eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

Unacceptable Editing?

Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:15 pm

Hey all,

Just received a rejection as this picture was "edited unacceptably".

Big version: Width: 1200 Height: 866 File size: 343kb


Thing is, all I did was centre it, crop it and sharpen. The sunset was so great that night, that it needed no colour enhancement.

I personally thought that it makes a great silhouette? What are people's thoughts?

Martin
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:20 pm

Hello Martin.

I hope things are well with you.

Looks like a simple example of a situation where the screener(s) didn't accept that the colour in this image was legit. It is a pretty weird colour - that is for sure. I recall a few threads now where colour issues have been debated for images taken in your neck of the woods - people saying that is the colour of the lighting vs. others saying it must be manipulated.

Maybe someone would be interested to see the original file so that you can demonstrate there was no inappropriate alteration of the colour.

All the best.

Paul

P.S. Still getting a tiny dot here in the post with IE instead of the complete photo.
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:32 pm

Quoting Psych (Reply 1):
I recall a few threads now where colour issues have been debated for images taken in your neck of the woods - people saying that is the colour of the lighting vs. others saying it must be manipulated.

Yeah and it shouldn't be. If a screener is not familiar with colours in this part of the world, well then somehow he should look around, on the web maybe, at photos taken in the area. The fact that a shot is booted for a reason as "hey I don't believe colours in the shots you take from YOUR own country" is pretty pathetic!

The original is here: http://www.martineadie.com/martin/orig.JPG

And now this for contrast: http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...ctions/big/20071215_vh-vnb7127.jpg

What is wrong with that one?

[Edited 2007-12-15 15:59:36]
 
beechcraft
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:10 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:16 am

Martin,

the colours in your shot look really artificial. No doubt about that.

Quoting Eadster (Reply 2):
If a screener is not familiar with colours in this part of the world, well then somehow he should look around, on the web maybe, at photos taken in the area

Are all photos from that area yellow, or what?!?

Quoting Eadster (Reply 2):
hey I don't believe colours in the shots you take from YOUR own country

it´s not a question of your own country or not, it´s a question of looking right or edited and be it real or not, as said before, this looks artificial.

If you have objections with the screeners decision you can of course appeal to the headscreeners.

Quoting Eadster (Reply 2):
What is wrong with that one?

it looks oversaturated and contrasty.

Denis

PS: Didn´t want this post to sound offensive, forgive me, if it does...
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
 
aero145
Posts: 2867
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:29 am

IMO the JPG you posted, Martin, doesn't tell all the story, and a Raw file wouldn't, either. Some camera settings are what can change the image so it looks odd, like yours.
 
Fly747
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:03 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:31 am

Looks weird but nice. I think if you appeal it will get canned for "distance". I would have cropped it tighter. Good luck.

Ivan
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:32 am

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
Martin,

the colours in your shot look really artificial. No doubt about that.

so when was the last time you came and shot in Australia? this has been an ongoing nightmare for uploaders from down in this part of the world, simple fact is that its not rare or uncommon for the sunset/rise to be like this...I'll post you plenty of pics on here if you need any more convincing.

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
Are all photos from that area yellow, or what?!?

yes, at the right time of the day...editing it would be a manipulation, wouldn't it?

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1067236/L/

do you seriously think all of us from down here would sit around our PC's and conger up ways to manipulate the sky colour? if its not clear by now that its a natural phenomenon then it never will be.

http://www.travel-australia.org/special_pics/strange_sky.html

[Edited 2007-12-15 16:35:59]
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:43 am



Quoting Aero145 (Reply 4):
IMO the JPG you posted, Martin, doesn't tell all the story, and a Raw file wouldn't, either. Some camera settings are what can change the image so it looks odd, like yours.

IMO you don't know the story until your from this part of the world...it happens all the time. Do you really need every Australian uploader convincing you that its a natural occurrence?
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:44 am

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 4):


IMO the JPG you posted, Martin, doesn't tell all the story, and a Raw file wouldn't, either. Some camera settings are what can change the image so it looks odd, like yours.

Not with RAW files using a standard converter like Adobe Camera RAW. It completely ignores things like picture styles et al. That's what thee camera sees. RAW is that, RAW sensor data, yet to be interpreted. It is not affected by camera settings in any way except perhaps for black frame noise reduction. That's why it's called... a RAW file. Camera settings in that case are only tags (like saturation +1). The only thing that affects the file are exposure and any pre-processing noise reduction.

I would say it would most certainly prove it.

[Edited 2007-12-15 16:55:49]
From the Mind of Minolta
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:49 am



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 8):
Not with RAW files using a standard converter like Adobe Camera RAW

Most, if not all, DSLR's allow you to crank up saturation, contrast, and/or hue, among other things.
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:50 am

says it all...if we're going to debate the phenomenon of Australian skies then I suggest all screeners get on a plane and come down here to see if for themselves.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Marston

 
beechcraft
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:10 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:53 am



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 6):
do you seriously think all of us from down here would sit around our PC's and conger up ways to manipulate the sky colour?



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 7):
Do you really need every Australian uploader convincing you that its a natural occurrence?

Ok, we´re not talking about "all of you" and "every australian uploader".

We´re talking about ONE specific image, right? Let´s keep the conspiracy theories out of here.

Denis
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:54 am

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 4):
IMO the JPG you posted, Martin, doesn't tell all the story, and a Raw file wouldn't, either. Some camera settings are what can change the image so it looks odd, like yours.

So with the untouched original there, still means nothing to you?

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
Are all photos from that area yellow, or what?!?

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/5856259

Took that not that long ago from here in Darwin. As said, you select the right time during a sunset here, and you'll get alot of yellow - even more yellow than in these shots.

Yes, as mentioned, only at particular times of the day. Why is it that sunsets down here are questioned. I've even had the blue questioned in photos, that our gum trees give when taken from a distance. Hence the Blue Mountains obtaining their name...

Ever seen some sunset shots from Broome, Western Australia? Might pay to have a look at some...

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
If you have objections with the screeners decision you can of course appeal to the headscreeners.

I don't even know why that is there. It never works. Not once have my comments been considered in an appeal.

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 3):
it looks oversaturated and contrasty.

So I remove some contrast? That will fix it?

Denis - no offense taken, but it is really starting to annoy me, when the natural colours of things here in Aus get questioned. A short time on the net will see, I'm not making the colours up.

Royal - I agree, but I had it set to Auto WB etc. I'm telling you, the colour is not edited in anyway.

[Edited 2007-12-15 16:58:51]
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 4548
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:10 am

I'll chime in and agree with all the other Australians here - that is what sunsets and late afternoons look like here in Australia.

And with stormy situations in the afternoon, things can look even surreal. If I have natural colour casts in a photo, I won't edit them out just to satisfy criteria - that's misleading. If I have a yellow cast to the photo because it was taken in the summer afternoon sunlight, I'll leave it as it is.

[Edited 2007-12-15 17:20:44]
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:25 am

Well the shot in question is in the appeal Queue. It may make no difference, but we'll see.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:30 am



Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
Most, if not all, DSLR's allow you to crank up saturation, contrast, and/or hue, among other things.

Not on a RAW file.

Some converters take the settings in the camera and apply those to the conversion process but in most (I would like to beleive all) cases these settings can be over ridden.. indeed should be if there is any point to shooting RAW.

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:37 am



Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 11):
We´re talking about ONE specific image, right? Let´s keep the conspiracy theories out of here.

no we're not talking about one, its happened to me on many occasions and other threads exist regarding this exact issue...and it still comes up! What does it take for you guys to understand that its just how it is down here?
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:51 am



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 15):

Not on a RAW file.

Some converters take the settings in the camera and apply those to the conversion process but in most (I would like to beleive all) cases these settings can be over ridden.. indeed should be if there is any point to shooting RAW.

Cheers

I was going to respond to Royal but that is correct. While camera manufacturer RAW converters can honor metadata with those settings (Canon's software will honor those settings), third party software will not.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
aero145
Posts: 2867
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:47 am



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 7):
IMO you don't know the story until your from this part of the world...it happens all the time. Do you really need every Australian uploader convincing you that its a natural occurrence?



Quoting Dvincent (Reply 8):
Not with RAW files using a standard converter like Adobe Camera RAW. It completely ignores things like picture styles et al. That's what thee camera sees. RAW is that, RAW sensor data, yet to be interpreted. It is not affected by camera settings in any way except perhaps for black frame noise reduction. That's why it's called... a RAW file. Camera settings in that case are only tags (like saturation +1). The only thing that affects the file are exposure and any pre-processing noise reduction.

