Skymonster
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:34 pm

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


There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Craigy
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 6:24 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 9:46 pm

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.
 
TomH
Posts: 950
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:13 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:11 pm

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.
 
timdegroot
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 10:37 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:23 pm

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
 
737heavy
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 9:05 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:23 pm

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
 
737heavy
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 9:05 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:26 pm

Well in that case Craig is correct.

Regards
 
Skymonster
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:28 pm

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
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
jettrader
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:51 pm


...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!
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:53 pm

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
 
Joge
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2000 3:26 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:44 pm

Come on, guys!

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

-Joge
Bula!
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Fri Jan 17, 2003 11:51 pm

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...)
 
Sabena 690
Posts: 6065
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 12:48 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 12:40 am

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 avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 12:44 am

I dont think the pole in the first picture takes away from the overall scene. I would have left it alone  Smile
 
EGBB
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2000 3:21 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 1:05 am

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
 
Craigy
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 6:24 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:33 am

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?
 
EGBB
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2000 3:21 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:56 am

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
 
Skymonster
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 8:03 am

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.
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
lennymuir
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:58 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:56 am

...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.

 
Craigy
Posts: 1076
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 6:24 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:58 am

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.
 
photopilot
Posts: 3075
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:16 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:05 am

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
 
mirrodie
Posts: 6789
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 3:33 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:00 pm

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
 
Skymonster
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:22 pm

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
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
paulc
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 10:42 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:35 pm

I did not know there was an AWACS version of the Hs748 ???  Smile
English First, British Second, european Never!
 
paulc
Posts: 1440
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 10:42 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Mon Jan 20, 2003 8:21 pm

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!
 
EGBB
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2000 3:21 am

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Tue Jan 21, 2003 12:03 am

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
 
Skymonster
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Tue Jan 21, 2003 12:43 am

Derek,

Defining rules is one thing, detecting transgression of those rules is quite something else. The best digital manipulators will get away with it if they want to, whatever the rules, because the job they do will be good enough not to be noticable. Its only the sloppy or unskilled that will get caught if they try it.

A question though, through an example: There is a human being, standing in the foreground of a picture of an aeroplane. The human being is in such a position that they can't be cropped out without cropping part of the airplane too, but they aren't actually obscuring the aircraft itself. Sadly, the face is recognisable, but the subject airplane would be unique in the database. Is the photograph a waster as far as airlines.net is concerned (remembering the "no faces" rule)? Or, IF the photographer can do a sufficiently good job of cloning out the human being to make the presence of that human being totally undetectable in the end result, is it OK to submit the picture?

I fully support having rules (whatever those rules may be), but we need to recognise that we aren't ever going to be able to be sure we've put a stop to it.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
jettrader
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Tue Jan 21, 2003 12:50 am


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 acceptable to use the clone tool (or similar) to remove debris/dust/scratches and other detracting elements as long as it is done solely in an attempt to produce a more pleasing image for upload and not done in a deliberate attempt to deceive/misrepresent.

At least then those who honestly use those tools can be sure they are not in breach of regulations.

I think the current position is sufficiently unclear as to leave many people in fear of rejections (or worse) through perfectly innocent use of some the facilities available in photo manipulation packages.

Just an idea...

Cheers,
Dean
Life's dangerous. Get a f**king helmet!
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Tue Jan 21, 2003 1:09 am

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.


Steve, Johan has made it clear in the past that cloning out people is not allowed.
Cloning out lampposts falls in the same category IMO.

Mind that I don't quite agree with that decision, but Johan made it and it isn't mine to withdraw (nor anyone's but Johan).

IMO anything that could have been done with a retouching brush should be allowed as long as it doesn't take away from the picture (removing a large building would go too far, removing a lamppost sticking up through the aircraft roof does not in my opinion).
I wish I were flying
 
Skymonster
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Tue Jan 21, 2003 2:11 am

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 transgression of the rule as some will be clever enough to hide their work sufficiently for the photos to get onto the database.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
Skymonster
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:53 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:51 pm

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 alter reality. Note that this does not include altering contrast, brightness etc or using a filter. Sure, we might have no way of knowing if a lamp post was removed from a particular photo but it is of vital importance that we take a stance against such alterations - or else where will it stop"

I believe we now have our guidance.

Andy
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots
 
sudden
Posts: 3934
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 5:20 pm

RE: The Mystery Of The Vanishing Lamp Post

Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:02 pm

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 shot of it.
When in doubt, flat out!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests