PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Posted (8 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 23499 times:
In the last week we all learned that the site needs an update on what is allowed and what not in terms of manipulations.
Also we learned that there needs to be guideline on suspensions. The screeners have discussed this and Johan has finally given his approval to post it and his agreement to the content also.
MANIPULATIONS Allowed manipulations on on photos
Remove colorcasts (especially neccesary on slides)
Cloning out dust spots.
Not allowed manipulations on photos:
overusage of highlight/shadow feature so that halos appear
aplying to much neatimage / blur .
Inconsistent colour cast throughout image
Adding motion-blur in post-processing
Falsely blurring background to create artificially short depth-of-field
Any cloning which is apparent in the final image (e.g rectangular blocks of sky, repeated patterns in tarmac, etc)
Cloning out parts of the original image like signs blocking wheels,
poles in front or the back of the aircraft, bluring out faces, ...
adding landscape or sky or parts of the aircraft when image is too small after angle adjustment or for any other reason to be cropped properly
Composite of multiple images
Fabrication of aircraft registration, titles, etc.
Cloning out of aircraft registration, titles, etc.
Those manipulations will result in a badmanipulation rejection including a badpersonal where a warning about the manipulation is described on the first occurance. No personal e-mail will be sent. Everything is in the rejection E-Mail.
SUSPENSIONS Reasons for suspension, including deletion from all other photos currently being in the Q.
Repeated uploading photos with manipulations falling into the not allowed category.
Reuploading shots without any or with unaedequat adjustments
Contiunous uploading of doubles, or deliberately putting a false date to avoid baddouble
Reasons for immediate Suspension without prior notification
Manipulation on hit counters
Grossly rude or offensive behaviour
Uploading of stolen shots AKA Copyright infringement
Fraudulant behaviour that interferes with the running of the site
Duration of supensions:
1 week for first suspension
2 weeks for 2nd
1 month for 3rd
3 months on every following
and on headscreener / Johan decision ban can be extended.
Exceptions for duration
Hit counter: This will be decided with the boss when it is found out
Grossly rude or offensive behaviour --> 3 months
Uploading of stolen shots AKA Copyright infringement --> 3 months
Fraudulant behaviour that interferes with the running of the site
We reserve the right on issueing a suspension from uploading immediately when the screeners decide the photo is manipulated behind acceptable limits and if the uploader has been warned already before. If there should arise questions about the screeners decision you are welcome to mail the original camera file to the headscreeners and the crew will discuss the matter out of public. Pushing pressure on the screeners in the forums will result in the suspension not being discussed.
Paulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 23454 times:
Interesting & useful set of rules there but surely it is the final image that is being screened not how it was arrived at. If the manipulation is done in such as way as to be invisible yet still be accurate in terms of information (ie location / reg / date etc) then what is wrong with that. Am thinking of the cloning restrictions mainly as many people will have some obstruction in the wrong place which ruin what could be an acceptable shot.
Photographic organisations / clubs etc judge the image presented, not the computer skills or darkroom skills of the photographer which is why darkroom and computer produced images are not treated as separate categories.
Maybe a section could be considered for the more creative images as it would showcase the talents of those photographers with a more creative side and are prepared to be honest about it.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 23430 times:
Paul, if you clone out something that obstructs the airplane in any way, you are effectively reconstructing a part of the airplane digitally and that's unacceptable. If you choose to clone out things like lamp posts that don't obstruct the subject, that's also not acceptable as far as a.net is concerned either.
If you clone out something like a lamp post so well that the screeners can't tell it was ever there in the first place... Well, that is not condoned either, and I guess its your risk if you choose to do that. If the screeners can't tell an object was ever there maybe you'll get away with it, or maybe someone knows the location you shot from (or refers to other pictures from the same place) and will investigate why that lamp post is missing. Someone DID get caught like that a while ago.
Remember that evidence of deliberate flouting of rules is likely to be looked on less favourably than a first-offence / mistake.