I would say it would most certainly prove it.



Quoting Eadster (Reply 12):
So with the untouched original there, still means nothing to you?

What I'm saying, is that if the camera messed up the WB, wouldn't it come out messed as a Raw file too? Ignoring pictures styles etc.

Understand now?  Smile

I'm not saying the conditions weren't like that, just, a WB messup is a WB messup.  Silly
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:55 am



Quoting Aero145 (Reply 18):
What I'm saying, is that if the camera messed up the WB, wouldn't it come out messed as a Raw file too?

Only if the sensor is faulty, A RAW file is just that. Camera settings for white balance etc are NOT applied to the RAW file.
As stated earlier, some conversion software MAY use the metadata to convert the RAW file but this can be overridden.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
G-CIVP
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:29 am

I'm getting confused. What is acceptable and what isn't? A photo of mine was rejeced for unacceptable editing and all I did was clone out a dust spot! This said, I did use a wide brush and was a lot me subtle second time around. However, virtually all night shots on here (especially those taken at Terminals) have been adjusted to remove the yellow from them? If you left the shots as they came out the can to reflect the 'true' world, it would be a different story.
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:46 am



Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 20):
However, virtually all night shots on here (especially those taken at Terminals) have been adjusted to remove the yellow from them? If you left the shots as they came out the can to reflect the 'true' world, it would be a different story.

Good point, but that's just it. Mine is untouched. What's got me about my shot in particular, is that it has been questioned by screeners, who I would have thought, would be familiar with the environment here in Aus as well as all over the globe. All it takes is a quick search on line to see the colour of our sunsets in many different parts of this country and others. I think its quite funny how night shots at terminals get rejected for being too yellow yet once we remove the yellow cast from the shot and it's accepted. We then upload a shot from a great sunset, leave the colours as they are and its rejected under questionable editing. I'm just not understanding this theory. I have appealed the shot and to be honest, I feel it will get booted for the same reasons. I think its a shame as we do get some great colours down here in not only the night sky but the early morning also.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:23 am



Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 20):
However, virtually all night shots on here (especially those taken at Terminals) have been adjusted to remove the yellow from them?

Whilst I agree a lot have had post processing, many night shots ex camera are far removed from reality. IF WB is set correctly in camera little correction is required.
Adjusting WB after the fact should not be considered "manipulation"... it was often done when printing colour film images.(Could not preset WB in a film camera)

Quoting Eadster (Reply 21):
is that it has been questioned by screeners, who I would have thought, would be familiar with the environment here in Aus as well as all over the globe.

Maybe we need some Aust. screeners!  Wink
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:50 am

This could be an interesting debate if we could all keep it peaceful, respecting others' opinions etc. But I won't be placing any money on that.

It reminds me of the debates in which I have been embroiled in the past about level issues. At Manchester we have the issue of the seriously unlevel Runway 23R/05L. I have learned through long debate that the resulting photo needs to look level - even if actually it isn't. It seems we are in the same territory here with this debate. For those non-Antipodeans here in Europe there is no escaping that, to get a sunset photo like Martin's, we would most likely have messed about with the colour/saturation in editing. It does look manipulated - to our eye. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily - it just looks ike it is - to us. Does that mean it is worthy of an editing rejection? Well that is up to the crew. With other 'sunset' shots it may be easy to manipilate the image, but the result looks 'natural' - i.e. very orangey - is that then manipulation?

Let's see if there is still interesting, healthy debate on A.net.......

Paul
 
beechcraft
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:10 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:43 am



Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
Let's see if there is still interesting, healthy debate on A.net.......

Paul, i´m sure there is!



Quoting Cpd (Reply 13):
that is what sunsets and late afternoons look like here in Australia.



Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
but the result looks 'natural' - i.e. very orangey

but, as Royal said:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 9):
Most, if not all, DSLR's allow you to crank up saturation, contrast, and/or hue, among other things.

I agree that the colour itself doesn´t look too strange itself, but the level of saturation and the contrast seem a bit exaggerated. Even if is the real thing, maybe we can agree on that.
So originally this could have better been a contrast rejection, maybe with a personal note, as the editing part comes off a bit harsh for that.

