aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:36 pm

This image was rejected for 2 reasons.
The second being "baddouble" in the database, i think not but ok we can have a different view on that.
The first reason i have never seen before "bad manipulation" like i am trying to fool the complete A.net community with a "made up" image.
Of course nothing is manipulated in this image other then some rotation, levels, contrast and sharpening tweaks which to my best knowledge is done by every one around here.
http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/rejections/big/Connie_Avio_N749NL_IMG_b0813.jpg
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:42 pm

Willem,

I am no expert here but my understanding is that the 'manipulation' rejection is not necessarily suggesting you have 'cheated' in some way.

If you look at the hedge at the bottom of the frame - especially the bottom right of the picture - the leaves look very odd. This looks like an effect you can get if something like Neat Image is used too much on a photo and so takes away detail in some areas, blurring edges. My guess is that this is the reason for such a rejection. Otherwise the prop looks great.

Did you use Neat Image - or equivalent? If so you may be able to rework the image and avoid that digitally 'manipulated' look there.

Hope this helps.

Paul

P.S. I have just looked at your photo again and the right and left ends of the hedge have a 'watercolour' paint look - hope you can see what I mean.

[Edited 2005-02-12 10:48:21]
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:03 pm

Thanks for your reply Paul.
I don't use Neatimage nor did i use any noise removal tool.
The prop is running at high speed and i used a rather short exposure time to capture this wonderful effect, the leaves are just blurred because of the enormous airflow.

The water color is probably because it was a very rainy day and everything is wet, which is causing the streamer effect in the first place.

The email says: The picture appears to have been manipulated in post-processing beyond
what is acceptable for submission to airlines.net, or the manipulation
that has been done is noticable or of low quality. Examples of these
problems include noticable cloning such as removal of objects from the
image, addition of objects to photographs, deliberate blurring of objects
or faces, excessive sharpening or blurring of the overaell image
(e.g. smart-blur, gausian blur, etc), or introduction of colour casts.

In other words i did things deliberately that are not allowed, which is not the case.

Manipulation of images should be limited to rotating to correct
horizontals and verticals, cropping, colour and level corrections,
and some careful sharpening. Cloning should only be used to remove
minor imperfections such as dust marks and scratches.

In other words, exactly the things i did.


Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
bapilot2b
Posts: 891
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 7:42 am

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:09 pm

Nice motive for the shot, the only possible reason I can think of the leaves looking that way maybe because you may have sharpened the image alittle too much??? Just my 2c.
Jason Nicholls - v1images
 
Erwin972
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 2:21 am

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:14 pm


Willem,

I can't see any badmanipulation here. The hedge is blown away by the props airflow clearly, neatimaging would be a complete waste of time on these pictures with a lot of detail in it, trees are looking alright, you even got some interesting condensation-effects around the propeller.

But the screeners have spoken, nothing you can do about that I guess.

Kind regards,
Erwin
My gear: Nikon, Sony, Red, Sachtler etc.
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1645
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:26 pm

Willem,
I really like the shot !
Even though you have evidently not over-manipulated, you can see where the screener has got this idea from, the leaves on the hedge do have that 'feel' to them.
Another one of those that could/should go into a seperate artistic category.
Mick Bajcar
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:29 pm

@Jason: i think not but if it was rejected for that reason i would not have bothered.

@Erwin: thanks mate, of course i realize it does not make it in the database because of this topic.
It's not my intention anyway, just felt the need to let of some steam.

I don't care about rejections as long as they are for the proper reasons.
This "bad manipulation" however is an attack on my integrity without anything to back it up and i am not amused with that.

Edit @Mick, oh yes i can see where it is coming from and i do understand it is difficult for any unfamiliar screener who is never been close to a big prop before.
I suspect however it is screened by someone who has been on almost at the same spot in front of the prop.............with me.
Someone who therefore very well knows the huge airflow and also has knowledge of the leaves and there behavior in it.
With this topic i hope to establish he will be more careful with this kind of rejections in the future, that's all. Technical reasons: fine

Willem


[Edited 2005-02-12 11:39:47]
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
timdegroot
Posts: 3258
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 10:37 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:59 pm

Willem,

Only one screener could have been with you and that's me, but sorry to disappoint you it wasn't me...not so nice of you to suspect.

I do however agree with the screener, it does look like you have used blurring of some sort in photoshop Yes there's airflow etc but that doesn't mean leaves should look "cartoon-like". maybe you have not used any significant processing but lack of detail makes it looks like you did.

Not quite the same angle but you get the idea from this shot
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wietse de Graaf - AirTeamImages



It also seems a bit oversharpened. Is the original sharp?

Tim
Alderman Exit
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:15 pm

I am very sorry Tim.
I did not mean to blame you nor Martin who was also present at the time.
My statement was not only "not nice" but also very clumsy for which my apologies.
It emphasis how much it pissed me off, something not many people have achieved so far.

Still i think the "bad manipulation" rejection should be used very carefully and only where the fraud is clear.
I can lead you to an image present in the database which consists out of 2 images stitched together, now that is a case of "bad manipulation" in my view.
If a screener thinks i did my processing wrong in what ever way "fine" i don't care(something you know very well) but then reject it for that reason.
You won't find any photographer around here who is amused with a "bad manipulation" rejection if he or she is sure that is not the case.

