Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Much Editing Is Allowed?  
User currently offlineF9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 10
Posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3695 times:

How much digital editing do you think should be allowed for submission to A.net? Obviously you can sharpen, etc, but what about cloning out window spots and things of that nature? What are your thoughts?

Regards


YES URLS in signature!!!
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

My opinion: aside from cropping, as long as you are improving the QUALITY of the shot by altering MINOR details, you're fine. But if you start to change the shot into something it wasn't to begin with, you're going too far.

Cloning out window spots is OK in my book. Cloning out windows to make a cargo plane out of a passenger plane... a bit much.

-Mike



The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
User currently offlineINNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

If you start with a British Airways B747 and end up with a Virgin B747 you know you did too much  Laugh out loud

I think aside of cropping, sharping etc... it is ok to clone out little spots, as I have some dirt on my lens.

regards, Florian



Jet Visuals
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3547 times:

See this text:
----
BADMANIPULATION
The picture appears to have been manipulated in post-processing beyond
what is acceptable for submission to airlines.net, or the manipulation
that has been done is noticable or of low quality. Examples of these
problems include noticable cloning such as removal of objects from the
image, addition of objects to photographs, deliberate blurring of objects
or faces, excessive sharpening or blurring of the overaell image
(e.g. smart-blur, gausian blur, etc), or introduction of colour casts.

Manipulation of images should be limited to rotating to correct
horizontals and verticals, cropping, colour and level corrections,
and some careful sharpening. Cloning should only be used to remove
minor imperfections such as dust marks and scratches.
----

Peter



-
User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3531 times:

How about this?

I cloned out a lot of stuff in this shot as you can see with a comparison of the same shot from the same location. I removed all the electrical boxes/signs and junk in front of the plane. Is this still "legal" in the eyes of a.net?

my shot:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Samples



other shot:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vitaly Kroychik



I will add that I think I did a pretty good job of photoshopping this one!


User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

Tim, thanks for the plug, however... your work didn't justify - I have more views!!! hehe, all that time and effort...

BTW - that might have not been the best thing to say in front of the screeners.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3520 times:

If you read the badmanipulation text posted above the answer is:

No its not legal in the eyes of the site.
Peter

[Edited 2004-05-14 07:33:14]


-
User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3510 times:

Vitaly,

Open both photos at the same time and tell me which one is more appealing... And you can even throw out image quality to make it fair. I just felt that all the sticks and signs and boxes were distracting to the photo since they were all crooked it seemed.

Is removing this stuff going to far in the minds of the screeners? Or better yet in photography in general, is this crossing the bounds of an honest photo?


User currently offlineJeffm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3500 times:

I like the nice clean image myself. I surely have no idea why Vitaly would take the time to clone in all that garbage.. LOL

The way I look at the issue is if I could do it in a real dark room to a negative, I have no problem doing it in Photoshop. It's my image from start to finish, if someone else has a different "vision", great, I present mine as I feel it should be.

[Edited 2004-05-14 07:49:18]

User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3417 times:

Atomother said: I cloned out a lot of stuff in this shot as you can see with a comparison of the same shot from the same location. I removed all the electrical boxes/signs and junk in front of the plane.

You are very lucky that your photo hasn't been removed from the database (yet!). Cloning to that degree is totally outside what is acceptable on this site. The last photographer who was found to have cloned on that scale came extremely close to having all of their pictures removed from the site and being banned.

Atomother said: Is this still "legal" in the eyes of a.net?

What part of the rejection reason text "...manipulation of images should be limited to rotating to correct horizontals and verticals, cropping, colour and level corrections, and some careful sharpening. Cloning should only be used to remove minor imperfections such as dust marks and scratches. is not clear? Please explain how the cloning you've done conforms to the rules.

Let this be a warning... The sanctions described above have come extremely close to being applied on more than one occaision - sooner or later the sanctions might just be carried through.