As i am close to bringing up the complete Aussie community against the screeners, or at least me, i have to say that i of course believe in great sunset colours in your country, as well as in other parts of the world. I shot a sunset scene in munich that looks a bit like africa a while ago...

Quoting Eadster (Reply 14):
Well the shot in question is in the appeal Queue. It may make no difference, but we'll see.

Martin, i´ll point the headscreeners to this topic

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 16):
What does it take for you guys to understand that its just how it is down here?



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 22):
Maybe we need some Aust. screeners! Wink



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 7):
Do you really need every Australian uploader convincing you that its a natural occurrence?



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 6):
so when was the last time you came and shot in Australia?

Guys, just buy a couple of firstclass trips to down under and i´ll be happy to have a beer and a look at the real thing with you!
 highfive 

cheers,

Denis
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:55 am



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 22):
Maybe we need some Aust. screeners!

It may help us a bit!

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 24):
Martin, i´ll point the headscreeners to this topic

Thanks mate!

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 24):
Guys, just buy a couple of firstclass trips to down under and i´ll be happy to have a beer and a look at the real thing with you!

Doesn't have to be first class, but the sunsets are first class!

I've messed with the yellow levels in the shot just out of interest. Does this look a little more "realistic" to you Northern-ers??!! Adjusted the yellows level in PS:

Big version: Width: 1200 Height: 866 File size: 482kb


I don't think its a striking, but thought I'd get some views on it.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:58 am



Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
For those non-Antipodeans here in Europe there is no escaping that,

We're not Antipodeans, you are... well you are from our frame of reference anyway!!

Paul, I agree.
Light, despite the attempts by scientists to describe it in wavelengths & frequencies is different in many parts of the world.
I have travelled reasonably widely and have never ceased to be amazed by these differences.

In the DB there are many instances of atmospheric phenomena at least(if not more) as extreme, yet different, as Martin's example but being from regions more familiar to more members of the screening team are deemed to be fine.
It is deemed inappropriate here to show examples but it would not take most interested readers long to find them.

This is not a criticism but just saying it like it is, is more regional diversity in the team the answer?
Hell I have no idea!!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:27 am



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 26):
We're not Antipodeans, you are

Good one Chris  biggrin . This very comment proves the point of this whole debate really - it all depends on your frame of reference! It is subjective - not objective.

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 24):
Paul, I´m sure there is!

I really hope so too Denis. I - for one - appreciate your input.

Take care.

Paul

P.S. This post is really messed up by the horrible character problems I see in Denis' posts (which then go crazy when Denis is quoted). Do others still see this? Another unresolved bug?
 
beechcraft
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:10 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:04 am

Paul, thx.

I don´t see those problems in my original post, just where i´m quoted. I think it´s some kind of bug that DM is already working on, if i remember correctly.

Denis
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:20 am



Quoting Psych (Reply 27):
it all depends on your frame of reference! It is subjective - not objective.

Damn, I let Paul's inner shrink out.. oh I forgot it isn't hidden!  Big grin
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
aero145
Posts: 2867
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:59 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:31 am



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 19):
Camera settings for white balance etc are NOT applied to the RAW file.

Alright, then a Raw file would tell the story.  Smile Ta.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13227
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:44 am



Quoting Psych (Reply 23):
With other 'sunset' shots it may be easy to manipilate the image, but the result looks 'natural' - i.e. very orangey - is that then manipulation?

Not to mention all those contrail shots with black sky.  scratchchin 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:33 pm



Quoting Aero145 (Reply 30):
Alright, then a Raw file would tell the story. Ta.

It would,
The original question was not about RAW files though,
It was about the opinion of some regarding the accurate representation of atmospheric phenomenon that they may not be familiar with.

It was others... you perhaps?... that bought RAW files into the discussion.
Cheers

C
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
User avatar
dvincent
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:53 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:22 pm



Quoting Aero145 (Reply 18):
What I'm saying, is that if the camera messed up the WB, wouldn't it come out messed as a Raw file too? Ignoring pictures styles etc.

Understand now?  

I'm not saying the conditions weren't like that, just, a WB messup is a WB messup.  

