> 1 <
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos  
|
2010-01-02 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Hi all,
I've created a new poll regarding photos of weapons and whether they should be added to the database. Please vote. More frequently now, we get photos of missiles, bombs, etc. and we have a hard time deciding on what to do with them. We'd like to keep the focus on aircraft, but sometimes they are a part of the aircraft or weapons system, making it hard to decide. Please vote and let us hear your comments here. -Ray |
| Author | Message |
lieuwehofstra
See my 2,835 Photos 
|
2010-01-02 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Displayed in front of an aircraft I'd say okay, although not a personal favorite :wink, but just a bomb or a rocket as sole subject I'd say no.
|
| Author | Message |
Peter Terlouw
See my 2,207 Photos
|
2010-01-02 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I agree with Liewe. Displayed in front or on an airplane I would also say okay, if the whole picture is up to standards. Seperate pictures of bombs, missiles or fueltanks a big no.
|
| Author | Message |
mark_munzel
See my 952 Photos 
|
2010-01-03 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Ditto to Lieuwe and Peter's comments. I'm not a big fan of detail shots, so even weapons mounted on aircraft (third option in the poll) wouldn't be a draw for me.
-M.M. |
| Author | Message |
TomG
See my 1,582 Photos 
|
2010-01-03 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Not for me folks; lets keep the site focussed on the aircraft, all well and good if the aircraft themselves are carrying an array of armament but I'd prefer not to head down the route of having lots of shots just showing an AIM-9L or Paveway IV for instance.
Best regards & Happy New Year, Tom |
| Author | Message |
wsmms
|
2010-01-03 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
yes i agree with Liewe too just on an airplane or in front of them most of the people are here just for the love of the airplanes but to be honest with you i like the shots when they are firing one of them.
best regards ,Waleed |
| Author | Message |
sawyer98
|
2010-01-03 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Really like the aircraft photos. I'm a model builder so also like the detail shots. BUT, I don't feel a "weapons only" element is necessary. Agree with others suggesting we stick to aircraft.
|
| Author | Message |
N74JW
|
2010-01-04 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I guess I am the odd man out, as usual. Weapons and their photos wouldn't bother me as much, especially if there is a separate category. A function could be built into the site to offer a search that excludes images of missiles and bombs.
|
| Author | Message |
Stu
See my 546 Photos 
|
2010-01-04 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Agree with Liewe and Tom there
Happy new year Regards Stu |
| Author | Message |
ironfan
See my 920 Photos
|
2010-01-04 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I'm with the majority on this one, nope!
|
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2010-01-05 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Hi everyone,
Thanks for your input. Please don't get me wrong, we're not going to start adding thousands of missile, bomb, etc. shots, and adding their manufacturer, etc. in the drop down menus, but rather shots like this, as an example, is what I had in mind:
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
Vasmadár
See my 271 Photos  
|
2010-01-05 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I think the aircrafts/helicopters are more important, but this photos looks good!
 
Lets Fly! :) |
| Author | Message |
wsmms
|
2010-01-05 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I think shots like these look pretty good.
|
| Author | Message |
troy
|
2010-01-05 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I agree. Aircraft are sleek,aerodynamic and just attractive. They are also a vehicle to deliver ordanance. Without the munitions, there would be no reason for millitary aviation.
Troy |
| Author | Message |
mark_munzel
See my 952 Photos
|
2010-01-07 GMT-5 hours
|
|
But here's the thing: how many different photos of an AIM-9 hanging off an F-22's launch rail would the database need? There are 3000+ AF.com members who recognize that not every grey airplane looks the same: there's a diversity of serial numbers, operators, markings, viewing angles, photo locations, etc. for each one. How many people see the same diversity in photos of missiles?
