EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3490 times:
Luis - as far as I am aware, photosig are always suggesting that photos are fake, so I wouldn't be bothered!! Do you remember that photo of a 747 landing over Maho beach and everyone said it was fake until the a.net troop arrived? I think there are no worries.
Photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 3032 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3489 times:
Hi Luis and 2912N:
I also have an image on PhotoSig, and you must remember that each site has an entirely different reason for being.
On PhotoSig, most of its audience wouldn't care a bit for the differenct between a Piper Cub and the Concorde. As far as the uninitiated are concerned, they are both just airplanes. But the real reason for the PhotoSig site is for the ART of photography.
Composition, light, shadow etc are the judging criteria. And in the art world, there is indeed a great deal of photo manipulation in the name of art. Just take a look at the advertising world and images used in magazine ads to see the ultimate form of image manipulation.
And of course, where do you draw the line. I will admit to manipulating photos, even some of the ones here on A.net. Oh blasphemy, shame and scandal. Let the complaints pour in about my work. But let's also be realistic.
Lighten, darken, contrast, unsharp mask, color correction, etc. These are all manipulations of photos. Ok, let the D60 guys say that their images are perfect just as they come out of the camera. But you see what I mean. I have shots where I have cloned out a piece of trash laying on the ramp in front of the plane. I have also removed a bug splat from the leading edge of a wing to get a clean photo. And yes, I have even taken a whole CAR out of a photo so that the aircraft was perfect. It's also a great way to get those annoying faces out of a frame. Just remove the whole person. So where do we draw the line. Well for one, I will not fake a photo by doing something such as close-cropping an aircraft onto an entirely different background. But some would.
So the point of all this is to say that sites (and the people that use them) like PhotoSig use different criteria than we do. So don't be angry with them or call them idiots. Look at the world through their glasses and understand their point of view. And maybe someday they will see our point of view.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3476 times:
Steve, I can understand that different websites have different criteria, but I was not expecting that those folks at photoSIG were so biased by PS manipulations, I was expecting that at a first sight they would belive it's a genuine photo.
Shawn Patrick From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2610 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3382 times:
I just commented on all of your photos at photosig. That is some amazing stuff, please keep up the good work! I really enjoy your photos.
As for the people at Photosig... most are somewhat ignorant of other photographic generes other than their own, and I think that's why you didn't recieve better comments. They just don't realize how difficult aviation photography is... it's absolutely nothing like still lifes or pictures of the kids.
Again, keep up the good work. I think you are my new favorite photographer!