Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Have These Photo's Still Not Been Deleted?  
User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3263 times:

ok i have a biiig question.

Why, have these photo's still not been deleted? They have been brought to our attention before, and they still remain on the database.

When i refer to "these" this is what i mean:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan




I suppose they should look like this, maybe the sky would've been filled in if it wasn't for the jetwash making it look too obvious.


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Danny C. Y. Chan



Why was the sky filled in anyway (it is obvious that it has)? Copyrights?

Why hasn't Johan deleted them yet, like all other fake shots. And i thought he was deleting some of the not so good ones uploaded at the start? That'd be a good enough excuse.

Would Johan or Gary want to comment on this? How about everyone else?

Regards EGGD


15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBlackened From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3054 times:

Doesn't Johan delete pooly scanned and old shots from time to time? According to the IDs about 3000-4000(not sure) have already been removed from this site. So some of these pics will be deleted soon anyway.

User currently offlineNight Hawk From Australia, joined Jul 1999, 273 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

Your right about these images being fakes, all apart from the last one you showed have the same R/G/B colour values for the background, there's no variation in it at all, no way can it be coincidence

Regards

Greg


User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

I guess you guys are right. They are fake.

alvin



Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineLindy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2908 times:

How this guy did those pictures???
I'm not asking about Photoshop but where was his source of airpanes? He took them from some other pictures?

Rafal


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

nah he did take them, but then filled in the sky for some reason  Confused

EGGD


User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Enhanced perhaps but not fake. Still not very well done.

There are much better ways to do this than with a bucket fill.


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 7, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

Yeah but Glenn how far can you go when modifying a photo?

By all means remove scratches, sharpen it etc but filling in the sky? Doing that you are removing half the photo and IMO it is no longer a picture.

In some pictures the sky is what gets a picture excepted, or what gets the picture noticed, when you fill in the sky you change the pictures atmosphere completely.

EGGD


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

The Cocorde at Kai-Tak?, could such an aircraft turn on the final to align with rwy 13?

User currently offlineN949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2822 times:

In the days of Kai Tak, there were at least a few Concorde visits (both BA & AF) every year. BA & AF used to operate round-the-world fly-&-cruise charters, and HKG was often on the itinerary. And yes....they handled the final 47 degree right turn quite nicely.

'949


User currently offlineAviator100 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2000, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2806 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

EGGD (and others):

And what do you think of digitally removing FOD-P (Foreign Object Damage on Photos) like lamps, poles, signs and even people standing in the way or disturbing the picture? Are such acts acceptable or should it be considered as "changing the reality"?

Ad


User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1026 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

Aviator100,

Removing lamps, poles, signs etc is digitally altering the photo - changing reality. I therefore do not believe that it should be done. Removing a few dust spots, a little sharpening, that sort of thing, OK. But actually changing the contents of the photo? No, not in my books.

Two examples:

1. I have a photo of the first BMI A330 taken the night it arrived at EMA. It is really nicely lit under the floods, the only problem being that it has a wire fence across the lower fuselage, below the window line. As an experiment, I digitally retouched the image to remove the fence and in all honesty seeing the digital image you would not now know that there was ever a fence there. However, I will not upload the pic in that form because it is altered.

2. I came very close to removing the orange and white hut that's under the nose gear from this photograph:


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Andy Martin



because the hut is very distracting - its not so noticable on the small image, but when you look at the large image its right where the eye is led as it follows the track out to the airplane. However, whilst I could easily have removed it, in all concience I decided it was not fair to remove the hut and then upload the photo, so I left it be.


The sky in the pictures EGGD has highlighted is the same thing. I don't think it should have been done. However, lets not forget these were very early pics in the database and standards may have been somewhat different then.

Andy


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Thats a nice pic andy, but why did you feel the need to remove the box? Yes its visible but in no way obstructing the aircraft, and if you hadn't brought it to my attention i wouldn't have noticed!

I just have a little question. On some of my pictures there is a fence at the bottom, would this mean that they'd get rejected? I can't see why, as it is not obstructing the aircraft in any way so it shouldn't matter.

EGGD


User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1026 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

EGGD,

As I said, I thought about removing the hut because on large versions of the photo it is, at least in my opinion, obtrusive. Not maybe so much for an aviation enthusiast who is looking at the aircraft, but as a photo the hut distracts the eye from the main photo.

Anyway, I just highlighted that that as an example. I shouldn't think fences would be a problem unless they are really obtrusive or obscure part of the aircraft. In the case I mention, this was the case as the mesh fence covered the lower part of the aircraft below the window line until I worked some digital manipulation on it. That's why I wouldn't upload it.

Andy


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

I could understand if the box was bigger, maybe its just the photographers way of looking at it. You perfectionist  Big grin

ok i have some examples here of what i mean by a fence:







Regards, EGGD


User currently offlineAviator100 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2000, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2765 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Andy:

For clarity: your point of view about changing the contents of a photo is the same as mine. When you look at a photo you expect to see a frozen moment of a real situation and not a manipulated world.

EGGD:

For that reason you should not remove the fence, because it is there in reality. The point from where your pictures are taken looks like a nice place to take aircraft photos. To avoid the fence in the foreground you can in my opinion only try to take a higher or more nearby standpoint, or maybe search for a hole in the fence, or even photograph through the fence. But probably the best solution would be to make use of some kind of stairs.

Ad


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...
Why Have These Been Rejected? posted Thu Jul 5 2001 23:22:26 by Edlw
Corrections To This Photo Still Not Taken Care Of. posted Tue Apr 23 2002 12:04:22 by Thom@s
Why Have They Been Rejected posted Sun Jan 13 2002 12:02:39 by Zhukov
Why Have A First Screening? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 19:09:29 by PilotNTrng
Check These Out Please! Not Confident Anymore posted Mon Aug 28 2006 14:20:19 by LHRsunriser
Why Do These Coincidenses Happen? (1 That Got Awy) posted Thu Apr 27 2006 13:05:00 by Thom@s
Why Was This Photo Rejected? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 19:07:00 by Bravo45
Why Is This Photo's Quality Too Low? posted Wed Jan 25 2006 06:44:05 by DStuntz
Does Grand Rapids Really Have A Great Photo Spot? posted Fri Nov 4 2005 06:17:04 by F4wso
What Exactly Are These? (Photo) posted Thu Jun 16 2005 23:17:52 by Thom@s