Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bad Manipulation?  
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2252 times:

This image was rejected for 2 reasons.
The second being "baddouble" in the database, i think not but ok we can have a different view on that.
The first reason i have never seen before "bad manipulation" like i am trying to fool the complete A.net community with a "made up" image.
Of course nothing is manipulated in this image other then some rotation, levels, contrast and sharpening tweaks which to my best knowledge is done by every one around here.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/Connie_Avio_N749NL_IMG_b0813.jpg



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2224 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Willem,

I am no expert here but my understanding is that the 'manipulation' rejection is not necessarily suggesting you have 'cheated' in some way.

If you look at the hedge at the bottom of the frame - especially the bottom right of the picture - the leaves look very odd. This looks like an effect you can get if something like Neat Image is used too much on a photo and so takes away detail in some areas, blurring edges. My guess is that this is the reason for such a rejection. Otherwise the prop looks great.

Did you use Neat Image - or equivalent? If so you may be able to rework the image and avoid that digitally 'manipulated' look there.

Hope this helps.

Paul

P.S. I have just looked at your photo again and the right and left ends of the hedge have a 'watercolour' paint look - hope you can see what I mean.

[Edited 2005-02-12 10:48:21]

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

Thanks for your reply Paul.
I don't use Neatimage nor did i use any noise removal tool.
The prop is running at high speed and i used a rather short exposure time to capture this wonderful effect, the leaves are just blurred because of the enormous airflow.

The water color is probably because it was a very rainy day and everything is wet, which is causing the streamer effect in the first place.

The email says: 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.

In other words i did things deliberately that are not allowed, which is not the case.

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.

In other words, exactly the things i did.


Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineBapilot2b From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 927 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

Nice motive for the shot, the only possible reason I can think of the leaves looking that way maybe because you may have sharpened the image alittle too much??? Just my 2c.


Jason Nicholls - v1images
User currently offlineErwin972 From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 500 posts, RR: 44
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2199 times:


Willem,

I can't see any badmanipulation here. The hedge is blown away by the props airflow clearly, neatimaging would be a complete waste of time on these pictures with a lot of detail in it, trees are looking alright, you even got some interesting condensation-effects around the propeller.

But the screeners have spoken, nothing you can do about that I guess.

Kind regards,
Erwin



My gear: Nikon, Sony, Red, Sachtler etc.
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1662 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2184 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Willem,
I really like the shot !
Even though you have evidently not over-manipulated, you can see where the screener has got this idea from, the leaves on the hedge do have that 'feel' to them.
Another one of those that could/should go into a seperate artistic category.
Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2179 times:

@Jason: i think not but if it was rejected for that reason i would not have bothered.

@Erwin: thanks mate, of course i realize it does not make it in the database because of this topic.
It's not my intention anyway, just felt the need to let of some steam.

I don't care about rejections as long as they are for the proper reasons.
This "bad manipulation" however is an attack on my integrity without anything to back it up and i am not amused with that.

Edit @Mick, oh yes i can see where it is coming from and i do understand it is difficult for any unfamiliar screener who is never been close to a big prop before.
I suspect however it is screened by someone who has been on almost at the same spot in front of the prop.............with me.
Someone who therefore very well knows the huge airflow and also has knowledge of the leaves and there behavior in it.
With this topic i hope to establish he will be more careful with this kind of rejections in the future, that's all. Technical reasons: fine

Willem


[Edited 2005-02-12 11:39:47]


The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Willem,

Only one screener could have been with you and that's me, but sorry to disappoint you it wasn't me...not so nice of you to suspect.

I do however agree with the screener, it does look like you have used blurring of some sort in photoshop Yes there's airflow etc but that doesn't mean leaves should look "cartoon-like". maybe you have not used any significant processing but lack of detail makes it looks like you did.

Not quite the same angle but you get the idea from this shot
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf - AirTeamImages



It also seems a bit oversharpened. Is the original sharp?

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

I am very sorry Tim.
I did not mean to blame you nor Martin who was also present at the time.
My statement was not only "not nice" but also very clumsy for which my apologies.
It emphasis how much it pissed me off, something not many people have achieved so far.

Still i think the "bad manipulation" rejection should be used very carefully and only where the fraud is clear.
I can lead you to an image present in the database which consists out of 2 images stitched together, now that is a case of "bad manipulation" in my view.
If a screener thinks i did my processing wrong in what ever way "fine" i don't care(something you know very well) but then reject it for that reason.
You won't find any photographer around here who is amused with a "bad manipulation" rejection if he or she is sure that is not the case.

Willem




The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineINNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

As you said you did not manipulate, but sorry Willem, the PROP did when you took the image  Laugh out loud

The bushes behind the fence, they look like painted, like an artist would paint that image in aquarell or something  Big grin

Still nice image, but for your personal collection only I'm afraid!



