Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 170 posts, RR: 4 Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1264 times:
Could someone explain why I have lost the 5 photo's I had in the queue - when I looked this morning 2 were in screening, one other still to be screened, the other 2 had another 2 days or so to go.
TupolevTu154 From United Kingdom (England), joined Aug 2004, 1671 posts, RR: 39 Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1259 times:
It's not uncommon for a photo to have a "gap" in time between getting accepted, and showing up in the database, this has happened to me a couple of times.
The two that weren't in screening, did they have odd dates? I uploaded a shot once to have a date from 2002 attached to it, only to then later dissapear and turn up in the "Rejected" folder for "Error".
Granite From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 1999, 5369 posts, RR: 77 Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1213 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Hi all
Quoting Jid (Reply 3): Gary could it have something to do with this thread ?
Nope, nothing to do with that thread at all.
Please read the suspension e-mail and contact the screeners for further clarification.
Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 170 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1203 times:
I have now read the e-mail and am mortified to have been accused of digital manipulation. This is something I would never do and most certainly have not done on any photo I have uploaded to this site.
I have written to the screeners to this effect. To say I am gutted to have this placed on me would be an understatement.
For clarity the photo's that were in screening were taken with a 1D MK111 and a 500 LISUSM Lens, edited through Lightroom, sharpened in CS3 and converted to jpeg - one of the images was also converted to black & white as it was taken at Duxford. I actually had 2 of the 3 that were being screened rejected for wrong category about a week ago. I can't share them at the moment as I'm at work.
I've publicly wriiten this on this forum as I have nothing to defend - if the screeners have taken this decision then I wont be allowed to upload for a month.
StealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4131 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1170 times:
I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken that photographs were rejected for manipulation and photographers were warned.. for a first offence.
Are we to understand that Garry had received a warning prior to this?
From his tone I would think not.
When a photo is rejected for manipulation and a message sent to the photographer would it not be fair, indeed natural justice to outline what crime the judge, jury and executioner thought the miscreant guilty of... oops... I mean what manipulation the screener felt the photographer had done.
Perhaps the message does mention the offense but again from Garry's tone it suggests otherwise. I don't know as I have never received such a message.
Quoting Garry (Reply 5): as I have nothing to defend
Well yes you do if indeed you are as innocent as you claim.
Cheers
Of course old planes are safe, how do you think they got to be old?
Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 170 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1148 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 6): Are we to understand that Garry had received a warning prior to this?
Chris, no never received anything and nor should I have as I don't manipulate images.
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 6): Perhaps the message does mention the offense but again from Garry's tone it suggests otherwise
The message stated manipulation and use of gaussian blur creating echo effects - the bottom line no image of mine has ever been manipulated and uploaded to this site.
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 6): I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken that photographs were rejected for manipulation and photographers were warned.. for a first offence
If someone is trying it on by manipulating an image and contravening the rules of this site then the crime has to fit the punishment I am all for that. However, whichever screener it was who has wrongly concluded I have manipulated an image has unfortunatley made an error of judgement.
I am not going to throw my toys out of the pram and make accusations of the screening team, nor will I leave the site and upload somewhere else. But screeners please take note you have made an error please learn from it and think as a team how you may communicate these apparent misdemeanours a little better please.
Granite From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 1999, 5369 posts, RR: 77 Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1145 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Garry
Might be good to post the image here for discussion.
The screener who rejected and placed the ban will possibly respond on this thread.
Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 170 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1139 times:
Gary - happy to do so. I had 3 in the queue for today, 2 from duxford, 1 from Manchester. As the other 2 were previously rejected for category I assume its the dragonair? Could you please confirm.
Granite From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 1999, 5369 posts, RR: 77 Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1120 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Garry
I think it was G-ABVE that has been causing the problem, the black and white bi-plane.
JRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 3952 posts, RR: 55 Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1093 times:
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 6): I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken that photographs were rejected for manipulation and photographers were warned.. for a first offence.
Nope, didn't happen in my case either, got me a week...... Still haven't got the answer on how not to be banned again in that situation, and it's years ago :P.
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 170 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1027 times:
As Gary requested here is the image which has caused the problem for me.
And for reference here is the original, which I have just converted to jpg and resized.
It is clear that there is a shadow above the tree line on the edited, black & white image. Others better qualified than I am on digital editing can offer an opinion - the one thing I can categorically confirm that I had absolutley no intention of creating what has occured and I certainly did not use a blur filter.
Wow, that's a stunner. I can see where the screener got the assumption from but looking at the original it looks legit. I still think you should have been contacted before the ban took effect.
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 2600 posts, RR: 32 Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1010 times:
I cropped the original shot to get it as similar to the uploaded shot as possible, resized the uploaded one, desaturated the original shot and added contrast to it, and it seems that the background in the uploaded one is more OoF. Hmm....
1-Garry's uploaded version
2-My quick crop and desaturate version
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2366 posts, RR: 53 Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 989 times:
Quoting Garry (Reply 13): As Gary requested here is the image which has caused the problem for me.
I can see why you are accused for manipulation Gary, there is something strange with the tree line in the background.