White balance, like that other metadata, is only metadata in a RAW file. Choosing tungsten WB does not affect the RAW data in any way.
From the Mind of Minolta
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:41 pm

Colour Cast? (by Eadster Feb 28 2007 in Aviation Photography)

here is a previous thread that was about the exact topic...it would be very nice to have a concrete decision on this.

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 24):
Guys, just buy a couple of firstclass trips to down unde

use your staff privileges...  Silly
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:30 am

I'm not getting this.

Here is another one done for colour - this is getting barbaric

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/r...tions/big/20071216_vh-vug10127.jpg
 
Granite
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:28 am

Martin

Was the sun below the horizon on your 'bad colour' image?

Yes, we would like a few Australian screeners. Past ones did not really work out.

Calling Craig Murray.......................

Regards

Gary
 
QANTAS077
Posts: 5169
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:08 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:03 am



Quoting Granite (Reply 36):
Was the sun below the horizon on your 'bad colour' image?

Gary,

would that matter? I've had rejects for the same reason with similar colour and this is during summer at around 7PM local when the sun is still well up, sun doesn't set down here in summer till around 830-9PM.
 
viv
Posts: 2953
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 5:17 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:20 am

Whether or not the colour was manipulated, it does not look aesthetically pleasing to me.

Others may, of course, disagree.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:33 am



Quoting Granite (Reply 36):
Calling Craig Murray.......................

Think that call has been made before.

There are others that could do the job... whether or not they would answer the call, that is whole different question!

C
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
Granite
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:53 am

Chris

I asked the question because Dark category was selected too on the upload. It's a nice image.

We would like a couple of Australasian screeners. Craig was approached some months ago but he was up front and said he would love to screen but could not offer commitment. We need commitment.

Regards

Gary
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:07 am

Gary, was not questioning the screening issue.

On the screener issue, I understand that.
Commitment is important and I really admire you guys for the effort you put in.

A colleague here tried to "draft" me once. Had to nip that in the bud.-
-Not qualified
-Not able to offer commitment, wish I could tho!*

Cheers

C

* The qual. thing would bite me tho!!
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
eadster
Posts: 2125
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:31 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:34 am



Quoting Granite (Reply 36):
Was the sun below the horizon on your 'bad colour' image?

Are you referring to the first picture on the second that I mentioned?? If the second, then I can't really remember, maybe not fully below the horizon. It would have been pretty close to it though.

An update too all, the shot was accepted with a warning, and the warning was that it was too far in the distance which is fair enough.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Martin Eadie

 
ZakHH
Posts: 1570
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 11:32 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:28 pm



Quoting Eadster (Reply 42):
An update too all, the shot was accepted with a warning, and the warning was that it was too far in the distance which is fair enough.

Now that's good news. Because it sure is an awesome shot!

A.net standards would probably have suggested a closer crop, but I'm glad it was not rejected for that, as it is the sky that makes this shot so special. And the more sky, the better  Smile

I would agree with Denis (and others) that the colors look artificial at first look. I have never been to Australia (and if someone would like to invite me over - I would not insist on first class, business is good enough for me Big grin ), so I don't know from first-hand experience what skies there look like. But I have no reason to doubt Martin's words that the colors were not edited.

Thanks for the shot, and the discussion here as well!
Tired of a.net? Join a friendly aviation community!
 
Granite
Posts: 5026
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:55 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:49 pm

Hi all

Sorry Chris, was not you but Qantas077 that I was answering.

Martin, yes Dark was selected for that image so it may have been removed while in the appeal queue. Nice image and good that it was accepted. Nothing to do with me as I have not enered the queue today  Smile

Commitment is a biggie.

Regards

Gary
 
PUnmuth@VIE
Posts: 3119
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:31 pm

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:50 pm



Quoting Granite (Reply 36):
Past ones did not really work out.

Glenn did a hell of a job when he was on the crew.
-
 
TomTurner
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:14 am

RE: Unacceptable Editing?

Wed Dec 19, 2007 1:53 am



Quoting PUnmuth@VIE (Reply 45):
Quoting Granite (Reply 36):
Past ones did not really work out.

Glenn did a hell of a job when he was on the crew.

Great photographer as well. Some outstanding images in his collection.
Tom

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests