Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
To Clone Or Not To Clone  
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Posted (9 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6614 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

.......that is the question.

Not pointing any fingers but seems a few photographers like to clone out the famous lamp posts while doing some photography at LAX. Don't know the name of the road but it's the one for evening landings.

These clone jobs are not done very well at all.

The Head Screeners are currently having a look through them all. While no song and dance is being made about it, these guys should know that it is not acceptable to do stuff like this, especially when you see same shots in the database with these posts included. What do I know, they may well be portable and move from day to day.

May I suggest to anyone who has some shots on the database to use the re-upload page to replace the ones already in the database.

Thanks for your co-operation.

Regards

Gary

127 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6552 times:

Hi...

About this matter I was surprised some time a go how some photographers talk about cloning such things. I've always been against these kind of techniques so I'm please about reading this topic.

Definitely is not my war.. and I should say I'm friend of the lamp post committee  Big grin

Here goes an example: 10 lamp posts..  Smile


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Enrique Ferrer



Sorry for the self plug..

Enrique


User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Enrique

Nice image. Never been to Palma at all. Closest being Alicante back in.....ahem.....1978  Smile

What's the feature top left? The thing with the bulb on top? A local feature?

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineTappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 41
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6508 times:

I agree with Granite 100 percent.
I would further say that it appears this is a very infrequent problem on a.net (that's the good news)
Mark Garfinkel


User currently offlineJhribar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

Granite is absolutely right about this!

Cloning away some birds or dust spots is no problem. This is in fact desirable. But when it comes to cloning away fix objects like lamp posts, parts of buildings or any other airport "clutter", a limit is crossed!

In my opinion A.Net can use bigger penalties for people uploading such manipulated shots. after all this is not a site dedicated to the best manipulated shots. Other sites already cover this area.

You don't want any irritating lamps post in your shot? Fine...shoot at a different spot where you don't see them. What did these clone guys do in the celluloid age? Also cut out a piece of the negative or slide ?????

Best Regards,

Jeroen Hribar


User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6469 times:

Quoting Jhribar (Reply 4):
Cloning away some birds or dust spots is no problem. This is in fact desirable.

I'd like to dissent on the birds' part. I do not see the point of cloning out anything other that dust spots. So I must agree with Gary in this issue, though it is kind of scary to agree with a screener...  Wink

Just my two cents

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlinePUnmuth@VIE From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4163 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 6462 times:

Quoting Tappan (Reply 3):
this is a very infrequent problem on a.net

No its unfortunately not. It very infrequent comes to the surface.  Wink



-
User currently offlineMygind66 From Spain, joined May 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6389 times:

Quoting Jhribar (Reply 4):
Cloning away some birds or dust spots is no problem

I disagree too. Dust spots are inside camera problems but birds are equivalent to anything else like walls, posts, etc.

Quoting Granite (Reply 2):
What's the feature top left? The thing with the bulb on top? A local feature?

Is a water tank wit a pump giving water to the houses on top of the hill.

Cheers

Enrique


User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6362 times:

Not taking any side here, but why is cloning such a no-no here?
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5568 posts, RR: 63
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6328 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

Quoting Mygind66 (Reply 7):
Is a water tank wit a pump giving water to the houses on top of the hill.

Thanks Javier.

Quoting Spencer (Reply 8):
Not taking any side here, but why is cloning such a no-no here?

Spencer, something that the Boss agreed on many years ago. You would need to ask him. We follow his instructions.

Regards

Gary


User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6301 times:

Gary, yeah I gathered as much........ But I mean, if it can in some way, shape or form make for a better image..... Then why not? Obviously this would only regard those shots/photogs that actually can carry this off well enough to never be noticed. Really, if you think about it, to do the clone itself and to never be discovered, is in its own right very skillful, shhh  especially on larger objects such as lamp posts. But rules is rules, thou shall abide by them.......I suppose!  boxedin 
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6295 times:

Quoting Jhribar (Reply 4):
after all this is not a site dedicated to the best manipulated shots

Well... with digital cameras and computers, every digital shot in the database is manipulated in some way. Not saying it's wrong, but everyone is altering the colors, sharpness, level, crop, etc, etc... 95% of all shots are probably manipulated in some way...


User currently offlineJohndm1957 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6265 times:

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 11):
Well... with digital cameras and computers, every digital shot in the database is manipulated in some way. Not saying it's wrong, but everyone is altering the colors, sharpness, level, crop, etc, etc... 95% of all shots are probably manipulated in some way...

Not true. This shot of mine has had absolutly nothing done to it except re-sizing.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Myers




Canon 550D, 18-55, 50 1.8, 100-400L
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1659 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6249 times:

Is cloning out a window reflection from a shot taken inside a terminal acceptable?

User currently offlineINNflight From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 3766 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6216 times:

Quoting JohnJ (Reply 13):
Is cloning out a window reflection from a shot taken inside a terminal acceptable?

...Any cloning is acceptable if it isn't noticed.  boxedin 

Still, the fewer post-processing needs to be done, the better!



Jet Visuals
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 11):
every digital shot in the database is manipulated in some way

After a year of active involvement with this site, I think the only way to survive without potential headaches and blood pressure elevation is to accept the way Johan wants things to be. There is often little point arguing from a 'rational' point of view. But I still struggle   .

There are many examples here where one rule conflicts with another - looking for complete consistency will often just cause upset - so often seen on this Forum. I would agree almost all photos here are digitally manipulated - though I am very impressed to hear that yours was not at all, John. Many will recall debates such as the one about whether white should look 'white', or look the way it actually looked at the time the photo was taken. In that debate I was 'on the side' of the one which said it should look the way it actually looked - but that resulted in a rejection for that particular photographer. So that could be interpreted as a 'win' for the 'yes to manipulation' argument. No cloning allowed is a 'win' for the 'no to manipulation' camp.

Doubles is another example of a very subjective rule; inherent in it is the apparent position that similar looking photos of the same plane on the same occasion is a bad thing. You can't have two photos of the same plane taken by yourself if they look even vaguely similar, but it is fine to have many examples of the same plane looking exactly the same if it is taken by different photographers. Both positions can be defended - in the end it's a personal view which is the best way, and ultimately that will fall to Johan, as it is his site.

I am not criticising or defending anything here - just saying that each individual rule can be supported, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the same internal argument can be applied across different rules. That's just the way it is. As another example, no cloning implies leaving an image 'untidy', rather than making it look more 'pleasing', such as by getting rid of unsightly pylons sprouting from behind a fuselage. But the 'angle' rule suggests ensuring the image looks level if possible, even if that means making a real slope look level. The first example says 'no' to improving the aesthetics of the image, the second says 'yes' to improving the aesthetics.

On this one, I tend to support the argument to leave things in the photo that were really there - birds, pylons etc. My justification would be that to allow otherwise is to get on a slippery slope - expert Photoshop users could then do amazing things. I think it is one thing 'enhancing' reality - e.g. brightness, colour saturation etc - but another thing 'altering' reality.

Paul

[Edited 2005-09-18 01:01:45]

User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 33
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6161 times:

At the end of the day any manipulation is like being a little bit pregnant.
Its either all allowed or not.
At the moment you are allowed to alter colors by adding saturation,sharpness and add contrast none of which can be done via your camera.
Yet to clone out an obstructing pole is looked upon badly?
If you can do it properly such that it cannot be seen i cant see what the problem is.
If you cant do it properly then reject it for bad manipulation.
The door has been opened by requiring photo's to be sharpened to within an inch of their life and saturated to the point of no return.
What is the difference in electronic manipulation between adding sharpness that was not there in an original out of camera shot and removing a light pole to improve a photo?
Both add to the quality of the finished image and both are manipulation period.



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6150 times:

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 16):
At the moment you are allowed to alter colors by adding saturation,sharpness and add contrast none of which can be done via your camera.