Suppose this is the "echo" effect which Granite(and the screener in question) referred to.
Don't know what caused it but you must have done something wrong during the edit process, it does not appear in David's edit.
Scottieprecord From United States, joined Jul 2004, 1359 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 989 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Garry, did you use any sort of noise reduction filter? I've seen similar affects produced by Neat Image on some of my shots.
-Mike
Mike Paschal in AUS - Canon 40D - Hook 'em Horns! - Questions/Comments about Anet to: support@airliners.net
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1353 posts, RR: 70 Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 980 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
There has been discussion amongst the screeners about this image and the circumstances surrounding it and there will not be any discussion about the ban in an open forum as that would be inappropriate.
Now Garry has posted the image we are prepared to discuss that, the image.
As can be seen from the prop blur the image was taken at a low shutter speed yet whilst the aircraft is by no means fast there is no motion blur to the background. Blur, yes, but no sign of motion blur. The depth of field issues were of course discussed yet with the aircraft so sharp, yet the background not, it looks as though some form of blur has been added to the background. There is certainly a difference between the JPG and the converted black and white image. I doubt that simply not sharpening the background would have that effect, it is more blurred
The other matter is the 'echo' of the tree line, the line visible in the sky above the trees. which I have marked on the image below
showing editing
This does not look like an accident either and is indicative of some form of editing. Whilst I have been typing David has done an edit which shows the sky to be very blank as you would expect from converting the colour image. What I think has happened is that the photographer has seen the blank sky and tried to hold it back to make it a soft grey, too grey actually and that has left the echo of the trees.
To me both are examples of prohibited editing. Had there not been those examples of editing, I would have rejected for contrast which is too low leaving a muddy image
Mick Bajcar
Scottieprecord From United States, joined Jul 2004, 1359 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 968 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
I gave David's edit a pass through Neat Image, and I think that may have caused the apparent manipulation on Garry's upload, although I'm not seeing the ghosting in the tree-line on my edit...
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3038 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 951 times:
Even assuming that Garry used the blur tool, and even though I cannot know what might be in his 'record' if there is such a thing at a.net, I'm a bit surprised that he's been banned for a whole month, if I understand that correctly.
One year ago I was banned, quite correctly, for foolishly cloning some human parts out of the edge of a photo. The e-mail said I was a long-time uploader and should know the rules. Yet I was banned for only one week if I'm not mistaken - certainly not one month.
I had a look and Garry has less than 50 photos on the database, way less than I had. Furthermore, while I seem to remember it does say somewhere on the site that use of this tool is not allowed, I'm not sure this is something you may expect every photographer to know or feel bad about. Indeed, right now in another thread somebody is using the blur tool in an example of using the feathering tool.
Again, I don't know what may be in Garry's record, and I respect that screeners will not discuss that, but I hope screeners are sure this punishment is appropriate.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8926 posts, RR: 51 Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 944 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 20): Also jw, is the ban just on uploads or is Garry banned from posting in the forums as well?
Given that he's been posting in this very thread would suggest just on uploading.
My comments on the image, for what they're worth - I can see why the screeners have rejected the shot for manipulation. The background does look as though some form of blurring has been selectively applied.
However, to ban Garry for this seems to be somewhat harsh. Unless, of course, Garry has been previously warned not to submit shots like this.
Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 170 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 935 times:
Mike - thank you I think you have got it. I ran it through Noise Ninja with an auto profile I've just done it again and it does indeed as you state cause a blur.
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 19): As can be seen from the prop blur the image was taken at a low shutter speed
Here is the exif date - shutter speed 1/640 f7.1 100 iso
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 19): What I think has happened is that the photographer has seen the blank sky and tried to hold it back to make it a soft grey, too grey actually and that has left the echo of the trees.
Pepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 22 Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 825 times:
That halo could be from the shadow/highlight tool that has applied to the sky. Manipulation to me is intentionally adding or cloning something out of a photo. This is clearly not the case here.
27 Dendrobatid: Until Ed made me think in Reply 26, I had not appreciated the futility, I almost said stupidity, of Garry running the image through noise reduction (s
28 Garry: Mick thank you for you reply. This has been another great learning experience for me and I hope many other people have read this thread and taken some
29 Dendrobatid: Garry This has been an interesting discussion and I am sure that everyone can now see how and why we screeners interpreted that image as being manipul
30 Walter2222: I also had a rejection for this some time ago (the shot is no longer in my - big - rejection file), and the screener had put a note " bad manipulatio
31 Aviopic: Congrats to both Gary and the screeners, this is how it should be !
32 Linco22: I've been away from this forum for a long time but it's nice to see an issue being sorted without the handbags coming out. Well done to both Mick and
33 Acontador: Just wanted to say many thanks to Gary, the screeners and all others who have contributed to this very informative thread! I just wish there would be
34 Scottieprecord: Any time Garry. Happy to see everything here was resolved - shows a great deal of respect and maturity from all sides. - Mike
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 170 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Aug 2004, 1671 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 875 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined May 1999, 5369 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4131 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 3952 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1487 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 2600 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2004, 1359 posts, 
From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
