Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Unacceptable Editing?  
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2304 times:

Hey all,

Just received a rejection as this picture was "edited unacceptably".

Big version: Width: 1200 Height: 866 File size: 343kb


Thing is, all I did was centre it, crop it and sharpen. The sunset was so great that night, that it needed no colour enhancement.

I personally thought that it makes a great silhouette? What are people's thoughts?

Martin

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hello Martin.

I hope things are well with you.

Looks like a simple example of a situation where the screener(s) didn't accept that the colour in this image was legit. It is a pretty weird colour - that is for sure. I recall a few threads now where colour issues have been debated for images taken in your neck of the woods - people saying that is the colour of the lighting vs. others saying it must be manipulated.

Maybe someone would be interested to see the original file so that you can demonstrate there was no inappropriate alteration of the colour.

All the best.

Paul

P.S. Still getting a tiny dot here in the post with IE instead of the complete photo.


User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Quoting Psych (Reply 1):
I recall a few threads now where colour issues have been debated for images taken in your neck of the woods - people saying that is the colour of the lighting vs. others saying it must be manipulated.

Yeah and it shouldn't be. If a screener is not familiar with colours in this part of the world, well then somehow he should look around, on the web maybe, at photos taken in the area. The fact that a shot is booted for a reason as "hey I don't believe colours in the shots you take from YOUR own country" is pretty pathetic!

The original is here: http://www.martineadie.com/martin/orig.JPG

And now this for contrast: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ctions/big/20071215_vh-vnb7127.jpg

What is wrong with that one?

[Edited 2007-12-15 15:59:36]

User currently offlineBeechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Martin,

the colours in your shot look really artificial. No doubt about that.

Quoting Eadster (Reply 2):
If a screener is not familiar with colours in this part of the world, well then somehow he should look around, on the web maybe, at photos taken in the area

Are all photos from that area yellow, or what?!?

Quoting Eadster (Reply 2):
hey I don't believe colours in the shots you take from YOUR own country

it´s not a question of your own country or not, it´s a question of looking right or edited and be it real or not, as said before, this looks artificial.

If you have objections with the screeners decision you can of course appeal to the headscreeners.

Quoting Eadster (Reply 2):
What is wrong with that one?

it looks oversaturated and contrasty.

Denis

PS: Didn´t want this post to sound offensive, forgive me, if it does...



That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

IMO the JPG you posted, Martin, doesn't tell all the story, and a Raw file wouldn't, either. Some camera settings are what can change the image so it looks odd, like yours.

User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2263 times:

Looks weird but nice. I think if you appeal it will get canned for "distance". I would have cropped it tighter. Good luck.

Ivan



Contrails Aviation Photography
User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5852 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
Martin,

the colours in your shot look really artificial. No doubt about that.

so when was the last time you came and shot in Australia? this has been an ongoing nightmare for uploaders from down in this part of the world, simple fact is that its not rare or uncommon for the sunset/rise to be like this...I'll post you plenty of pics on here if you need any more convincing.

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
Are all photos from that area yellow, or what?!?

yes, at the right time of the day...editing it would be a manipulation, wouldn't it?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1067236/L/

do you seriously think all of us from down here would sit around our PC's and conger up ways to manipulate the sky colour? if its not clear by now that its a natural phenomenon then it never will be.

http://www.travel-australia.org/special_pics/strange_sky.html

[Edited 2007-12-15 16:35:59]


a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5852 posts, RR: 40
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2254 times:



Quoting Aero145 (Reply 4):
IMO the JPG you posted, Martin, doesn't tell all the story, and a Raw file wouldn't, either. Some camera settings are what can change the image so it looks odd, like yours.

IMO you don't know the story until your from this part of the world...it happens all the time. Do you really need every Australian uploader convincing you that its a natural occurrence?



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 4):


IMO the JPG you posted, Martin, doesn't tell all the story, and a Raw file wouldn't, either. Some camera settings are what can change the image so it looks odd, like yours.

Not with RAW files using a standard converter like Adobe Camera RAW. It completely ignores things like picture styles et al. That's what thee camera sees. RAW is that, RAW sensor data, yet to be interpreted. It is not affected by camera settings in any way except perhaps for black frame noise reduction. That's why it's called... a RAW file. Camera settings in that case are only tags (like saturation +1). The only thing that affects the file are exposure and any pre-processing noise reduction.

