In order to make an acceptable a.net upload, I cloned out the flash on the LCD Screens, not really knowing whether or not it was acceptable. I have now come to realize that it was not. All I can say is that I didn't take the advice of one of the photographers I respect the most, it was Jeff Miller who said "shoot like photoshop doesn't exist." Boy did I stray from those words.
It is with that in mind that I ask for removal of the photograph. It compromises what is left of my integrity and it makes me feel like a tabloid photographer when I look at it. I can't over emphasise how sorry I feel about uploading what I now feel to be a fake image. I am prepared to accept any consequences that comes from breaking the rules.
Bigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4077 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3867 times:
While it's not the most ethical thing to do, I'm sure many people here do much much worse and get away with it.
I think morals change for each photographer depending on what their motivation is for uploading here. Someone here for the art will want to keep their shot as pure as possible. Someone looking for sales an exposure would be a lot more liberal with their editing.
Rotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3819 times:
I never really knew you well, Eric Daniel Smith, but when the death squads march you off to the incinerator, I'll shed a single tear in your memory. Stand tall when they roll you in, Eric Daniel Smith, stand tall -- for you are a true hero.
The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
Bronko From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 810 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3801 times:
Just keep in mind that if this photo was to appear in a magazine or some other print, they would prefer the reflection to be cloned out so it looks best. In my opinion cloning out a flash does not alter the credibility of a photo.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 813 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3783 times:
Always a tricky one ... its a thin line between cloning a dust spot and flash reflections ... what about removing a little reflection on a cabin window?
Before I go on, I should make clear that I am very comfortable with PS alterations in appropriate situations - eg, providing a client with the image they want. However, A.net rules are clear on this sort of thing and I've always respected that.
In principle however, I don't think Eric has done anything to be ashamed of. I think there is a distinct difference between altering reality (for example, compositing "live" screens onto the dead screens in the picture), and rectifying "accidents of photography". In this case, the flash reflection is not part of the "reality" - it was introduced by the photographer - one could argue that removing it is actually putting things to rights, just as a dust spot should be removed from a scene.
Janne From Sweden, joined Sep 2001, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3521 times:
Damn you, Eric Daniel Smith. You have violated everything I believe in.
I even had your photo as my desktop because I admired the way you
could not see any flash reflection. What's next, politicians that lie?
p.s. Keep up the good work, Eric.