Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Editing Necessary To Get Pics Accepted?  
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5078 times:

Another thread raging at the minute got me thinking about this. Is it possible to get a shot accepted without editing it in any way whatsoever (apart from the necessary re-sizing)? Has this ever been achieved? I'm not thinking of trying it but the notion has got me wondering.

Karl

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5070 times:

Karl,

I would say you can get a picture accepted with minimal editing. Its the right way to go from the start. The U2 shot in the previous thread is exposed spot on. All it needs is a tighter crop, and a touch of sharpening as below:

http://www1.airliners.net/uf/536892555/1164921282FYhxpo.jpg

Regards
Colin


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5065 times:

Cheers Colin, that's the shot I was actually referring to when I posted. When I put it up in the other thread I had a good close look at it and realised it was free from dust spots and the exposure looked good.

I won't attempt to upload it but I was curious as to if anyone had ever had a decent acceptance rate without editing.

The other thread got me thinking, "If I didn't need to edit my pics I wouldn't be cheating myself and I could probably get something on A.net.

We'll see.

Karl


User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1977 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5022 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In the good old times of 'dark room' photography and dubious quality photographic film and paper, any shortcomings of the negative image were corrected while printing, by choosing appropriate paper, adjusting print exposure, and, in the case of colour photography, by using the colour correction filters. I'll bet you the photographers didn't think of it as 'editing' then.

As digital photography is, by and large, a one-step process, the Photoshop editing just makes up for the now missing printing step, and used in the same way to correct minor flaws. Now, WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5016 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Thread starter):
Is it possible to get a shot accepted without editing it in any way whatsoever (apart from the necessary re-sizing)?

Yup, got plenty, not all mentioned in the remarks....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeff Miller



User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4945 times:

Sounds good. At least if I ever attempt to chuck anything A.net's way it'll have a chance of being accepted without me having to faff around for hours doing this and that.

Cheers.


User currently offlineLinco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1380 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4929 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 5):
faff around for hours

You don't need hours, just minutes. Grab a cup off coffee, sit back, and before you know it, you'll be alllll done.


User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4906 times:

Quoting Linco22 (Reply 6):
You don't need hours, just minutes. Grab a cup off coffee, sit back, and before you know it, you'll be alllll done.

Just one problem - I don't own Photoshop.

One thing I've learned from these threads recently is that I will more than likely benefit greatly from a copy of PS.

If I get a copy, I suppose learning how to use it could be time-consuming. I ain't a whizz with computers!

Hopefully I won't get too carried away and become heavily reliant upon the program! Maybe I could just use it to rub out the odd bird or dust spot.....

.....and then in the next step maybe I can put BA's livery on a Tu-154.....

Karl


User currently offlineJorge1812 From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 3149 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4895 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Thread starter):
Another thread

Which one?

Georg


User currently offline9V From China, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4890 times:

Quoting JakTrax (Reply 7):
Just one problem - I don't own Photoshop

Then either buy a copy or get someone to put it on disc for you, It's not rocket science.  banghead 

How old is your pc? All pc's now come with free editing software. If your's is powered by gas it might be worth buying a new one.  Wink


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4791 times:

You should have a copy of elements bundled with your Canon software. I'll bet most here are not graphic designers or professionals - you've got to start somewhere, and for the purposes of a.net the techniques are easy to learn, if difficult to master.

Really you owe it to yourself to have a play with PS - you can really bring out the pretty in a decent image.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11183 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4789 times:

Quoting 9V (Reply 9):
get someone to put it on disc for you

so steal it?  confused 



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4763 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 11):
so steal it?

Why not? If you can get away with it.  Wink


User currently offlineCalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4743 times:

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):
Why not? If you can get away with it.

Uh, because it's illegal??? I guess you don't mind people using your pictures for themselves either? What a sad state we're in when people publicly claim that stealing someone else's work is okay.  Angry

B


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11183 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4741 times:

Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):
Why not? If you can get away with it.

I would think a person that holds the copyright on many works such as everyone that posts to this forum would respect the copyrights of others, especially when it is the source of their livelihood. I speak as a former software engineer.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4714 times:

If people have a large enough bank balance to pay the massively inflated price of licenced software then so be it, but understand that not everyone is in that position and somehow claiming the moral high ground is absurd.


Perhaps if the companies who develop the software marketed it at a more affordable price then less people would want to copy it anyway.

Anyway, back on topic, if you are going to upload "unedited" shots, do you need to use some in-camera sharpening.

Regards,

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4705 times:

Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 13):
Uh, because it's illegal???

So is speeding  Wink
The price of PS is inflated indeed.

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 15):
Anyway, back on topic, if you are going to upload "unedited" shots, do you need to use some in-camera sharpening.

Which is very likely to produce jaggy images and will be hard to eliminate.
Like I said it in another thread, you are expected to edit your shots with a DSLR to make them perfect. But hey, if you're happy with what the camera produces without any post processing... each to their own.

Ivan



Contrails Aviation Photography
User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

How do you get them looking sharp enough without though Ivan? Mine look too soft.

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4696 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 17):
How do you get them looking sharp enough without though Ivan? Mine look too soft.

You don't. At least not sharp enough for A.net. Mine are soft as well.

Ivan



Contrails Aviation Photography
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11183 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4678 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 15):
If people have a large enough bank balance to pay the massively inflated price of licenced software then so be it, but understand that not everyone is in that position and somehow claiming the moral high ground is absurd.

How much did you pay for your camera? DSLR, right?
How much did you pay for your lenses? L glass, right?

Those are pretty expensive. Did you even consider robbing a store to get it?
I'm guessing you didn't, but why not?

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 15):
Perhaps if the companies who develop the software marketed it at a more affordable price then less people would want to copy it anyway.

It costs money to make that software, you know. Do you know how many man-hours went into making Photoshop? Those people have to put food on the table, pay for a roof over their heads, pay back student loans, etc. They don't do it just for fun.

Would you feel the same way about people ripping off your photos and using them for their own purposes?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineCalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4668 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 15):
If people have a large enough bank balance to pay the massively inflated price of licenced software then so be it, but understand that not everyone is in that position and somehow claiming the moral high ground is absurd.

Anyone who can afford a digital camera can afford Elements, it even ships "free" with some cameras. I guess if someone wants to use your pictures and think your price is inflated, then they should just steal it? If you can't afford a tool then don't use it - that's just the way it is. I guess aspiring photographers who can't afford Elements surely can't afford a digital camera, so they should steal that too?

Quoting Fly747 (Reply 16):
So is speeding

Oh, now I get it. If you do one thing illegally then anything goes.

Quoting Fly747 (Reply 16):
The price of PS is inflated indeed.

If it's so lucrative everyone and their dog would be creating it. Maybe it's more likely the price is inflated because they don't sell much since everyone is willing to give it away. Or maybe every Software Engineering grad isn't creating their own version because it really isn't that lucrative.

If spending ninety bucks on a software package rather than rationalizing stealing it is the "moral highground" then I guess I'm on it after all.

B


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11183 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4667 times:

To all those that are planning on stealing software because it's too expensive, consider:

Photoshop Elements 5.0: $69.99
Photoshop CS2: $549 (sell your kit lens)
Photoshop 7.0: $199.99
Photoshop Upgrade to CS2 (from 7.0!): 144.99 (cheaper than buying the whole CS2 version!)

Corel Paint Shop Pro XI: $74.23.

Canon 350D: $600 w/shkit lens.
Nikon D70s: $640 w/o lens.
I think my point is clear.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4663 times:

Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 20):
Anyone who can afford a digital camera can afford Elements, it even ships "free" with some cameras.

So what's the difference if it comes with the camera or someone burns it for you?

Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 20):
Quoting Fly747 (Reply 16):
So is speeding

Oh, now I get it. If you do one thing illegally then anything goes.

That's not what it means. Same goes the other way around though.

Quoting D L X (Reply 21):
Photoshop CS2: $549 (sell your kit lens)

That must be some kit lens.

Ivan



Contrails Aviation Photography
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11183 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4655 times:

Quoting Fly747 (Reply 22):
So what's the difference if it comes with the camera or someone burns it for you?

The difference is that if it came with the camera, you paid for it, albeit indirectly.

Analogy: You can buy a body, or you can buy a kit. The fact that you only bought a body doesn't give you the right to go steal a lens, just because other people had the lens included.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFlyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 804 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4651 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 15):
somehow claiming the moral high ground is absurd.

 checkmark 

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
How much did you pay for your camera? DSLR, right?

 checkmark 

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
How much did you pay for your lenses? L glass, right?

 checkmark 

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Those are pretty expensive. Did you even consider robbing a store to get it?

Yes, but I probably would've gotten caught.

The point is that it's *very easy* to "steal" software and music by copying...it probably always will be. I'm sure if it was as easy to steal a 20D and 100-400L from the local camera store as it is to copy a software CD, a lot more people would do it.

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Do you know how many man-hours went into making Photoshop? Those people have to put food on the table, pay for a roof over their heads, pay back student loans, etc. They don't do it just for fun.

 Yeah sure Come on now...We're not feeding the hungry here, just helping to offset the monumental cost of producing and marketing a worthless piece of plastic.

Quoting D L X (Reply 14):
I would think a person that holds the copyright on many works such as everyone that posts to this forum would respect the copyrights of others, especially when it is the source of their livelihood.

I would imagine that only a small percentage of people who submit photos here rely on photography for a source of their livlelyhood.