I would say it would most certainly prove it.

[Edited 2007-12-15 16:55:49]


From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9623 posts, RR: 68
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2242 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 8):
Not with RAW files using a standard converter like Adobe Camera RAW

Most, if not all, DSLR's allow you to crank up saturation, contrast, and/or hue, among other things.


User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5852 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

says it all...if we're going to debate the phenomenon of Australian skies then I suggest all screeners get on a plane and come down here to see if for themselves.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Marston




a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineBeechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2235 times:



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 6):
do you seriously think all of us from down here would sit around our PC's and conger up ways to manipulate the sky colour?



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 7):
Do you really need every Australian uploader convincing you that its a natural occurrence?

Ok, we´re not talking about "all of you" and "every australian uploader".

We´re talking about ONE specific image, right? Let´s keep the conspiracy theories out of here.

Denis



That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 4):
IMO the JPG you posted, Martin, doesn't tell all the story, and a Raw file wouldn't, either. Some camera settings are what can change the image so it looks odd, like yours.

So with the untouched original there, still means nothing to you?

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
Are all photos from that area yellow, or what?!?

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5856259

Took that not that long ago from here in Darwin. As said, you select the right time during a sunset here, and you'll get alot of yellow - even more yellow than in these shots.

Yes, as mentioned, only at particular times of the day. Why is it that sunsets down here are questioned. I've even had the blue questioned in photos, that our gum trees give when taken from a distance. Hence the Blue Mountains obtaining their name...

Ever seen some sunset shots from Broome, Western Australia? Might pay to have a look at some...

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
If you have objections with the screeners decision you can of course appeal to the headscreeners.

I don't even know why that is there. It never works. Not once have my comments been considered in an appeal.

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
it looks oversaturated and contrasty.

So I remove some contrast? That will fix it?

Denis - no offense taken, but it is really starting to annoy me, when the natural colours of things here in Aus get questioned. A short time on the net will see, I'm not making the colours up.

Royal - I agree, but I had it set to Auto WB etc. I'm telling you, the colour is not edited in anyway.

[Edited 2007-12-15 16:58:51]

User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2217 times:

I'll chime in and agree with all the other Australians here - that is what sunsets and late afternoons look like here in Australia.

And with stormy situations in the afternoon, things can look even surreal. If I have natural colour casts in a photo, I won't edit them out just to satisfy criteria - that's misleading. If I have a yellow cast to the photo because it was taken in the summer afternoon sunlight, I'll leave it as it is.

[Edited 2007-12-15 17:20:44]

User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Well the shot in question is in the appeal Queue. It may make no difference, but we'll see.

User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5686 posts, RR: 44
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2205 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
Most, if not all, DSLR's allow you to crank up saturation, contrast, and/or hue, among other things.

Not on a RAW file.

Some converters take the settings in the camera and apply those to the conversion process but in most (I would like to beleive all) cases these settings can be over ridden.. indeed should be if there is any point to shooting RAW.

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5852 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2201 times:



Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 11):
We´re talking about ONE specific image, right? Let´s keep the conspiracy theories out of here.

no we're not talking about one, its happened to me on many occasions and other threads exist regarding this exact issue...and it still comes up! What does it take for you guys to understand that its just how it is down here?



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineDvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1742 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 15):

Not on a RAW file.

Some converters take the settings in the camera and apply those to the conversion process but in most (I would like to beleive all) cases these settings can be over ridden.. indeed should be if there is any point to shooting RAW.

Cheers

I was going to respond to Royal but that is correct. While camera manufacturer RAW converters can honor metadata with those settings (Canon's software will honor those settings), third party software will not.



From the Mind of Minolta
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2172 times:



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 7):
IMO you don't know the story until your from this part of the world...it happens all the time. Do you really need every Australian uploader convincing you that its a natural occurrence?



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 8):
Not with RAW files using a standard converter like Adobe Camera RAW. It completely ignores things like picture styles et al. That's what thee camera sees. RAW is that, RAW sensor data, yet to be interpreted. It is not affected by camera settings in any way except perhaps for black frame noise reduction. That's why it's called... a RAW file. Camera settings in that case are only tags (like saturation +1). The only thing that affects the file are exposure and any pre-processing noise reduction.

I would say it would most certainly prove it.



Quoting Eadster (Reply 12):
So with the untouched original there, still means nothing to you?