Darren they can be done by the camera.
Not meaning any disrespect but they can be.
As for the cloning issue.
I think it should be stated that ONLY dust spots are allowed to be cloned out full stop.
If a bird happens to fly by tuff tities you lose the shot or upload it with the bird.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6137 times:

Quoting Johndm1957 (Reply 12):

Not true. This shot of mine has had absolutly nothing done to it except re-sizing.

First, I estimated 95% of all photos, I didn't say every single one of them... Second, your shot is still manipulated, even if it is just resizing


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5697 posts, RR: 44
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6114 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jhribar (Reply 4):
What did these clone guys do in the celluloid age? Also cut out a piece of the negative or slide ?????

Yes they did.. Manipulation is not a new thing nor is it limited to the "digital" artist. Photos have been manipulated forever. The difference now is the "price of entry" is lower and nearly anyone has access to the tools.(but not always the skill)
In the pre digital era you hardly ever saw a manipulated image, well you often didn't know you had. The only practitioners were experts.

To the question at hand.. I am not in favour of the cloning out of objects that are part of the scene.. where does that end, can we clone out tugs, baggage carts??

Saturation and sharpness etc are not adding content(or removing it) and are not fundementally different to what a skilled photographer or darkroom technician would do when making photographic prints.

Just my 2c worth..

Regards

Chris



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 33
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6106 times:

HI Jumbo
My point is that the minute you do any work on a photo you have crossed the line into the world of manipulation.
Yes you can use filters and yes you can use in camera sharpening.
However everone realises that you will end up with jagged images and use either PS or PSP to do these functions.
Hence manipulation at the most basic level.
Its a little like letting a genie out of a bottle in that by definition ANY post processing is digital manipulation.
I really have no answere's but to say that lamp posts are out but sharpening,saturation adjustments,color balancing is ok is hypocritical at best.
I am trying to play the devils advocate here rather than standing on a soapbox.
But if a lightpost is removed properly what is the difference between that and say adjusting the color balance in a night shot taken under sodium lighting where white is yellow when shot?
Both are image enhancements by different means.
I can see perfectly that the team want to ty to preserve the integrity of shots but people are already removing birds etc to stop bad dirty rejects.
WHats the diff between a bird and a lamp post?
In the quest for technically perfect photo's post processing is a required element and every adjustment is manipulation of some form or another.
A question again with the devils hat on.
If its done well why not allow it?



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6103 times:

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 20):
what is the difference between that and say adjusting the color balance in a night shot taken under sodium lighting where white is yellow when shot?

Great point Darren.
And your point is taken regarding

Quoting Dehowie (Reply 20):
My point is that the minute you do any work on a photo you have crossed the line into the world of manipulation.

I was told by a camera technician that the DSLR is made with post processing in mind.
The camera under exposes for instance knowing too well you can fix the levels in post processing.
I got into an argument on this point with the technicain telling him why is this so not everyone will post process the images after they take them.
I was told in a polite way if you want images to look the best when you press the shutter go and get a point and shoot.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 19):
Yes they did.. Manipulation is not a new thing nor is it limited to the "digital" artist. Photos have been manipulated forever. The difference now is the "price of entry" is lower and nearly anyone has access to the tools.(but not always the skill)

Great words there Chris and welcome back mate.
Cheers



On a wing and a prayer
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 33
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6089 times:

Well i know Canon gear is made with post processing in mind.
The whole manipulation thing is a gigantic can of worms that extends way beyond ANET.
I think the stance taken here is commendable in trying to maintain some kind of photographic integrity with regard to the shots guys take.On the other hand if the technology is available should we be sticking our heads in the sand and not using it?
My personal opinion is if someone can clone out a light post to enhance a photo and its done well then i am happy.If not done well reject the shot.
Every photography magazine these days has articles on composing shots using manipulation of some shape or form so it seems to be widely accepted in the general photography community.
I guess the fear is of people doing wild things with shots but i figure the screeners both here and elsewhere have enough of an idea to spot a dodgy shot.
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6071 times:

Some really good points so far! It's true though, the tools are there for us as photogs to use, whether we choose to utilize them to their fullest or not; whether we decide to put them to use for A.net purposes or not is, I suppose, up to the photographer to decide. Heavens forbid another (competing) site allows such things and said site starts seeing images that will never appear here on A.net!! I would actually agree that if it's invisible to the eye and can't be detected, then go for it. Get caught and expect the NOA_whatever.
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineJumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 days ago) and read 6053 times:

Another point.
If the cloning is not seen at the resolution that is uploaded here on ANet they might me seen on the prints at higher resolution.
Im against cloning other then for dust spots
Cheers

[Edited 2005-09-18 08:56:43]


On a wing and a prayer
25 Post contains images GPHOTO : Remember Johan set this place up originally as a database of airliners, not an art house. Artisitic shots are welcome (well mine don't seem to be - se
26 Psych : Excellent stuff - it's so good to see healthy debate on this Forum, rather than members slagging each other off in bad tempered posts. I went to bed l
27 Post contains images Tameteora : Hi all, Jim, I was about to post my views on this interesting topic, when I read your contribution. You've said it all, and I agree with all your poin
28 Aviopic : That might all be true Aad but in those days it could only be done by specialists, now the technique is available for everybody. To me it is just the
29 Erwin972 : I agree with you Willem. We have great camera hardware, we use it, we have great editing software... why only use it for sharpening and leveling? Man
30 Post contains links PUnmuth@VIE : http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ation_photography/read.main/176590
31 Granite : Hi all This is true. While I am not supporting the cloning out of items, if this was done good they would not be spotted and we would not know. Recent
32 INNflight : That's always the thing it comes down to in the end. In my opinion (worth 2 cents probably) this is the point on which every photographer has to deci
33 Post contains links and images Johndm1957 : Indeed, a 300D in jpeg. To be honest, it was my first ever accepted picture. My first ever attempt was a scan which failed miserably! But after my in
34 Post contains images Aviopic : I am not questioning anything John, guess it's a matter of taste. If however I had to shoot this very nice Spit for a customer everything that draws
35 Dendrobatid : There has been a recent change in terminology on the site and the word Bad has been replaced by the NOA, whatever that means. Granite starts the discu
36 StealthZ : If I may add another couple of cents worth.. we are continually told that A.net is a database not an art gallery etc. IMHO, If that is the case the de
37 Post contains images GPHOTO : Done well, you could probably have got away with it, but it is best to leave them there - the shot was accepted with them in after all. It is much ha
38 Johndm1957 : Hi Mick, Well I was really not sure what to do with the Spitfire pic. The bird on the right is clearly visible as such, but the left one could easily
39 Post contains images Tameteora : Hi Willem, Good cloning (or good editing in general) is still done by specialists. Most of the A.net uploaders are only (sophisticated) amateurs, as i
40 Aviopic : Haha you know I am just as much an old aircraft bugger as you are........ Of course I was not talking about altering the subject which in our case ha
41 Post contains images Tameteora : Of course I know that, Willem. But not everybody thinks like this. I have seen plenty of evidence of that on the Internet. That's why I worry about c
42 Granite : Hi all Aad, thanks for adding to the thread. While I do not clone out any stuff on my Airliners uploads, apart from the odd dust spot the 20D has been
43 Post contains links and images Aviopic : So don't use the clone tool. For these small area's it is better to use the patch(cloning but then different) tool anyway, a child can do it and no c
44 Tameteora : I disagree. A child thinks it can do it, but the results can be disastrous. With the clone tool, but also with patch and healing tools. None of them
45 JeffM : Not allowing the photographer the freedom to present his images in the manner he or she chooses is a bit restrictive in my opinion when it comes to re
46 Post contains images Johndm1957 : Unfortunately we have had to reject one or more of your photos. The overall impression of these photo(s) is too dark. This may be due to....... Only
47 Post contains images Johndm1957 : I see it now you pointed it out..
48 Post contains images Aviopic : That's from another aircraft Aad which I left in the frame but you are right in my commercial version that would have gone aswell. I do agree nothing
49 Post contains images Photopilot : This is a fascinating discussion thread. While cloning is distinctly one issue, it also has broadened into a discussion of manipulation. In order not
50 Post contains images Codeshare : Lamp posts are my trademark when it comes to my shots from WAW They sometimes get on my nerves, but hey, they;'re there because there's a need for the
51 Tameteora : Hi Jeff, Your point is...? It seems we are in total agreement. You present the point of view of the artistic photographer who wants to use A.net solel
52 Tameteora : Hi Willem, What you did in 5 minutes shows you are a pretty skilled Photoshopper. Perhaps not an expert or professional, but certainly above average.
53 JumboJim747 : This is one of the best discussion threads i have read in a long time. Great to have these sort of discussions thanks to Gary for starting the thread
54 Post contains links and images StealthZ : This is a great discussion and whilst it has mostly stayed on topic it kind of strayed from the lamp posts issue. I will post these two images to illu
55 Post contains images GPHOTO : That's what worries me most about where the line is. I agree with you that Airliners.net does a good job in meeting the needs of both sides - long ma
56 Post contains images Tameteora : Chris, Basically, I myself have no big problem with your example, because the lamp posts are not close to the aircraft anywhere, and the background in
57 Post contains images Gary2880 : hmm very good ... Are you sure you didn't clone the lamp posts IN? I think there's something quirky about the lamps, shows how bloody low it is...
58 Post contains links and images StealthZ : No I won't because I would not upload that image, If A.net does not like the photo with the lamp posts in (and likely wouldn't) then the photo will n
59 Post contains images Tameteora : OK, but I was speaking in general. Let me rephrase: if the screeners find out, one will be in trouble... As far as I know it would not be rejected du
60 Dehowie : I think there are numerous examples of fences and lamp posts which are intrusive but not obstructing an aircraft as being rejected which in itself cre
61 Post contains images INNflight : Darren, I agree with you a 100% on this point. Copyright thefts and / or misuse of already uploaded photographs is easy with average PS skills, and w
62 StealthZ : Florian, that is the difficult question isn't it. To make a photo truly worthless to the "pirates' it also becomes worthless to the db and the ordina
63 JeffM : My point is....If it can be done in a conventional "wet" darkroom, it should be allowed to be done on it's digital "cousin". This is an aircraft data
64 Post contains images GPHOTO : , yes. I think I could live with the example Chris produced - the lamp posts being removed is not so important as they don't cover anything significa
65 Tameteora : Chris, I think currently A.net is something inbetween, and I think it's doing a great job at it. The site has already moved towards the stock agency s
66 Tameteora : Jeff, Even though it may have been an everyday reality, I am not a fan of darkroom manipulation either. The problem with allowing any manipulation her
67 INNflight : You're right, Aad! Because professional photographers know how to process pictures in photoshop anyway, may it be cloning or anything else, without b
68 Aviopic : I see the magnificent discussion is still alive, good ! I don't think that is what Jeff or i wanted to achieve. I share you fear that some people migh
69 Post contains images Tameteora : I know that, but that does not mean it is allowed. Luckily even perfect cloning jobs can often be detected by comparing the photo with others taken f
70 TZ : We cannot agree on that because it's Johan's site and Johan does not want you artificially generating the content of your images. Removing blemishes
71 Tameteora : I know. And so do the screeners. But see my previous post to Florian... Because Johan will not have it (for which I am glad). But even if Johan were
72 Aviopic : That's the reason for this discussion Tamsin. Besides there is only one thing period in life, our death. So it is better to close your eyes for the r
73 Aviopic : I fully agree with you Aad, it would become unworkable. Besides photographers would be very unhappy to send there originals. Still my fear is that we
74 TZ : I told you what you are allowed to do quite clearly. Because of the wide-spread use of drugs and the obnoxious fumes which fill some streets of Amste
75 Dehowie : Hi Tamsin I think you may be missing the point. No matter how badly Johan may want to run his site it is very clear from the original post that people
76 TZ : Bummer. C'est la vie. The definition of illegal is simply that something is contrary to law(s). In this case the laws of airliners.net. In that sense
77 GPHOTO : I wouldn't say that. Read this:- See what I mean? Someone spotted it. Birds or cones may not matter, but when you are going to take a photo from a po
78 Post contains images Javibi : You are surely right, Darren, but I am all for trying to accomplish the impossible, just because as a wanna-be photog my aim is to create images that
79 Granite : Hi all Is anyone willing to send me a 1200 wide image of the view from Westchester Road (evening landing shots) that show all the lamp locations? Mayb
80 Tameteora : Johan is not the only one with that desire. I have that same desire (and most certainly not because I am a member of the crew!), and so do Javibi, GP
81 Granite : Jim Thanks for bringing my original comment to the fore again. As mentioned before, bad cloning is easily spotted. For example, and not pinpointing an
82 Aviopic : Yes Tamsin, the rules are clear to me. That why we are having such a wonderful discussion. Ha ha.... it is clear you never visited the place. If you
83 JeffM : Aad, Is it hard to understand that not all of us agree with you? Why get all bent over cloning when people rotate their image, remove grain, sharpen
84 Tameteora : No. Not at all. But does that mean that I have to agree with you then? Jeff, if you had taken the time to read any of my previous posts, you would kn
85 Post contains links and images Aviopic : There is no discussion about that Aad, I think we all want images with 100% integrity. We are discussing the point where exactly this integrity is do
86 Tameteora : I seriously doubt that, Willem. This discussion gives me a completely different impression. It seems to me some folks really don't care about integri
87 JeffM : And my point which you seem to be missing is ... The color, cropping, b+w modifying, leveling, etc. are just as manipulated as cloning. ...ditto
88 Post contains images Lennymuir : LAX turkeys voting for Christmas?
89 Dehowie : Tamsin Your opinion is well worth listening to. I'd say that like other places the load will fall on the screeners who see lots of shots taken from di
90 Photopilot : You know it's really quite simple really, and frustrating at the same time. You work your A$$ off to get a great shot. Unique, high quality and an ima
91 F9Widebody : Bingo!
92 Psych : This has been a fascinating thread and, despite the fact that the dreaded personal sniping has begun to creep in, it continues to be an interesting re
93 Skymonster : Its unfair to blame on the screeners here - "no cloning" is a policy instigated by Johan that the screeners are merely required to implement. Anyone w
94 Post contains images GPHOTO : The discussion is about removal (and addition, on occasion) of "objects" in photos. Nobody is making a fuss about the photographers use of colour, sa
95 Granite : Hi all Bit of a dorky comment Andy. Seems like quite a lot of photographers are still interested in this subject. Regards Gary
96 Granite : Hi all Gerry, don't understand this at all. Maybe some Central Belt humour but I ain't got a clue what it means at all. Regards Gary
97 Post contains images EGFF : Gary ... that's just Gerry for you Shaun
98 Tameteora : As I said before, I'm not missing your point, Jeff. On the contrary, I see exactly where you want this discussion to lead to and why. I just don't ag
99 Post contains images Lennymuir : Hey Gary Central Belt? I haven't been called that before? Can't you see the irony requesting LAX locals to send you panoramic shots of their area? Pit
100 Granite : Hi Gerry No need for a local to send me an image............already got one from a visiting holidaymaker. Ha. Regards Gary
101 Granite : Gerry Just to make it a little clearer for you, I was asking for 'anyone' to send me an image from LAX, didn't have to be a local. Regards Gary
102 Tappan : Very simple, if their are lampposts in your photo move to a better angle. If there is a bird leave it in there. Mark Garfinkel
103 Post contains links and images Tappan : CLONING??? UGHHHHH! OK check this out if you would... I enjoy photographing jets and the moon. This, as anybody who has tried it knows, takes patience
104 Javibi : Amen. In other words, decide if you wanna be a photographer or a graphic designer. j
105 Post contains images Key : Correct. Wrong. The difference is that b&w is immediately recognised as an alteration to reality and the missing lamp post in your example is not. Th
106 JeffM : LOL....Funny stuff Javi. I would love to see what the images here would look like if all you "photographers" were not allowed to use any of the tools
107 Post contains images JetTrader : Just to address the last point. "...they would be accurate." Or would they? I'm sure that the image as captured by the sensor on digital cameras or b
108 Post contains images JeffM : Good point, but are they? Or is it what you the photographer thinks was the reality, or what you wanted us to think is the reality? Is a scene record
109 Post contains images Key : Jeff, If you go by this definition (moving pixels) that rules out any discussion or refinement: everybody agrees a certain level of processing is allo
110 Dehowie : I think Andy has hit the nail on the head here. Despite all our best wishes and the rules of Johan's a well done cloning job is impossible to detect a
111 GPHOTO : It would satisfy both sides I guess, but I think the difficulty of overseeing such a situation means it would not be implemented. Best regards, Jim
112 Rotate : to come back to gary`s question, and after reading the whole topic, for me it is as simple as that: NO CLONING ! except for: dustspots - thats it. I
113 TZ : Rotate - I am so pleased you have an understanding of the ethos of the airliners.net website and an appreciation of our standards. Well done for stay
114 Tameteora : Even perfectly done cloning jobs very often have a chance of being detected, although admittedly perhaps not at the moment of screening. But when the
115 Dehowie : Tamsin i think we already know what ANET stance is on cloning but the discussion is on how to approach how to deal with what is already an obvious pr
116 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Aad, like that While Airliners.net does not do this as a rule, the amount of hassle, bad mails etc that the Screeners have received this year,
117 Rotate : well said, but as also said - if the guy gets caught - BAN HIM for a month or so. I am pretty sure he wont do it again. some time ago we had the prob
118 Granite : Hi all A good thing would be for the offending image(s) already in the database that have visible cloning would be to remove them without questions. A
119 StealthZ : mmm .... guess I am on the watch list now!!!! Chris
120 Tameteora : There is very good reason for Airliners.net not doing this as a rule. It is a very severe measure... Yet I think it may be justified for people who v
121 Dendrobatid : Chris, If you weren't, I bet you are now !!!! Mick Bajcar
122 StealthZ : Damn shame really.. I was on the anti-manipulation side!!! Oh well!!! Chris
123 Granite : Hi all To set the record straight, there is no 'Hit List' Regards Gary
124 Post contains images Skymonster : Again you fail to grasp the reality of the situation Everyone is AWARE of the rule, certainly now if not before, but some people will still chose to
125 GPHOTO : You are right that the rule cannot be enforced reliably because it would require someone being found out, either by a Screener being familiar with th
126 TZ : Again you choose to interpret my words in a manner advantageous to your argument and fail to grasp the reality of another's point of view. I complete
127 Administrator : I think Tamsin and others made this very clear, no need to discuss it further. I am archiving this thread. Thanks, Johan
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...
To Pull Or Not To Pull? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 08:50:09 by ANITIX87
To Watermark Or Not To Watermark.... posted Thu Jan 19 2006 18:09:24 by Brettdespain
To Clone Or Not To Clone posted Sat Sep 17 2005 12:49:54 by Granite
This One To Stay Or Go? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 19:38:40 by 9V
The Joys, Or Not, Of Uploading To A.net posted Mon Jul 24 2006 18:17:48 by Scbriml
Spotting Bali Advice; Go Or Not To Go? posted Fri Dec 9 2005 12:41:39 by DRAIGONAIR
Rotate Or Not To Rotate? posted Sun Sep 11 2005 17:25:16 by Ryangooner
To Shoot Or Not To Shoot: The Toronto A 340 posted Sat Aug 6 2005 14:53:44 by Tappan
Request For Opinion, Crop Or Not To Crop posted Tue Mar 8 2005 22:31:28 by BaldurSveins
To Charge Or Not To Charge posted Fri Jan 14 2005 09:13:54 by Ua935