Liskatze From Germany, joined Jun 2004, 44 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 23410 times:
sounds really good, I hope everyone will read and understand this giudeline. One question to point "cloning out":
Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Thread starter): Cloning out parts of the original image like signs blocking wheels,
poles in front or the back of the aircraft, bluring out faces, ...
What's about the single bird in the sky, what's about the small piece of a building in the pic's corner, a piece of wire or cable in the air? Will cloning be allowed when done well and NEVER touch the aircraft itself?
Or forget the shot as it will be a badmotive and put it in the personal collection?
Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Thread starter): Those manipulations will result in a badmanipulation rejection including a badpersonal where a warning about the manipulation is described on the first occurance. No personal e-mail will be sent. Everything is in the rejection E-Mail.
A warning would be a fantastic idea, exact that's what I have missed a few days ago . Badpersonal in the rejection mail should be enough, anyone here should know, that he must look for a personal comment of a screener in this case.
I hope never ever any photographer will become banned here without information about the exact reason and - especially - the picture in question.
PUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4162 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 23397 times:
Quoting Liskatze (Reply 7): What's about the single bird in the sky, what's about the small piece of a building in the pic's corner, a piece of wire or cable in the air? Will cloning be allowed when done well and NEVER touch the aircraft itself?
See reply no 5.
Quoting Skymonster (Reply 5): If you choose to clone out things like lamp posts that don't obstruct the subject, that's also not acceptable as far as a.net is concerned either ...... maybe someone knows the location you shot from (or refers to other pictures from the same place) and will investigate why that lamp post is missing. Someone DID get caught like that a while ago.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3010 posts, RR: 59 Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 23390 times:
I'd like to echo the comments of approval for this work - well done to everyone involved. Good to see that clarity.
As we have discussed elsewhere, there will always be 'what about.....' and 'what if...........' I can't see any way around that. But this does help.
Will what Peter has placed here now also be available elsewhere on the site e.g. the Upload FAQ section? Are there grounds for creating a new section on rules/guidelines alone, rather than them being included with all the other important issues about uploading? Sorry for jumping the gun if you already have this in hand.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 23389 times:
A while ago, a photographer removed some lamp posts from an image. Shots taken before AND after from the same location by other photographers clearly showed the lamp posts in place. One screener was astute enough to notice the missing lamp posts and wondered where they'd gone. Very close scruitiny of the photograph which had that unexpected void in the sky did reveal the offence, and you can guess what happened next...
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 23258 times:
Leaves noticeable room for error on part of the screeners.
One person's colourcast is another person's high saturation. If someone has an image taken in some weird light a screener might think he applied a colourcast to make it look special...
Result: someone gets banned for uploading something special...
Birds in the sky: I've had pictures rejected for having dustmotes in the sky that were birds in the past. If we're no longer allowed to remove them...
I agree that deliberate manipulation to show something that wasn't there (or remove something that was there) should not be allowed, but one has to be extremely careful to not conclude things weren't as they seem because what one is looking at is not what one is used to seeing.
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 23236 times:
Well done all.
My only suggestion would be to make a distinction between mistakes in post-processing, e.g. too much use of Neat Image, and deliberate attempts to mislead e.g. cloning out obstructions or adding fake motion blur. I can agree with bans for the latter but not the former. I'm sure banning people for mistakes in post-processing isn't the intention (right?) but it would be good to make it clear.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
TZ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2003, 1085 posts, RR: 54 Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 23208 times:
Quoting F9Widebody (Reply 18): I haven't ever done it, but what would be the problem with blurring the face of a pilot in a small GA a/c to avoid a badpeople?
That would not generally be reason for badpeople, although I'm sure exceptions exist.
If you deliberately blur anybody's face that will be badmanipulation.
Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 16): My only suggestion would be to make a distinction between mistakes in post-processing, e.g. too much use of Neat Image, and deliberate attempts to mislead
We see enough images to be able to clearly distinguish between the two. "badneatimage" still falls into the rejection for badmanipulation because, quite literally, the image has been manipulated beyond acceptable bounds of reality. If somebody's had dozens of rejects for that, over many weeks, and we get tired of explaining that Neat Image is the problem, then a suspension may be on the cards for them. Repeat offenses and all that.
Quoting JAT74L (Reply 17): But enter into some sort of comms with the individual before you make your mind up in future. This game isn't always clear cut.
Sorry John, but that's just not possible. With 30,000-50,000 screenings per week, it's just not possible to get into email exchanges on a consistent on-going basis, every time we believe the rules have been broken in an excessive manner. Sorry, but if I find a picture where there's things been cloned out, and I KNOW FOR SURE they should have been there, it's a ban with no warning. The two recent incidents (discussed in great depth elsewhere on this forum) are on the fringes of what gets banned, so nobody should be under the misprehension that those are typical, they are not. We see rediculous things, stolen images, and some people who (despite lots of time and effort) will not stop uploading fabricated images. That's the typical scenario for a ban.
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
JohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1640 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 23179 times:
How about window glass reflection that doesn't affect the subject aircraft at all? I have a nice night shot I'd like to upload, but there's a "ghost" of a light pole next to the actual light pole in the image. This was caused by terminal window glass reflection. The reflection was an artificially-induced element of the photo, and there was really no way to avoid it. It can easily be cloned out, but I suspect this violates these rules. Am I right?
Jumbojim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 47 Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 23159 times:
Quoting Skymonster (Reply 10): while ago, a photographer removed some lamp posts from an image. Shots taken before AND after from the same location by other photographers clearly showed the lamp posts in place. One screener was astute enough to notice the missing lamp posts and wondered where they'd gone. Very close scruitiny of the photograph which had that unexpected void in the sky did reveal the offence, and you can guess what happened next...
What about if for some reason an object was removed by airport authorities and the screeners didn't know about it and someone shot a pic of an aircraft without the object.
Yes people can clone things out but sometimes things do get removed .
What would happen in this situation.?
I also think this is a big step forward and i thank the screeneres and all involved for it.
JAT74L From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 15 Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 23159 times:
Your continuous communication and level headed approach to this subject is an example to all. I have untold respect for the management personel of this site and for the work that they do. In such a subjective field there is always bound to be some sort of conflict but, with this subject being so heavily debated (with good steerage from yourself) and a consistent approach on both sides I have some hope for the future.
I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5550 posts, RR: 47 Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 23142 times:
Quoting Jumbojim747 (Reply 22): What about if for some reason an object was removed by airport authorities and the screeners didn't know about it and someone shot a pic of an aircraft without the object.
I think in this case, a note to the screeners, if you know something has changed or appeal with explanation if rejected.
My 2 thoughts, it serves little purpose to pick holes in these guidelines.. they are just that guidelines. Secondly let's face it, in my experience the authorities are unlikely to REMOVE any obstacles to our picture taking!!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
25 TZ: Thanks John. If 30 minutes of my time on this foruim is worth tens or hundreds of individuals saving 30 minutes of their precious time, then it's my
26 Kukkudrill: OK, I can agree with that ... provided that the person concerned gets a badmanipulation rejection and not a badquality. According to a previous threa
27 Key: One additional note maybe. Indeed it is so very very tempting to edit out that lamp post or its reflection, but it remains part of the art of (aviatio
28 DLKAPA: Yeah I have a question about that one. Often times, I go down to the local FBO to shoot aircraft parked on the ramp. I've never been turned down by a
29 AJ: Well done guys, I'm glad this has been cleared up. My ban now over I'll still continue to upload, and contrary to popular belief my new Emirates air t
30 Cathay112: C'mon AJ, you can give it up now? I know it's a model held up by fishing wire - I've checked my own EK 773 model and they're identical!!!!!! Onya budd
31 OD720: Scary! And what exactly happened? Is he serving his time now? Seriously though, the new guidelines are fair and I expect photographers to follow them