Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3522 times:
You don't see it because you haven't looked closely enough. In the shot of EI-CUA the lower red & white banded section is present on the extreme left margin of the photo. It has not been cloned out. This lamp post is not true vertical, it actually tilts (from the photographer's viewpoint) a degree or two to the left, with the majority of the post's height actually leaning out of the picture outside the left margin.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3498 times:
737heavy and TomH haven't read properly... Tim is correct. Its the lamp post in the middle I'm talking about... Read again "Just to the left of the airport name on the front of terminal, above the centre fuselage of each airplane..."
EGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3324 times:
Many thanks for the obvious, but very clever I hasten to add, disguise Andy used to sneak the lighting pole into East Midlands. With regard to the tower you see in the background, it is a well known fact in this region that apart from being an excellent screener, he is also a full member of the Blue Peter fan club and won first prize in 'What to do with a 1,000 empty toilet rolls and a gallon of sticky backed plastic' competition.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3254 times:
I'd love to take the credit for the original piece of detective work, but sadly I can't. There is an internal debate going on between the screeners at the moment about cloning and digital manipulation in general, and Peter Unmuth pointed the two original pictures out.
As far as the lamp post at East Midlands is concerned (my local airport for those that don't know), we screeners have the means to insert lamp posts and other objects into pictures submitted to this site, with the general objective of trying to reduce the number of hits on pictures from people who we want to wind up a bit - sorry for doing that Derek
PS: Contrary to EGBB's very kind suggestion, I can't even claim to be a good screener at the moment as I haven't done any for almost two weeks - just back from a few days in Bahrain and whilst forums are OK screening over a dial up line in a hotel room is just out of the question.
Lennymuir From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 434 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3229 times:
...I have uploaded (and been accepted) a couple of shots that had a large object (signs & light poles) cluttering the shot and I cloned them totally out that not even a screener noticed (it would have been rejected for badmotiv otherwise). So I would say that editing skills count at least as much as shooting skills here in this venue....
Has anyone read that before? It was written innocently by someone who perhaps didn't realise the implications of it's content.
Suss it out in the forums, it's not hard to find.
(BTW: Not written by Malcolm) but I wonder how much of this goes on?
I don't go looking for it, but if you're found out...?
Digital manipulation... eh?
It'll be interesting to see what the official line is on this.
Photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2540 posts, RR: 19 Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3210 times:
This is a debate (to manipulate or not) that has been much debated in photojournalism circles for many years. There is no easy answer, but I would wish to illustrate several examples.
The "famous" fake 9/11 shot of the AA 757 reportedly just before it hits the building. The Tourist shot we all know about. Of course this type of image manipulation is totally unacceptable. No debate at all.
A beautiful airliner shot that was rejected because of badpeople. There is a fully identifiable individual in the frame (say on the ramp) that could easily and successfully be cloned out without trace. The subject matter is of course the aircraft at the gate. But because of bad timing etc., a person has gotten in the way. Cloning out the offending person does not change the original intent of the photo. It does not change its value other than to make it less distracting. Very similar in essence to the "missing lamp post" that started this thread although the lamp post cloning technique was not well executed.
We can debate this from many angles, but reality must also step in. A.net has rules and ethics, and ultimately it will be up to each one of us to decide what is or is not acceptable on our submissions. In conventional darkroom days, we used burning/dodging, spot-tone, and localized bleaching to tweak an image to perfection. Now it is done in a computer. Is their really any difference? I will openly admit that I have cloned out visual "noise" from photos here on A.net. One of my glider photos taken from a wing boom (one of A.net's most popular glider photos) was tweaked. Just after takeoff, a large bug (June bug I think) went splat on the leading edge of the wing. The offending mark was there throughout the entire flight. I admit that I removed it in photoshop to clean up the image. Guilty as charged your honour. But taking out the bug splat fell within my ethics guidelines.
I believe that Johan must clearly state guidelines, and we should follow them to the best of our ability. But in absolute terms, we ultimately will follow and let our own ethics guide us. If not, then the screeners will have to become policemen. And that dreaded "F" word will always be present. At all times however, the basic intent and integrity of the image must not be manipulated.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3157 times:
We can only detect cloning that is visually obvious, or cloning that removes and object that we know should be present, or alters an image to the extent where it is clearly incorrect.
Johan has in the past explained the guidelines. There was a case discussed here where a photographer admitted to removing a person staning infront of a helicopter. The photograph was removed from the database, the photographer was severely repremanded, and advised that if he ever did that again removal of all his photographs and a permanent ban would be the result. There was the more recent case where a "formation" of F-18s was cloned from a single aircraft, and again that photograph got in and was subsequently removed. In that case, the only real evidence of the clone was that the modex on the wing flaps of each aircraft was the same, which was only noticable if the viewer scrutinised the image VERY closely - the image would probably never have been detected and would have been seen as a very good formation fly by had the photographer removed the modex numbers from the wings.
Point is that the helicopter photographer may have done it again (I don't know that he has, I can't even remember the name of the photographer), but if he has done it again but done it in a way that is good enough to go undetected, who's to know?
Yes Steve, there are ethical issues involved and in the end those become the primary drivers, because in the absence of any visual evidence of manipulation photographer's ethics are the only thing that will determine whether a manipulated photograph gets onto this database or not.
Paulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2991 times:
I would think that many of the photo's on this site have had "some" digital manipulation - even if it is something as simple as unsharp mask.
The site needs to define what is acceptable / what is not and make it clear to all contributors. The FAQ states that digitally manipulated photos are not allowed and (imho) needs to be amended. (ie The site allows some minor digital manipulation of images such as contrast/colour/unsharp etc. It does not allow obvious attempts to remove objects or people)
Does increasing / decreasing the brightness/contrast/colour balance etc count or is this just a way of correcting the limitations of cameras (both digital and film) and scanners to give an image that is representative of the moment it was taken.
EGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2951 times:
Removing an object on a picture is questionable, I sometimes remove a fly or a small bird maybe which could well be mistaken for dirt etc which I have had rejections for in the past so this is forever going to be difficult for Johan/ Screeners to lay any firm golden rules down.
As for the other side of the coin that being the adding of an object or changing the size or shape etc to a picture this is an area in my opinion, that goes beyond what should be acceptable, like for instance the F-15 formation picture a few weeks ago being a prime example. Was just the one photo removed or were all this persons collection on Anet removed? The latter should in my opinion be the automatic result so in future anyone thinking of cheating like this may think twice.
25 Skymonster: Derek, Defining rules is one thing, detecting transgression of those rules is quite something else. The best digital manipulators will get away with i
26 JetTrader: Andy, Do you not think it might be a good idea to at least get some statement from on high that at least tells us either way whether or not it is acc
27 Jwenting: Example 2 A beautiful airliner shot that was rejected because of badpeople. There is a fully identifiable individual in the frame (say on the ramp) th
28 Skymonster: Dean, Yes, I agree, clarification would be a good idea. My only point was that whatever the clarification, we will not be able to detect every transgr
29 Skymonster: Message from Johan to screeners: "Regarding use of Clone Tool: I see no reason of changing the current rule against removing objects or in other ways
30 Sudden: No no no.... the answer is just in front of you! I will put this veryclear for you all. Someone stole the airport and left the pole, and then took a s