While I wouldn't want any of my photos taken without permission or payment, I can't say I blame anyone for trying. It's just so easy to do. Really, it's okay...take all the photos you want...just don't let me catch you!  Wink


25 Fly747 : It didn't come with mine and I bought the same product (camera). So I still paid for the camera, but didn't get a freebie. That's what I mean when I
26 Viv : The difference is that the camera manufacturer has paid for it. Stealing is theft, no matter how you dress it up.
27 D L X : So, stealing is okay unless you're stealing from the poor? I'm surprised there are people actually justifying this, considering how much people bitch
28 Fly747 : I never said it wasn't stealing, but it is widely accepted that people download copyrighted material from the net, be it music, photographs, programs
29 JeffM : No. It's not. Only by those that steal stuff.
30 Fly747 : Let me rephrase that, widely known fact.
31 DC10Tim : I haven't said I have stolen anything, I'm just saying that to criticise those who use copied software is unfair. Of course I'd like a new 400D and 7
32 Flyfisher1976 : Really people, what ae we tlking about here...a round piece of plastic that costs pennies to produce. Don't worry, Adobe made their money a long time
33 Post contains images D L X : Actually, not true. It's in the license, if I'm not mistaken. BTW, D L X = intellectual property attorney. And the fact that the makers of Photoshop
34 CalgaryBill : You're not kidding. I can't believe people are actually publicly trying to rationalize theft. No, it's just a plain ol' ethical argument about theft.
35 JeffM : Maybe they can make some more if we turn in Joseph Del Guidice to their legal department? You have very poor reading comprehension skills........Take
36 DC10Tim : People are are not trying to justify it, merely place an argument to suggest why it is not so unacceptable. By people who can't afford to help pay fo
37 Viv : Most people who steal do not have such a problem. If they had a moral problem, they would not steal. But theft is theft, regardless of what the thief
38 Sulman : Completely f*cking off topic. Nice one guys.[Edited 2006-12-03 12:12:10]
39 Post contains images Flyfisher1976 : I'm sure they've got better things to do. The world according to Airliners.net
40 JeffM : Surely we could, an should. It doesn't matter if a kid is breaking the law with or without their parents knowledge. Rationalizing theft of any kind i
41 Viv : Agreed, he does. It is very hard to reason with people like that. Sure, some theft is worse than others, but ALL theft is unacceptable, whether commi
42 D L X : Seriously. I lost a lot of respect for a lot of people because of this thread. I don't EVER want to see any of you schmucks whining about someone ste
43 Viv : Well, you gained mine. Have added you to my Respected Users list.
44 DC10Tim : Crikey can we have less of the drama please? Firstly no-one is claiming it not to be theft. The argument I am putting forward is that it is understand
45 CalgaryBill : Ditto. You said it. I'm not trying to neff here, I'm just speechless about some of the opinions being publicly expressed here. It's hard to believe t
46 Viv : Because it is easy, and because they won't be caught. It does. Many jobs have been lost in the recorded music industry because of illegal downloading
47 Post contains images JeffM :
48 DC10Tim : Then many are damned. Yes, and because it is way too expensive to begin with. We're going to start going around in circles now anyway, but I still se
49 Post contains images JakTrax : Agree. I don't think it does. People illegally download software/music/whatever, often without thinking or realising. I think a lot of it is done in
50 JeffM : Then you/they should find a different past time. I'd love a new Mercedes Benz, can't afford the one I want.... Should I just go steal one from the de
51 DC10Tim : Jeff, if people want to go out and spend several hundred pounds/dollars to help pay large dividends to shareholders then so be it, but not everyone do
52 D L X : Do you know why I went to law school? I went to law school because the software industry dried up. People with masters' degrees from very good engine
53 DC10Tim : Cicumstances such as you describe are EXACTLY why I can understand it is done. No, but I can see that it is difficult for someone with little disposab
54 Viv : Tim, I agree. Most people who download illegally do not think of the implications of what they are doing in terms of hurting the manufacturers, endan
55 Post contains images Flyfisher1976 : ...nor did anyone say that they had ever done it. Oh come on now...we're not condoning the ruthless killing of babies...BTW who are you, Mother Teres
56 D L X : OKay, Flyfisher, DC10Tim, 9V, did you steal Photoshop?
57 Post contains images Flyfisher1976 : I've never stolen anything...ever! And just for the record, I bought my copy of PSE and downloaded it directly from the Adobe website.
58 DC10Tim : No. And this is really my last comment on this.
59 JakTrax : And to think a few of you here are willing to fall out over something so trivial! I'd perhaps feel more ashamed had I actually illegally downloaded P
60 D L X : Karl, first off, the largest bonus I ever received was $700. My rent was $1250. Second, you and others completely failed to see that stealing is immo
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...