Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1997 times:
Ouch - that is disappointing - I'd have my doubts, as the compositing has been very well done - if Gregg had bothered to change the numbers as well, I don't think I'd question it.
Perhaps Gregg would care to explain why he did this - to get one over on the screeners? If so, well done, he's demonstrated what we've said all along - we're fallible. I hope he considers sacrificing his reputation as one of A.net's better photographers worth it - he's certainly been around long enough to know this kind of thing is not acceptable. The comments suggest this is a deliberate attempt to deceive rather than a bit of fun, and I think A.net as a whole suffers because of it.
Maybe it was just an excess of Xmas cheer (the bottled variety )
AdrianPing From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2002, 19 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1987 times:
Greetings from Bristol (England)
Absolutely agreed. I've looked very closely at the picture of the three F-18 aircraft and there is no doubt this is a Photoshop manipulation (or whatever package was used). In particular, it seems impossible that the star-like reflections on the cockpit canopies could be identical.
Same for the lower picture, where the serial on the fuse is the same on both aircraft.
However I must congratulate the photographer on a truly outstanding cut-out. Beautifully done!
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1930 times:
Having been in more then one U.S. Navy squadrons, and having been on carriers, Naval Air Stations, etc. I can tell you I have never seen two planes from the same squadron with the same buno/side numbers. Ever.
Goboeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 15 Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1855 times:
Looks like Ljungdahl posted his post as I was writing mine. I didn't know that there was this policy. I guess if that's the standard, then the website should stick to it. If they didn't, then people might try to see just how much they can get by the screeners without it being noticed. I'm surprised that those 2 F-18 shots were not noticed though.
Goboeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1854 times:
Something else I just thought of...who's to say he doesn't just forget about his 601 photos and start uploading his new ones under a different name? No one. Just something to think about...(eliminating 599 good ones for 2 bad ones and having more good ones come from "someone else").
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1798 times:
Johan will decide what if any action is necessary. IMHO the fact that he has lost a lot of respect plus the fact that his pics will be subjected to the minutest scrutiny in future if he is allowed and chooses to continue uploading may be penalty enough.
As for the oversight in screening - well the fact is that there are photographers from whom we have come to expect work of a consistently high standard - both in terms of technical and aesthetic quality. Gregg WAS one of those - he has produced great airshow pics in the past, and personally, having not been at this show, I would have no reason to doubt that such a formation flight actually occurred. If you're not looking for it, the identical codes could easily be missed.
Yes, we were sloppy with this screening because Gregg was trusted - I feel this trust has been abused.
Photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2545 posts, RR: 19 Reply 18, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1775 times:
I have one other thought on this issue.
Trust is lost with this individual.
Will one of the screeners, or some other person go back in the database and with painstaking thoroughness re-examine all other submissions from this photographer? We are all assuming that this is the first instance of manipulation. Could there have been others that have also slipped past? When I see a photo such as the two opposing contrails photo posted above, I now wonder ? ? ? ?
Once trust and integrity are lost......... what more is there to say.
Unfortunately, I have dial-up Internet access and it would take far too long to examine the large versions of 600 submissions or I would volunteer.
Remember the old adage.....
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3781 posts, RR: 24 Reply 19, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1768 times:
Sadly, I have to go with the overall consensus. Gregg's work always had a certain charm but as Steve suggested much of his previous work is now subject to some severe scrutiny in particular the more unusual images such as the B1B bomber breaking the sound barrier.
However I would like to hear his side on this.......
Fotodj From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1737 times:
"However I must congratulate the photographer on a truly outstanding cut-out.
This is nothing beautifully done in that kind of manipulation because it takes 25 second to copy plane and paste it somewhere else . Notice the sky is very uniform and you do not have to cut out airplane, you just take it with a little sky around it and move it to the next spot.
Here you go :
It took me about 2 minutes on Photoshop.
Greg, I do not think you should do it again, try just to take real formation :