Willem

The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
INNflight
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:27 pm

As you said you did not manipulate, but sorry Willem, the PROP did when you took the image  Laugh out loud

The bushes behind the fence, they look like painted, like an artist would paint that image in aquarell or something  Big grin

Still nice image, but for your personal collection only I'm afraid!
Jet Visuals
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:12 pm

That's ok Florian, i am not against the rejection itself.
It is the reason "why" which is causing the problem.
Here is the original untouched file.
http://www.honders.net/tmp/img_0813.jpg
and don't you steal it.  Laugh out loud
Technical data: 1/250s, F/4.5, ISO100, focal length 45mm
Quite sharp to my eye but focused at the engine at F/4.5 the background is blurred of course which i did on purpose.
After all it is about the engine and not about the dike or trees in the background.
It does show i did not "manipulate" anything other then some rotation(which i did for someone unfamiliar with the place as it appears to be tilted with the trees pointing sideways), cropping, levels ....... and so on.
Of course i could have processed it different but i wanted it the way i did.
I really tried to make the engine entering your living room and by doing so i might have taken it to far: fine
If someone thinks it is oversharpend: fine
If someone thinks i played with the levels to much: fine
if someone thinks i played the contrast to much: fine
Reject it as such but don't accuse me of manipulation where i did not.

Willem

The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:19 pm

Willem,

Thanks for posting the original - this is very interesting. I hope you could see what I was referring to in the rejected image, with that 'watercolour' effect in the hedge.

I have to say that that is not apparent in the original - the leaves look wind-blown, but that is it. So there must be a way to rework the image without that effect appearing, because the quality is already excellent in the original. I do sympathise with you, but I can also see why a screener would look at that hedge and see a problem.

I do hope you give it another go as it is a worthy addition to the site.

Take care.

Paul

P.S. Forgot to mention - is the issue here about the meaning of the word 'manipulate'? Clearly we all 'manipulate' our photos in the sense that we work on the image and perform some digital changes to it. Noone can have a problem with that definition of the word. But I feel that here you may have experienced the meaning behind the rejection as carrying with it another aspect/definition of the word - i.e. some 'unfair' influence on the image, or somehow being deceitful/cheating. I don't think the latter is implied at all - just that the processing of the image has led to an unsatisfactory element of the image.

[Edited 2005-02-12 14:29:05]
 
IL76
Posts: 2237
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:43 am

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:33 pm

Willem,
Do you mind if I take that pic to edit it? I'll post a crop of it here in a few minutes..
I still find that watercolour effect very strange, as I don't see it on the original...
Eduard
 
IL76
Posts: 2237
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:43 am

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:36 pm

Just did:
rotation 1.6 CW
-levels (very little)
-resize
-sharpen (USM)
-crop from 1024 to 600-something to fit this page



I don't get the watercolour...

Eduard

[Edited 2005-02-12 14:37:53]
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:37 pm

Thanks Paul but i will not do so.
Yes as i posted already i could have done it different but that was not the point.
I do understand things can be very difficult to judge for a screener especially for one not familiar with big props and/or the situation and it is for that reason i would not have bothered with any rejection on technical grounds.
Did you read this Gary ! thanks

Now i am off,
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:41 pm

Willem,

Seeing Eduard's post just now I too have taken the liberty of looking more closely at the original - hope that's okay. I have processed it in the manner I usually do - including applying a couple of passes of USM at a low level - and I think the photo looks excellent. And that watercolour effect is completely absent, as in your original.

Unfortunately I am unable to post the photo here, but I will happily email it to you for your perusal if you would like. Just let me know.

All the best.

Paul
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:02 am

You are very much welcome Eduard, no problem.
Nice job, different but nice.
Just not the way i wanted it.
I focused on the engine to get the nice effects sharp in the frame but also wanted to show the huge airflow over the dike.
I had to fiddle a lot to achieve that.
By doing so i might have taken it to far, i knew very well i was on the edge for A.net standards here.
There for i expected any kind of rejection but just not the reason i got.

To Paul: we can have a debate about the meaning of the statement "bad manipulation" although i have to communicate in English a lot during the day it is of course not my first language and i might have interpreted it incorrect.
However when i read "deliberate blurring of objects........" it has at least a slight air of fraud to me.
It is exactly for this reason that i started this topic: i don't want my name connected to anything like this.
As we say "ones a thief, always a thief" and if those idea's are connected to me i might aswell stop uploading.

Anyway i made my point clear and i hope the email which comes along with the rejection is examined by the responsible people.
Maybe even Gary understands my problem now.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Willem

The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
 
PUnmuth@VIE
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:38 pm

Quoting Aviopic (reply 16):
i knew very well i was on the edge for A.net standards here.


So why wonder about the rejection when you very well knew about being on the edge
 Confused  Confused
-
 
aviopic
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: Bad Manipulation?

Sun Feb 20, 2005 1:34 am

Yeeh, did not know this thread was still around.
Where did you find it Peter ?
In other words "you're kind of late"  Laugh out loud
Anyway it would be nice to read the posts before replying at all.


Cheers,
Willem
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests