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?
Blackened From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1882 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.
Night Hawk From Australia, joined Jul 1999, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1812 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
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 41 Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1660 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.
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1650 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.
Aviator100 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2000, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1634 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"?
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 996 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1631 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:
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.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 41 Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1622 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.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 996 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1603 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.
Aviator100 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2000, 245 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1593 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 1999, 273 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2000, 245 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
