Hi,
As you probably know, I travelled up to Glasgow on Monday with bmi British Midland, returning last night.
Whilst up there, I made a trip to the East Fortune Airfield in East Lothian. I have to say, it is very poorly sign-posted and whoever measured the distances to the place should be shot. One sign said 3 miles to go… after travelling 5 miles there was 2 and a half miles to go… :confused:
We took a wrong turning at one point which made us have to travel an extra 17 miles before we could get off of the dual carriageway which we were travelling on!
Stupid old me never realised that G-BOAA of British Airways had ended up at the museum, so I was very surprised when I got a glimpse of it. For £4, the museum is unbeatable value and also includes a couple of Jetstream 31s, a Comet and much more. More photos to come soon, but this is Concorde at the moment. It’s not got a tail, but you can see that in the background. The wings are also missing some large parts.
By: Ren Frew - 3rd August 2004 at 09:19
Work begins today to attach the wings to G-BOAA, the plane is expected to be complete and on display with it’s Conocorde exhibition by the spring/summer of 2005.
By: T5 - 2nd August 2004 at 12:19
Ahem!!! 😡
Andy (airliners.net photo screener) 🙂
PS: we probably would reject your picture, but not for “stupid” reasons – 1. there are reflections from the window in the right hand side of the image (which could be corrected with a little careful use of photoshop or even more careful shielding of the front of the lens when you shot the picture), and – 2. noses are OK, but noses with the nose chopped off (if you understand what I mean) usually are not. What airliners.net demands is attention to detail, moreso than do the wannabe sites like JetPhotos and Planepictures. Once a photographer gets that message about real attention to the small details, if their basic image quality is OK (which your image has), they usually enjoy pretty high success rates on airliners.net
I’m not so sure about high success rates on Airliners.net. 9 out of 10 photos are viewed by more visitors to JetPhotos.net than they are at Airliners.net.
Another reason I tend not to bother with Airliners.net, aside from their choosiness, is the fact that everything about the website is money. What sort of a website charges people to use a discussion forum? :confused:
By: Ren Frew - 31st July 2004 at 00:39
Andy is right about the criteria required for A.net approval. I think where the bugbears lie is in the sometimes inconsistent opinions of the screeners?
Rejecting a shot for quality reasons can mean many things, explanations are often hard to come by. I think a lot of enthusiast snappers see the group as being a little too dependent on contributors having access to the best equipment, the best processing and the best airside friends around the world.
Rightly or wrongly, I think A.net has become too much of a photographic forum where aviation comes a close second ? Some of the best airliner pictures ever seen are to be found there but so are some of the worst and most cliche’d types as well. It’s all a matter of opinion of course, but I decided not to post my pics anywhere else but here as it’s one of the most instantly accessible photo/text websites around.
I do still regard A.net as being the best source for reference shots. Getting published in there however makes me feel the need to look elsewhere.
I like rough and ready footage sometimes, not always the nicely composed stuff, perhaps a site that captures a more emotive style of aviation photography would appeal to my own tastes a little more the A.net ?
MY own personal tuppence worth of course… 😉
By: davforr - 30th July 2004 at 23:45
Nice pictures Michael
this is what makes this forum great
the quality of pictures posted by members
By: Skymonster - 30th July 2004 at 22:43
I’d like to give it a go, but I find them much too choosy. They seem to reject photographs for stupid reasons, that’s why I prefer JetPhotos.net.
Ahem!!! 😡
Andy (airliners.net photo screener) 🙂
PS: we probably would reject your picture, but not for “stupid” reasons – 1. there are reflections from the window in the right hand side of the image (which could be corrected with a little careful use of photoshop or even more careful shielding of the front of the lens when you shot the picture), and – 2. noses are OK, but noses with the nose chopped off (if you understand what I mean) usually are not. What airliners.net demands is attention to detail, moreso than do the wannabe sites like JetPhotos and Planepictures. Once a photographer gets that message about real attention to the small details, if their basic image quality is OK (which your image has), they usually enjoy pretty high success rates on airliners.net
By: A330Crazy - 30th July 2004 at 21:59
Nice shot Michael. Hope to see the rest soon. 🙂
I was alittle suprised to see that its only got the undercarriage back on it, but Allen answered my question. 🙂
By: Ren Frew - 30th July 2004 at 21:56
There’s been a delay in the reassembly process, should be in one piece next summer though.
By: BY767 - 30th July 2004 at 21:50
Sounds a great place to visit! I might find myself going there sometime. Excellent value for £4 when you see other place’s prices.
By: LBARULES - 30th July 2004 at 21:16
Great stuff, £4! What a bargain as you say.
By: T5 - 30th July 2004 at 21:04
I’d like to give it a go, but I find them much too choosy.
They seem to reject photographs for stupid reasons, that’s why I prefer JetPhotos.net. It’s in the screening queue, but since this was shot through a glass window, I’m not so sure that it will be accepted.
By: BigJet - 30th July 2004 at 20:58
wow, looks good, if you uploaded that on to a.net i think it would be pic of the day!
Sign In
July 30, 2004 at 8:39 pm