Similar to previous

[jac_murphy]

Good evening, folks -

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=968319940

I'm assuming that the similar photo they're referring to would be this one:

PhotoID: 386241 Photograph © Jacques Leblond-Murphy

Wondering what your opinions might be on the subject.

-Jacques

[mp16dot39]

Although they are 2 different angles, its still the same train in the same surrounding. Give it a day perhaps. Nice shots though.

Bill

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by mp16dot39

Although they are 2 different angles, its still the same train in the same surrounding. Give it a day perhaps. Nice shots though.

Bill

Different train, different location, different angle. Definitely not "similar to previous."

[mp16dot39]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Different train, different location, different angle. Definitely not "similar to previous."

Same *similar* surrounding

[JRMDC]

The customary way to handle this is that, if you really want both shots on the database, wait a month or so and upload the second one.

[magicman_841]

No comments on the reject, really, but why incist on framing the poles in the shot? To me, a matching duo of ex-SF B23-7's makes a nice good ol' wedgie.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by mp16dot39

Same *similar* surrounding

Same similar? Does that even make sense?

How about these two, which were taken in the same exact spot, on the same day, which probably should have been rejected for similar to previous? Would they be considered "same similar?"

PhotoID: 385946 Photograph © Billster8724

PhotoID: 385870 Photograph © Billster8724

[Joe the Photog]

Jim;

Those are similiar, not the same.

[Joe the Photog]

To the OP, why not appeal if you think they are not the same. Or even similiar. I haven't looked through the database. Just remember that Similiar to Previous counts for every photogrgraph uploaded, not just the ones you have taken. Is there a shot by someone else from the same location?

[troy12n]

.... <>LINKS to the burned out GP38-2 posted here a couple weeks ago that was actually the IDENTICAL photo<>

[Joe the Photog]

You mean the two SAME to Previous photos that are still in the database?

PhotoID: 235022 Photograph © Batman

PhotoID: 384160 Photograph © chattanooga choo choo

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

Jim;

Those are similiar, not the same.

Why are you rolling your eyes at me, Joe? I said they were similar, not the same. Hence this sentence: "How about these two, which were taken in the same exact spot, on the same day, which probably should have been rejected for similar to previous? "

This thread is about "similar," not "same."

[Joe the Photog]

Jim,

You're taking my post way too seriously.

[mp16dot39]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Same similar? Does that even make sense?

bad typing lol. Shoulda said "sorry", not "same"

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

Jim,

You're taking my post way too seriously.

[jac_murphy]

Thanks, guys. I've submitted an appeal, we'll see what happens.

Janusz - I'll admit that I'm a bit of a stickler for having my photos uploaded in chronological order! Wouldn't mind having it in now as opposed to later.

Mat - because.

Joe - I did give a quick check through the photos from the day, and didn't notice anything close to the two.

-Jacques

[jac_murphy]

Well, upon appeal, it was accepted:

PhotoID: 386420 Photograph © Jacques Leblond-Murphy

Thanks to the screeners for taking it into consideration.

-Jacques

[Mr. Pick]

Good deal!

[crazytiger]

Like this?

PhotoID: Photograph ©

PhotoID: 386424 Photograph © Jake Miille