Jet Visuals
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

That's ok Florian, i am not against the rejection itself.
It is the reason "why" which is causing the problem.
Here is the original untouched file.
http://www.honders.net/tmp/img_0813.jpg
and don't you steal it.  Laugh out loud
Technical data: 1/250s, F/4.5, ISO100, focal length 45mm
Quite sharp to my eye but focused at the engine at F/4.5 the background is blurred of course which i did on purpose.
After all it is about the engine and not about the dike or trees in the background.
It does show i did not "manipulate" anything other then some rotation(which i did for someone unfamiliar with the place as it appears to be tilted with the trees pointing sideways), cropping, levels ....... and so on.
Of course i could have processed it different but i wanted it the way i did.
I really tried to make the engine entering your living room and by doing so i might have taken it to far: fine
If someone thinks it is oversharpend: fine
If someone thinks i played with the levels to much: fine
if someone thinks i played the contrast to much: fine
Reject it as such but don't accuse me of manipulation where i did not.

Willem




The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2083 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Willem,

Thanks for posting the original - this is very interesting. I hope you could see what I was referring to in the rejected image, with that 'watercolour' effect in the hedge.

I have to say that that is not apparent in the original - the leaves look wind-blown, but that is it. So there must be a way to rework the image without that effect appearing, because the quality is already excellent in the original. I do sympathise with you, but I can also see why a screener would look at that hedge and see a problem.

I do hope you give it another go as it is a worthy addition to the site.

Take care.

Paul

P.S. Forgot to mention - is the issue here about the meaning of the word 'manipulate'? Clearly we all 'manipulate' our photos in the sense that we work on the image and perform some digital changes to it. Noone can have a problem with that definition of the word. But I feel that here you may have experienced the meaning behind the rejection as carrying with it another aspect/definition of the word - i.e. some 'unfair' influence on the image, or somehow being deceitful/cheating. I don't think the latter is implied at all - just that the processing of the image has led to an unsatisfactory element of the image.

[Edited 2005-02-12 14:29:05]

User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 49
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Willem,
Do you mind if I take that pic to edit it? I'll post a crop of it here in a few minutes..
I still find that watercolour effect very strange, as I don't see it on the original...
Eduard


User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2237 posts, RR: 49
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

Just did:
rotation 1.6 CW
-levels (very little)
-resize
-sharpen (USM)
-crop from 1024 to 600-something to fit this page



I don't get the watercolour...

Eduard

[Edited 2005-02-12 14:37:53]

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2069 times:

Thanks Paul but i will not do so.
Yes as i posted already i could have done it different but that was not the point.
I do understand things can be very difficult to judge for a screener especially for one not familiar with big props and/or the situation and it is for that reason i would not have bothered with any rejection on technical grounds.
Did you read this Gary ! thanks

Now i am off,
Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Willem,

Seeing Eduard's post just now I too have taken the liberty of looking more closely at the original - hope that's okay. I have processed it in the manner I usually do - including applying a couple of passes of USM at a low level - and I think the photo looks excellent. And that watercolour effect is completely absent, as in your original.

Unfortunately I am unable to post the photo here, but I will happily email it to you for your perusal if you would like. Just let me know.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

You are very much welcome Eduard, no problem.
Nice job, different but nice.
Just not the way i wanted it.
I focused on the engine to get the nice effects sharp in the frame but also wanted to show the huge airflow over the dike.
I had to fiddle a lot to achieve that.
By doing so i might have taken it to far, i knew very well i was on the edge for A.net standards here.
There for i expected any kind of rejection but just not the reason i got.

To Paul: we can have a debate about the meaning of the statement "bad manipulation" although i have to communicate in English a lot during the day it is of course not my first language and i might have interpreted it incorrect.
However when i read "deliberate blurring of objects........" it has at least a slight air of fraud to me.
It is exactly for this reason that i started this topic: i don't want my name connected to anything like this.
As we say "ones a thief, always a thief" and if those idea's are connected to me i might aswell stop uploading.

Anyway i made my point clear and i hope the email which comes along with the rejection is examined by the responsible people.
Maybe even Gary understands my problem now.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Willem




The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

Quoting Aviopic (reply 16):
i knew very well i was on the edge for A.net standards here.


So why wonder about the rejection when you very well knew about being on the edge
 Confused  Confused



-
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1753 times:

Yeeh, did not know this thread was still around.
Where did you find it Peter ?
In other words "you're kind of late"  Laugh out loud
Anyway it would be nice to read the posts before replying at all.


Cheers,
Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
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...
Bad Manipulation? posted Sun Apr 9 2006 11:31:35 by Sean377
Sorry To Bring This Up: Bad Manipulation posted Thu Nov 3 2005 05:57:23 by Skywatch
A Case Of Obvious Bad Manipulation posted Sat Oct 29 2005 01:21:19 by AndyHunt
Bad Manipulation? posted Sat Feb 12 2005 10:36:53 by Aviopic
Bad Motive? posted Wed Dec 6 2006 19:15:19 by Acontador
The Story Of My Life.... Bad Contrast posted Sat Dec 2 2006 16:03:41 by Chachu201
Some Tips On This Bad Centered Pics posted Fri Dec 1 2006 01:30:14 by Lanas
Bad Editing? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 21:59:29 by 777MechSys
Are This Pictures Really Bad Quality? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 04:27:29 by XAAPB
Bad Color Rejection posted Thu Nov 23 2006 12:25:15 by Tom3