Photography Forum | Spotting Location Tag

Now, I may be talking out of my backside (again, I hear you all say!), but I would have thought that the 'Spotting Location' tag ought to be applied only in circumstances where the photo concerned actually shows a specific 'spotting location' and should NOT be used where the shot is of an aircraft taken from a spotting location. Answers on a postcard...

For example:

I see your point but if there is no Aircraft in the shot how are we to know it's a "Spotting Location" ?
Using the 2 examples you posted if we remove the aircraft from the picture all we are left with is a bunch of guys on a roof and a picture of a Street,Field,Tree. For a place to be classed as a spotting location then we need to see evidence that it's possible to view/Photograph Aircraft in relatively close proximity. I believe all Sites require this to stop members uploading shot after shot of empty fields and streets...Hope this helped

@upsmd11 - I think we're 'arguing' at cross-purposes! I absolutely 100 per cent agree that there also needs to be an aircraft in the shot. However, conversely, photos of aircraft without a spotting location in the shot shouldn't have the 'spotting location' tag applied to them. If you look at the pics that have been uploaded in the 'Spotting Locations' category, the vast majority of them show an aircraft in flight with no sign of the ground, let alone a spotting location!!

Does this qualify as a spotting location?

I think the point of the Spotting Location tag is that when people view the Airport Guides section, the website automatically includes pictures taken from that location so people get an idea of the pictures possible. If you include the camera details, it also helps people know what size lens they would need etc.

So if you wanted to get some close up pics from MAN you could use the guide to see that you would need to visit the mound, with a low zoom lens.

In which case, surely it would be better to use the 'Airport Guide Spot' facility, which enables a photograph to be linked to a specific spotting location, as opposed to clicking on the 'Spotting Location' tag?

I think I'm getting confused in semantics. Ignore my comment then.

You and me both...and I was the one that started the thread!! I just think that it would make more sense if the 'Spotting Locations' category contained shots of people's favourite spotting locations, rather than being jam-packed with photos of aircraft in flight, hundreds of which are posted on the site every week!

IMO..Yes, it shows the area,the views available and an A/C,and the 737 does not dominate the shot it would be better with some other spotters in view.



Agreed, there HAS to be relevance between A/C and where it's taken from RE:- the pics you posted and this which actually shows active spotters, otherwise there is no indication that a certain place is accessible to the public, for example if a resident of Myrtle Avenue were to stand in their garden and take shot then this cannot be tagged as a "Spotting Location"


However I think the problem w have here is members NOT de-selecting the Spotting location tag when uploading.So when screened it's being added to the majority of pictures.

I thought you had to select (i.e. rather than de-select) it.

Well, it's been rejected twice, which is a shame as I still think that it would be a helpful reference for other spotters and photographers visiting EMA. That said, I take your point regarding the absence of other spotters in the photo...but it was so bloody cold that day that I was the only one crazy enough to be standing out in the prevailing force 10 gale!!

I believe the system automatically selects it,or at least it did. Was the RYR rejected for wrong info (spotting loc) or some other reason?

Hi all, just to clear things up.

The guide location pulldown list is what puts the example photos on the guide pages nothing to do with the spotting location tag.
The shots above showing an aircraft and a location are the ONLY ones that should have the tag "spotting location", I think we need to start to clamp down and reject any other shots that are selected with this.

There has never been any logic to automatically select this tag so it should never have done so, let me know if it does cause it certainly shouldn't.

Thanks for clarifying this Dan. Motion seconded!
It was rejected for 'Motive' - whatever that may be?!

I've just noticed that lots of pictures are tagged with Spotting Location when it was un-neccesary so I thought that the system tagged it.



Agreed, if members can't be bothered to mark/un-mark a box then i dont see why the screeners should waste their time doing so,they have enough to do.



In a nutshell, theres no reason to have composed or taken this kind of shot.

Apart from the fact that it shows a bona fide spotting location...

I agree but the screener must see it as such. only problem i see with this shot is that the fence is maybe a little dominating the picture

If a photo is of an aircraft and just sky, with no indication of a location, how should it be tagged or should it not be tagged?

One thing is for certain - it should NOT be tagged as a 'Spotting Location'.

Fair comment - although, when uploading the photo, I did go to the trouble of adding the following narrative for the benefit of the screener:

'The photo was taken from the public footpath that runs along the eastern perimeter of the airport at a point roughly midway between Spots A and E, just South of the runway and its associated ILS equipment (the latter being shown on the left hand side of the photo for reference purposes).'

Is does not need to be tagged with anything, unless there is something different about the AC.



Then from a personal POV i would have accepted, but as i say it's down to the guy who screened it.