhead shots first appeared, courtesy of Sam Chui, but they've become ubiquitous and what we're seeing now are just overdone copycat images. If that's what people want to do, that's their prerogative, but they're now so common that they're nothing special. There's no uniqueness. Sam 'created' the shot and everyone else followed. Result? No longer creative, in my opinion.

Another (much more recent) trend is night shots of aircraft in flight. Those by a Japanese fella based in Osaka are absolutely superb, and set the bar for that type of shot. But again, everyone's copied it and the result, as far as I can see, is little more than a competition to see who's got the best full-frame camera and f/2.8 glass. I personally don't find these high-ISO night shots aesthetic - they just never look crisp and half the detail's missing - but each to his/her own. Are they creative? Not really. Challenging for sure, but I don't think creative.

Many these days seem to think that any old angle that's different from the norm must somehow be creative, but to produce creative shots you typically need patience, time and planning.... plus a dollop of skill and camera knowledge. Oh, and often some luck! Half of what's considered creative in social media/online circles is merely opportunistic. Take rainbow shots - what did the photographer actually create? Nothing. Nature created the spectacle, and the photographer took advantage by photographing the plane in front of it.

I'm not trying to say that creative shots here don't work or exist, but I do think it's an overused term to describe merely opportunistic or 'against the grain' images.

I guess what I'm saying is, once we've seen revolutionary images, don't keep on with them as the magic fades. You're not 'creating' much if someone else did all the groundwork long ago. Let's use our imaginations, start new trends and get truly creative masterpieces into the database. Even finding new photo spots at your local limits the monotony.

JakTrax wrote:

But I'd like to elaborate a little and ask exactly what is creative?

I think the 'recent' refining of the creative guidelines is a good foundation for what can be considered creative. I'm always open to new ideas though.

I fully agree that the examples you mentioned are not creative (although including nature is debatable), but I don't see the point you're trying to make. The types of photos you mention have gone/are going through the regular queue and are not screened as creative. If they do wind up under the creative category in the search function, then we failed to decreativize them in the screening interface. But perhaps Thierry can elaborate a bit on what he meant with creative photos.

JakTrax wrote:

But again, everyone's copied it and the result, as far as I can see, is little more than a competition to see who's got the best full-frame camera and f/2.8 glass. I personally don't find these high-ISO night shots aesthetic - they just never look crisp and half the detail's missing - but each to his/her own. Are they creative? Not really. Challenging for sure, but I don't think creative.

I don't see it as a competition, I see it as a challenge. Of course it's not going to look the same as a crispy sunny side-on photo, but I like expanding my skillset in aviation and non-av photography. As you say, each to their own.

I'm not sure I agree with the thought that once someone has already done it, it stops behind creative. Sure, you aren't the first to do it, but for me there is a difference in trendsetting and creative.

The point I was making concerns the wider community, rather than exclusively here. I don't do too many creatives but I like seeing them in the database. What I like far less are these over-processed night shots we're seeing a lot of lately - I'm of the opinion that, if it couldn't be achieved in a darkroom, it's too much manipulation. There was one discussed here recently, which had terrible flaring and banding, and it just looked plain ugly. It seems a waste to me to push the boundaries and challenge oneself if the end result isn't going to look the full part.

That said, there are some lovely nighttime images here. But they appear to be the exception, not the rule.

Can I say - what a joy to open my tablet on a Friday evening and see some additions to this very interesting thread (it is still in the wrong forum, surely - could that make a difference to contributors?). Thoughtful and informative discussion points made, and respectful, well written responses.

Great to hear from you Thierry.

Paul

JakTrax wrote:

ask exactly what is creative?

airkas1 wrote:

But perhaps Thierry can elaborate a bit on what he meant with creative photos.

First off, it is not me who came up with the term 'creative', I merely quoted it as this was the word used for the mentioned rules. Also I was not in charge of the "creative rules" so you'd have to ask the guys who implemented them about their thoughts and what they understand under 'creative'.
A.net photography, ever since it started more than 20 years ago, has always been more inclined to spotter photography. The photo criteria more than clearly illustrate this, e.g. aircraft needs to be centered in the frame, no obstructions,... While I am not saying this is a bad thing, photography of course has many more sides. And when a site is not even allowing one of the most basic photographic rules to be applied, namely the rule of thirds (to name but one), then I find it hard to consider it as a site for photographers (again seen here as vs spotters). And this is what I meant when I used the word 'creative' in my earlier post. I personally would use another word and surely taking a photo along the rule of thirds could not be considered creative in any case as photographers have been applying that technique for decades.
So yes, imo, the site still is more inclined to spotter photography and, as mentioned above, we failed to shift the balance and open up the site to people who put more emphasis on the photographic qualities of their shots versus the aircraft spotting qualities. The aviation world has so many different aspects but sadly a great part of it will not be shown here on this site because of the set rules which are about as flexible as a hundred years' old oak tree.

I am well aware that widening the site's photographic horizon would come with its own challenges and it won't bring us the big photo numbers to compensate for the guys who leave for JP and FR24 to get their view counts up. But we could make a name for ourselves for being THE site to see great aviation photography. Think 'niche'.

Psych wrote:

Great to hear from you Thierry.

The feeling is mutual, Paul.

Cheers,

Thierry

ThierryD wrote:

I am well aware that widening the site's photographic horizon would come with its own challenges and it won't bring us the big photo numbers to compensate for the guys who leave for JP and FR24 to get their view counts up. But we could make a name for ourselves for being THE site to see great aviation photography. Think 'niche'.


Thierry

I think a-net will have its niche by sticking to the Quality aspect.

I mean sure, there are seeminlgy countless ways of sharing ones photos today, but in the end they are not for everyone or let's better say some will not particularly feel home everywhere.
Recently I saw that someone linked a few instagram profiles in a local aviation forum. Out of curiosity I decided to check them out. In the end I saw a lot of weird stuff (as much overedited and weird filtesr one can think off, some really awkward crops and so on), quite some average stuff and to remain fair also some possibly good ones. Why do I say "possibly"? Because the shots are displayed so small and with so much compression that I couldn't even enjoy them. And all in all they all had something in common: tons of comments of how great the shots where supposed to be..on some of these I was asking myself if they were actually meaning the same shot.

Why do I write that? Certainly not because I want to bash instagram... in the end everyone his own. My point is more it would be nothing for myself and without needing to discuss it with them I am sure all of the planespotters I know a bit more would agree with that. Maybe it's because with my 35 years I am already "old-school" but I guess there's more people that think likewise.
So there will remain some potential for anet.

For me the question is more of how large will that "niche" be?
I mean overall lately I feel like a.net(like in site owners) did not really make an effort to remain popular.
Let me put a few examples:
-If you search for a Registration on Google these days, airliners does not even appear on the first site of seach results anymore (it used to be the first some years back)
-A.net's facebook page (I know a subject of controversy) has 700.000 followers still since more or less 6 months their posts usually seem to reach out to less then thousand of them. I've seen promoted shots lately that where out of the 24hours window, that ended up with less than 1k views. From what I've heard Facebook wants money these days to make the posts visible to more followers. Does not sound like a fair system to me. Still if I want to make my website a success I might be willing to pay for that. Just a thought (same for google's search results)


As for the "Creative" discussion, no matter of how one interpretes the wording I think it is generally difficult to find a consenus. Thierry did put it right airliner's is a planespotting site first. And without wanting to bash anyone as I would absolutely include myself in that, planespotters are mostly not the most flexible and creative ones.
I mean it is easily visible, as soon as any shot that might not fully comply with these very strict rules appears on the site, the discussion starts somwhere.
For example for night shots I personally think more or less like Karl. There are a few ones that I really like, usually when there is a kind of atmosphere with beacons shining brightly or those brilliant fog-shots, but otherwise if its just plain dark it does not come across to me neither. Still I would say everyone his own and there is place for some stuff like this on the site as well.
But I can on the other hand also understand that people that maybe got their daytime shots rejected for some minor grain (and again this still happens)get upset when they then see a nightshot being accepted that is really grainy. Of course it is not fully comparable, but I just want to show that of how the strict rules (that are necessary to keep the general quality up) can be a double-sided sword and how quickly people can come to think that maybe there is some favorism here and there...especially as (as noted before) only a minority reads and participate in these forums.