Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post  
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Just to the left of the airport name on the front of terminal, above the centre fuselage of each airplane...

Now you see it:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malcolm Bezzina


Now you don't:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Malcolm Bezzina




30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

The pic would look better with the lamp post in. You can see on the large version where the cloning was done. There is a ghostly outline of the post.
Craig.


User currently offlineTomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3666 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.

No clone-no joke.


User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We're not talking about the pole on the left, but the one in the middle, which like Craig already said has been cloned out.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offline737heavy From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

Tomh is correct it hasn't been cloned out its just a better crop with the post showing the red and white banding in the mid left edge of the image.

Regards


User currently offline737heavy From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3638 times:

Well in that case Craig is correct.

Regards


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3642 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..."

Andy


User currently offlineJetTrader From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 586 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3617 times:


...and there is clear and obvious evidence of cloning.

It'll be interesting to see what the official line is on this.

Regards,
Dean



Life's dangerous. Get a f**king helmet!
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 732 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

I think you're wrong. I think the first shot is a picture of a lampost with an aircraft and airport pasted in.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJoge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1444 posts, RR: 39
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3571 times:

Come on, guys!

It's obvious that somebody stoled the lamp post!  Big thumbs up

-Joge



Bula!
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Actually it is the other way around.

The shot with the pole was taken in April 02, while the shot without the pole was taken in Feb. 02. So the obvious question is .....

Who put that pole in the middle of the ramp!?

v/r
Jeff
(I can see that clonning was done to remove it...)


User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3532 times:

Yes, you can see where the cloning is done.

Why actually? Is the lamp post really that disturbing?

This proves once again that screeners have a very sharp eye  Big thumbs up

/Frederic


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3523 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I dont think the pole in the first picture takes away from the overall scene. I would have left it alone  Smile

User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

Its OK I have found it Big grin


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Pedley



The question is how did Andy get it though customs, it explains his funny walk now  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Derek


User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3467 times:

Quite obvious really, it was stuck on top of the HS-748 disguised as a beacon light.

Now, where did they steal the control tower from?


User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3468 times:

Craigy,

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.

Derek  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

Guys,

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 Big grin Big grin

Andy

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.


User currently offlineLennymuir From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 434 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3373 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.

Yup.



User currently offlineCraigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

Just one comment - this type of thing is commonplace now in professional photography.

Digital manipulation is another way in which photography has evolved.

Personally, I don't do it and I don't think it has a place at A.net, as it is a factual database rather than just a collection of eye candy photos.

Craig.


User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2731 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3354 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.

Example 1
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.

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) 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.

Steve


User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7443 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3326 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's obvious that somebody stoled the lamp post! Joge, you were close!! Actually the lamp posted was just installed between photos  Big thumbs up


Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3301 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.

Andy


User currently offlinePaulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

I did not know there was an AWACS version of the Hs748 ???  Smile


English First, British Second, european Never!
User currently offlinePaulc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3135 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.





English First, British Second, european Never!
User currently offlineEGBB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3095 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.

Derek Pedley


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
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...
Lost The Hang Of It posted Fri Dec 8 2006 00:14:16 by Ptrjong
The Story Of My Life.... Bad Contrast posted Sat Dec 2 2006 16:03:41 by Chachu201
A Question For The Uploaders Of posted Thu Nov 23 2006 14:39:29 by 53Sqdn
The Process Of Screening Debate posted Thu Sep 14 2006 14:10:59 by Psych
Is Confidence Getting The Best Of Me? posted Mon Sep 11 2006 00:32:38 by San747
Show Me The Advantage Of PhotoShop On This One! posted Tue Aug 22 2006 21:10:40 by Lufthansi
The Importance Of PC Screen Quality When Editing. posted Thu May 18 2006 20:57:57 by Thom@s
Gripen Fly-by At His Majesty The King Of Sweden's posted Sun Apr 30 2006 13:25:28 by 7E7Fan
The Importance Of Photography posted Mon Apr 24 2006 15:05:14 by 53Sqdn
The Question Of All Time: Best Camera? posted Wed Apr 19 2006 21:54:50 by Schreiner