What I'm saying, is that if the camera messed up the WB, wouldn't it come out messed as a Raw file too? Ignoring pictures styles etc.

Understand now?  Smile

I'm not saying the conditions weren't like that, just, a WB messup is a WB messup.  Silly


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5686 posts, RR: 44
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Aero145 (Reply 18):
What I'm saying, is that if the camera messed up the WB, wouldn't it come out messed as a Raw file too?

Only if the sensor is faulty, A RAW file is just that. Camera settings for white balance etc are NOT applied to the RAW file.
As stated earlier, some conversion software MAY use the metadata to convert the RAW file but this can be overridden.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1321 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

I'm getting confused. What is acceptable and what isn't? A photo of mine was rejeced for unacceptable editing and all I did was clone out a dust spot! This said, I did use a wide brush and was a lot me subtle second time around. However, virtually all night shots on here (especially those taken at Terminals) have been adjusted to remove the yellow from them? If you left the shots as they came out the can to reflect the 'true' world, it would be a different story.

User currently offlineEadster From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2216 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2111 times:



Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 20):
However, virtually all night shots on here (especially those taken at Terminals) have been adjusted to remove the yellow from them? If you left the shots as they came out the can to reflect the 'true' world, it would be a different story.

Good point, but that's just it. Mine is untouched. What's got me about my shot in particular, is that it has been questioned by screeners, who I would have thought, would be familiar with the environment here in Aus as well as all over the globe. All it takes is a quick search on line to see the colour of our sunsets in many different parts of this country and others. I think its quite funny how night shots at terminals get rejected for being too yellow yet once we remove the yellow cast from the shot and it's accepted. We then upload a shot from a great sunset, leave the colours as they are and its rejected under questionable editing. I'm just not understanding this theory. I have appealed the shot and to be honest, I feel it will get booted for the same reasons. I think its a shame as we do get some great colours down here in not only the night sky but the early morning also.


User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5686 posts, RR: 44
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 20):
However, virtually all night shots on here (especially those taken at Terminals) have been adjusted to remove the yellow from them?

Whilst I agree a lot have had post processing, many night shots ex camera are far removed from reality. IF WB is set correctly in camera little correction is required.
Adjusting WB after the fact should not be considered "manipulation"... it was often done when printing colour film images.(Could not preset WB in a film camera)

Quoting Eadster (Reply 21):
is that it has been questioned by screeners, who I would have thought, would be familiar with the environment here in Aus as well as all over the globe.

Maybe we need some Aust. screeners!  Wink



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This could be an interesting debate if we could all keep it peaceful, respecting others' opinions etc. But I won't be placing any money on that.

It reminds me of the debates in which I have been embroiled in the past about level issues. At Manchester we have the issue of the seriously unlevel Runway 23R/05L. I have learned through long debate that the resulting photo needs to look level - even if actually it isn't. It seems we are in the same territory here with this debate. For those non-Antipodeans here in Europe there is no escaping that, to get a sunset photo like Martin's, we would most likely have messed about with the colour/saturation in editing. It does look manipulated - to our eye. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily - it just looks ike it is - to us. Does that mean it is worthy of an editing rejection? Well that is up to the crew. With other 'sunset' shots it may be easy to manipilate the image, but the result looks 'natural' - i.e. very orangey - is that then manipulation?

Let's see if there is still interesting, healthy debate on A.net.......

Paul


User currently offlineBeechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 42
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2085 times:



Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
Let's see if there is still interesting, healthy debate on A.net.......

Paul, i´m sure there is!



Quoting Cpd (Reply 13):
that is what sunsets and late afternoons look like here in Australia.



Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
but the result looks 'natural' - i.e. very orangey

but, as Royal said:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
Most, if not all, DSLR's allow you to crank up saturation, contrast, and/or hue, among other things.

I agree that the colour itself doesn´t look too strange itself, but the level of saturation and the contrast seem a bit exaggerated. Even if is the real thing, maybe we can agree on that.
So originally this could have better been a contrast rejection, maybe with a personal note, as the editing part comes off a bit harsh for that.

As i am close to bringing up the complete Aussie community against the screeners, or at least me, i have to say that i of course believe in great sunset colours in your country, as well as in other parts of the world. I shot a sunset scene in munich that looks a bit like africa a while ago...

Quoting Eadster (Reply 14):
Well the shot in question is in the appeal Queue. It may make no difference, but we'll see.

