Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 885 times:
Let me tell you guys something and this goes to Johan too. all this fake stuff is gonna ruin this website- unless all the photos are real every single interesting photo is gonna be questioned as to if its real or not. There are alot of us here including me who bust our ass to travel the world to get some really nice "real" shots and I dont want to get an email asking me if a shot I took is real- that would be very insulting.
With such a long telescopic lens, I get e-mails once in a while by people that are mostly very nice asking if a composite was made....I am with Joe Pries on this topic. I think the real thing is important.
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1770 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 861 times:
I agree with Joe 100%. I've had those questions asked about many of my sunset shots. I find it insulting to have people question the validity of my pix. However, when someone does have a composite photo, it should be marked as "composite" or not allowed on the site...
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 862 times:
another thing i forgot to mention- youve got magazine editors and folks who put together brochures that go on here to search for photos- i can assure you that they are gonna lose faith in this site if they will not be sure if a certain shot is real or not- if they for example buy a photo from someone and publish it in their company publication and it is found to have a bullshit decal on the airplane or something- they are gonna catch alot of heat. There must be certain standards in order for there to be credibility and comfort here.
Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts. Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 879 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW SITE ADMIN
We do NOT accept fake/digitally altered/composite images on Airliners.net. I thought I made that clear in the previous thread and in the FAQ.
If that shot is digitally altered I do not want you to brag about it in here. Instead I'd like you to send me an email on the issue together with proof supporting your case so that I can remove it immediately.
How were I supposed to know that it was a fake?
Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 873 times:
youre right, you cannot know it was a fake- all i am saying is that it should be very clear to people that fakes here will only lose viewership. If someone gets one past us, well, they will but people must be made aware that it only ruins it for everyone, especially those of us who strive so hard to make our shots look good without any artificial assistance.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 819 times:
I gotta say, if anyone asked me to explain how I composited a "real pic" I'd take that as an accolade!
With regard to Tappan's moon shot - what does it matter if it was composited or not? It's the vision and quality of the image that matters (besides, I gather that this was taken by a digital camera ... there's plenty out there who would only consider a photo to be "real" is taken on film).
As for magazine use ... come on, magazines are the world's greatest compositors. Do you really believe all those sunsets in the holiday brochures!?
Having said that, I agree that A.Net should consist of "records of fact". The question is, does adding a better cloudscape (or digitally enhancing an existing one) count? If so, are we to also ban the use of all filters?
SE-HJORT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 819 times:
Well, it was a thing between me and a friend, we wanted to see the reactions of our friends - silly? Yes! However, when reading the topics on faked images I realized that it would be best if it was removed! Maybe it can get Johan to delete the other pictures that I asked him to delete earlier...
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 813 times:
While I entirely agree that composite photos have no place being grouped in with the others, I would like to see them in a seperate category. They do represent a lot of hard work, and can sometimes show something impossible to show otherwise.
To the site administrators: If these pics can be completely segregated (i.e. not show up under the new pics link, like the humor photos) then I'd like to see them, but only if there is no chance of confusion.
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1770 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 785 times:
I believe that a certain amount of "touching up" is needed on many, if not all pictures. It is very rare that a scanner will produce an absolutley clean, and perfect image. Here is how my "mentor" described it, "A film image is less sharp than what you see in real life, with your eye. When you get that image, and scan it, the image is less sharp than the film, and 2x less sharp than in real life."
I think that correcting colors (Adding magenta to drop the blue out etc...) Sharpening an area where it is a bit fuzzy, or adjusting the brightness/contrast are ok. These do not fall under "digital enhancment" (in my opinion)
The digital enhancments, such as adding clouds, removal of ground, adding clouds and pretty colors are not acceptable for this site. Yes, many mags use them, and that is ok, but is that really what photography is about? Faking images...do we really want this site to have a bunch of "fake" images, when myself, and many of the other photogs on this site bust our ass to go on trips, to nail stuff, and then spend countless hours with the scanner humming, and uploading to AN until the wee hours of the morning.
I think that there is a certain amount of 'acceptable' enhancing, as i mentioned above. We just have to draw the line somewhere...
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 21, posted (12 years 5 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 737 times:
I agree with Chrisair - a lot of people put a lot of work into their pics. But I don't see that this has anything to do with the composite/enhance debate.
I see no "ethical" difference in using, say, tone curves to bring detail into a washed out sky and compositing in a better sky - as long as you don't pass the picture off as a meterological study!
Indeed, it would seem a pity if we were forbidden to add an interesting sky to a photographically dull shot of a rare aircraft sighting.
For me, aircraft photography is about trying to portray the aircraft at its best. While I would never alter the subject I would have no qualms about altering the setting to flatter the subject (assuming that is I had the time!)
SE-HJORT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (12 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 737 times:
I don't agree with you Chrisair.
I also spend time on getting images perfect (well, not on "Spotting pictures" but on "Aviation photography", and the fake image was my first...). However, if you are a photographer, or know anything about it, you appreciate real good photos. Of course, I also appreciate composed photos, but in a different way. Therefore I think it's unfair to say that real photos don't get their attention.
Sunilgupta From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 770 posts, RR: 15 Reply 23, posted (12 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 727 times:
I agree that correcting an image is not only perfectly acceptable, but also required. Correcting would include - cropping, contrast, saturation, gamma, sharpen, etc.
However, I can't agree with Colin that adding a better sky is ok unless you specifically mention it in the description. Take each photo for what it's worth - some will be great some will not. If you caught a rare subject in a bad setting then let it be. The bad setting doesn't diminish the rarity of the subject, in fact, sometimes it can make it more interesting.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 24, posted (12 years 5 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 712 times:
"Indeed, it would seem a pity if we were forbidden to add an interesting sky to a photographically dull shot of a rare aircraft sighting."
Sorry to disagree but thanks Johan to not allow pictures with added skies. I reinforce my idea that the real art of photography is in the moment when you shot the photo, not later in front of your computer adding clouds or cutting buildings.
There is no doubt that composite pictures, can be wonderful to watch but not on this site.
Luis, Faro, Portugal
25 USAir_757: I agree with Mirage. This site is for real photos only. C. Wassell
26 Bodobodo: I agree with Mirage also. I limit myself to adjusting curves and occasionally colour balance, cropping, and sharpening and this is just to get the ima
27 BO__einG: Felix has a good point as well as all of you. At this time, Its 3am and Im tired like an exausted east African elephant. At least I have no more schoo