Andy


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 64
Reply 10, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3389 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

Yes, I was very close to removing the image this morning.

Regards

Gary Watt



User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3371 times:

LOL! Tim, I know you wrote what you did to illustrate your point, and I hope it doesn't backfire on you in a horrible way mate but I have to admit to a sharp intake of breath when I read your post this morning!

Vitaly's comment is bang on....

Cheers!

Rez
 Big thumbs up




Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
User currently offline707cmf From France, joined Mar 2002, 4885 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3357 times:

Okay.

I'll try to come clean with a picture that was anyway rejected.

While shooting a nice aircraft at LHR, the houses of Myrtle avenue came in the shot.
I attempted to clone the roof out, so to get only the aircraft and (grey) sky as I should have shot it, but I somehow messed up my editing process.

It looked nice on the large pic, but aws actually quite obvious on the thumbnail.

I guess that kind of cloning is out of the question ?
The screener gave me a badpersonnal message telling me that the cloning was quite visible (it is indeed in the thumbnail), but not that it was forbidden.

Your views on the matter (I have not done that again since for the moment !)

707


User currently offlineINNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Vitaly:

Why didn't you clone away the white small vehicle then? It disturbes me a lot?  Wink/being sarcastic

Another livery would have been very nice though  Insane

regards, Florian



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

707 said: While shooting a nice aircraft at LHR, the houses of Myrtle avenue came in the shot. I attempted to clone the roof out, so to get only the aircraft and (grey) sky as I should have shot it, but I somehow messed up my editing process... I guess that kind of cloning is out of the question?

707, you have to "guess"???

Check the BADMANIPULATION explanation again. If you think a house roof is equivalent to dust spots, sure go ahead and try cloning like that again - at best your photo will be rejected, at worst you'll be banned from the site. Your choice.

707 said: The screener gave me a badpersonnal message telling me that the cloning was quite visible (it is indeed in the thumbnail), but not that it was forbidden.

So now we have to repeat all that is already written in the rejection text in our personal messages too???

Andy


User currently offlineF9Widebody From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1604 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3266 times:

Thanks for the responses...I think I get the idea. Big grin

Regards



YES URLS in signature!!!
User currently offlineAtomother From United States of America, joined May 1999, 439 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (9 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Wow, that blew up on me. My personal feelings are that removing menial objects such as crooked poles and a sign does not sacrifice the integrity of the photo as long as you are not changing the essence of the photo. Since other opinions differ from mine I respect that philosophy also. I don't run the website, I just try and make some good contributions from time to time and if the screeners feel that this photo crosses the line (hopefully not) then I respect their decision on the fate of the photo.

I did remove a few poles and that box only because I thought it took away from the centerpiece and after all I really hate those stupid fences and poles in my photos.

I feel a bit more in the know about the technical rules a.net has and hopefully others who have done the same thing are more educated on this subject also.

Hope I didn't stir the pot too much... If so, I do apologize!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Much Better Is Fuji Reala Compared To Superia? posted Sat Mar 16 2002 13:44:35 by Hkg_clk
Wide Angle Distortion: How Much Is Too Much? posted Tue Mar 9 2004 16:28:34 by Tappan
AMS: 06/24 How Much Longer? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:01:35 by G-CIVP
How Much Have You Been Out? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 12:13:02 by Linco22
How Much Clutter Can I Have? posted Fri May 26 2006 12:21:35 by Aero145
Another How Much Should I Charge Thread... posted Fri Mar 17 2006 02:30:33 by Jspitfire
Airline Wants Photos 4 Tradeshow Booth-How Much $? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 21:29:36 by AndrewUber
How Much Should I Ask For? posted Thu Jan 19 2006 09:16:00 by Cosec59
How Much Should I Sell It? posted Tue Dec 27 2005 00:06:54 by PipoA380
How Water Resistant Is EOS20D? posted Sun Dec 18 2005 18:18:03 by Cosec59