-M.M. |
| Author | Message |
lieuwehofstra
See my 2,835 Photos
|
2010-01-07 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I do agree with Mark. IMHO these photo's ad nothing to the site. The strenght of airfighters lies in the diversity of high quality aircraft photo's from past and present and please don't get distracted too much from that. That's why more and more serious aircraft photographers keep uploading their photo's. Just don't go down the same road as A-net where they end up showing terminal buildings and toilets in aircraft
|
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos
|
2010-01-10 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Well I voted 'Yes' regarding photos of weapons and whether they should be added to the database. I think that Airfighters could fill a useful gap on the WWW by being an information resource for all aspects of military aviation and this would include detailed photos of whatever role the aircraft is there to perform. So, for fighters this would be the missiles carried, for attack and bomber types this would be the various types of ordnance, for recon aircraft this would be the various cameras and radars, for transport aircraft and helos this would be details of the cargo cabin. We already celebrate nose and tail art, special colour schemes, and the boneyard.
Additionally, what about the earlier generations of unmanned missile / RPV / UAV such as the Regulus, Bomarc, Firebee, D-21, Snark and the DASH? In their time they were significant military aviation programmes which really pushed the limits of technology and I think photos of these would fit the Airfighters ethos. I can understand the concern that Airfighters might become diluted by such photos but in practice I think it unlikely that there is a photographer somewhere out these ready to flood the site with photos of every AIM-9L ever built :wink One reason I have uploaded so few photos over the last 18 months is because I have taken up scale modelling again and I know from experience it is very difficult to find any one site on the WWW which can be used as a photo reference for missiles and ordnance. So I say allow such photos to be added to the db and I am sure we can trust Ray and the crew to monitor this and call a stop if things do get too silly.Michael NB: Now where's that photo of the C-23A door mounted toilet bowl which I snapped at Mildenhall many years ago... 
Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2010-01-20 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Everyone, thanks for your input. While it is apparent that those types of detail shots may appeal to some people, just a matter of personal taste, it is obvious that to most they do not. Thus we will probably not accept any types of shots showing just the missile or bomb, or any other ordnance for that matter, unless there is some really significant importance behind it. Thanks for your support and sharing your thoughts with us.
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
YIFLY
See my 7,078 Photos
|
2010-01-20 GMT-5 hours
|
|
The subject is a slippery slope. I vote NO, keep the site just the way it is.
“There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.” -Ernest Hemingway |
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos
|
2010-01-21 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote Ray, I am not sure I understand how you came to this conclusion. The poll consisted of three choices, two of which were in favour of allowing the uploading of photos and weapons on Airfighters. 47% were against, while 51% were in favour (to some degree). There was no corresponding balance with the 'no' vote so we don't know how many of the 'no's were totally against the idea or perhaps more mildly so. The number of negative comments in this thread could be interpreted as a majority but in fact only three people (out of 3030 registered members) have come out and stated a loud and clear unqualified 'no' - and two of them repeated their objection as well! So sorry, I really don't understand how "it is obvious that to most they do not". A lost opportunity in my humble opinion. It would have been great to have had some photos of Hound Dog, Blue Steel, and the AS-4 'Kitchen' in the database. Michael Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message |
troy
|
2010-01-23 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I agree. If you combine those who wanted it in some form, it is 51% to 47%. I don't think you can say a mojority doesn't want them. In the end, you're the administrator and will be making the final decision. Just be honest and say you want it that way.
Troy |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2010-01-23 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Hi Troy,
No, actually quite the opposite. I've been wanting to include them all along as I think they're definitely an integral part of the whole weapons system. Without them the aircraft alone would be quite ineffective. But I do value other people's opinion, especially the crew's, and I'd like to go along with what everyone wants. It's definitely not a case of it's "my way or the highway". On many occasions I've sided with the crew, and sometimes such as this, asked the member's opinions in a poll or forums posts. After all the site is for the photographers, regular members, and guests that visit the site everyday. You're right it is just about 50/50 and that's why I stated that we will evaluate each photo on it's own merit and as a result some will make it through and others will be rejected. -Ray |
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos
|
2010-01-31 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote Can't ask for more than that! Thanks Ray  Michael Appears to be thinking... |
> 1 <