Martin, i´ll point the headscreeners to this topic

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 16):
What does it take for you guys to understand that its just how it is down here?



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 22):
Maybe we need some Aust. screeners! Wink



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 7):
Do you really need every Australian uploader convincing you that its a natural occurrence?



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 6):
so when was the last time you came and shot in Australia?

Guys, just buy a couple of firstclass trips to down under and i´ll be happy to have a beer and a look at the real thing with you!
 highfive 

cheers,

Denis



That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
25 Post contains images Eadster : It may help us a bit! Thanks mate! Doesn't have to be first class, but the sunsets are first class! I've messed with the yellow levels in the shot ju
26 StealthZ : We're not Antipodeans, you are... well you are from our frame of reference anyway!! Paul, I agree. Light, despite the attempts by scientists to descr
27 Post contains images Psych : Good one Chris . This very comment proves the point of this whole debate really - it all depends on your frame of reference! It is subjective - not o
28 Beechcraft : Paul, thx. I don´t see those problems in my original post, just where i´m quoted. I think it´s some kind of bug that DM is already working on
29 Post contains images StealthZ : Damn, I let Paul's inner shrink out.. oh I forgot it isn't hidden!
30 Post contains images Aero145 : Alright, then a Raw file would tell the story. Ta.
31 Post contains images Scbriml : Not to mention all those contrail shots with black sky.
32 StealthZ : It would, The original question was not about RAW files though, It was about the opinion of some regarding the accurate representation of atmospheric
33 Dvincent : White balance, like that other metadata, is only metadata in a RAW file. Choosing tungsten WB does not affect the RAW data in any way.
34 Post contains links and images QANTAS077 : Colour Cast? (by Eadster Feb 28 2007 in Aviation Photography) here is a previous thread that was about the exact topic...it would be very nice to hav
35 Post contains links Eadster : I'm not getting this. Here is another one done for colour - this is getting barbaric http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...tions/big/20071216_vh-vug1
36 Granite : Martin Was the sun below the horizon on your 'bad colour' image? Yes, we would like a few Australian screeners. Past ones did not really work out. Cal
37 QANTAS077 : Gary, would that matter? I've had rejects for the same reason with similar colour and this is during summer at around 7PM local when the sun is still
38 Viv : Whether or not the colour was manipulated, it does not look aesthetically pleasing to me. Others may, of course, disagree.
39 StealthZ : Think that call has been made before. There are others that could do the job... whether or not they would answer the call, that is whole different qu
40 Granite : Chris I asked the question because Dark category was selected too on the upload. It's a nice image. We would like a couple of Australasian screeners.
41 StealthZ : Gary, was not questioning the screening issue. On the screener issue, I understand that. Commitment is important and I really admire you guys for the
42 Post contains links and images Eadster : Are you referring to the first picture on the second that I mentioned?? If the second, then I can't really remember, maybe not fully below the horizo
43 Post contains images ZakHH : Now that's good news. Because it sure is an awesome shot! A.net standards would probably have suggested a closer crop, but I'm glad it was not reject
44 Post contains images Granite : Hi all Sorry Chris, was not you but Qantas077 that I was answering. Martin, yes Dark was selected for that image so it may have been removed while in
45 PUnmuth@VIE : Glenn did a hell of a job when he was on the crew.
46 TomTurner : Great photographer as well. Some outstanding images in his collection. Tom
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...
Editing Help posted Tue Dec 4 2007 19:14:29 by Jobu7282
Photo Editing Software Recomondations posted Tue Dec 4 2007 16:19:53 by Deltajet757
Help With Editing posted Fri Nov 2 2007 17:22:42 by Omoo
Editing Question posted Fri Oct 19 2007 10:11:10 by Devil505x
Ever Had No Mood For Editing For A Long Time? posted Tue Oct 2 2007 17:37:34 by KLM772ER
Editing Cockpit Shots-help/advice posted Tue Sep 25 2007 06:39:50 by Deaphen
Editing Nikon RAW posted Fri Aug 31 2007 18:57:42 by Lennymuir
Editing Help posted Thu Aug 23 2007 22:25:31 by Acroflier5
Trying Some New Editing, Please Help posted Sat Aug 18 2007 17:22:22 by EMA747
Help Needed Editing A Shot posted Sun Aug 12 2007 23:48:53 by MarkusB