Photo © Mossa
This is a fake image. I know - I made it!
The original aircraft in real colors:
Photo © Alexander Jonsson
/Fredrik
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- Guest
Fake Image!
Regarding the discussions on faked airline images:
Click for large version
Photo © Mossa
This is a fake image. I know - I made it!
The original aircraft in real colors:
Click for large version
Photo © Alexander Jonsson
/Fredrik
Photo © Mossa
This is a fake image. I know - I made it!
The original aircraft in real colors:
Photo © Alexander Jonsson
/Fredrik
RE: Fake Image!
If this is true then the fake one should be deleted from the database.
-
- thomasphoto60
- Posts: 3891
- Joined:
RE: Fake Image!
I too am a little confused as to your bringing up this point. Are you attempting to challenge Johan's policy on composites ? or merely showing off your skills ?
Please clarify.
Thomas
Please clarify.
Thomas
RE: Fake Image!
Let me tell you guys something and this goes to Johan too. all this fake stuff is gonna ruin this website- unless all the photos are real every single interesting photo is gonna be questioned as to if its real or not. There are alot of us here including me who bust our ass to travel the world to get some really nice "real" shots and I dont want to get an email asking me if a shot I took is real- that would be very insulting.
RE: Fake Image!
Photo © Mark Garfinkel
With such a long telescopic lens, I get e-mails once in a while by people that are mostly very nice asking if a composite was made....I am with Joe Pries on this topic. I think the real thing is important.
Mark G
RE: Fake Image!
I agree with Joe 100%. I've had those questions asked about many of my sunset shots. I find it insulting to have people question the validity of my pix. However, when someone does have a composite photo, it should be marked as "composite" or not allowed on the site...
Chris
Chris
RE: Fake Image!
another thing i forgot to mention- youve got magazine editors and folks who put together brochures that go on here to search for photos- i can assure you that they are gonna lose faith in this site if they will not be sure if a certain shot is real or not- if they for example buy a photo from someone and publish it in their company publication and it is found to have a bullshit decal on the airplane or something- they are gonna catch alot of heat. There must be certain standards in order for there to be credibility and comfort here.
-
- administrator
- Posts: 2702
- Joined:
RE: Fake Image!
We do NOT accept fake/digitally altered/composite images on Airliners.net. I thought I made that clear in the previous thread and in the FAQ.
Fredrik,
If that shot is digitally altered I do not want you to brag about it in here. Instead I'd like you to send me an email on the issue together with proof supporting your case so that I can remove it immediately.
Joe,
How were I supposed to know that it was a fake?
/ Johan
Fredrik,
If that shot is digitally altered I do not want you to brag about it in here. Instead I'd like you to send me an email on the issue together with proof supporting your case so that I can remove it immediately.
Joe,
How were I supposed to know that it was a fake?
/ Johan
RE: Fake Image!
Johan,
youre right, you cannot know it was a fake- all i am saying is that it should be very clear to people that fakes here will only lose viewership. If someone gets one past us, well, they will but people must be made aware that it only ruins it for everyone, especially those of us who strive so hard to make our shots look good without any artificial assistance.
youre right, you cannot know it was a fake- all i am saying is that it should be very clear to people that fakes here will only lose viewership. If someone gets one past us, well, they will but people must be made aware that it only ruins it for everyone, especially those of us who strive so hard to make our shots look good without any artificial assistance.
-
- Guest
Sorry!
I'm sorry - I didn't intend to brag about it (nothing to brag about?). No, the reason why I told it is because I want you to remove it.
I have wrote e-mails to you earlier Johan, regarding deleting of my other REAL pictures, but without any answer/action. I hope that you delete all photos now!
I'll e-mail you again!
Hope I didn't ruin Airliners.net.
/Fredrik
I have wrote e-mails to you earlier Johan, regarding deleting of my other REAL pictures, but without any answer/action. I hope that you delete all photos now!
I'll e-mail you again!
Hope I didn't ruin Airliners.net.
/Fredrik
RE: Sorry!
I don't understand, why post pictures then ask to have them removed?
RE: Fake Image!
I gotta say, if anyone asked me to explain how I composited a "real pic" I'd take that as an accolade!
With regard to Tappan's moon shot - what does it matter if it was composited or not? It's the vision and quality of the image that matters (besides, I gather that this was taken by a digital camera ... there's plenty out there who would only consider a photo to be "real" is taken on film).
As for magazine use ... come on, magazines are the world's greatest compositors. Do you really believe all those sunsets in the holiday brochures!?
Having said that, I agree that A.Net should consist of "records of fact". The question is, does adding a better cloudscape (or digitally enhancing an existing one) count? If so, are we to also ban the use of all filters?
Cheers,
Colin
With regard to Tappan's moon shot - what does it matter if it was composited or not? It's the vision and quality of the image that matters (besides, I gather that this was taken by a digital camera ... there's plenty out there who would only consider a photo to be "real" is taken on film).
As for magazine use ... come on, magazines are the world's greatest compositors. Do you really believe all those sunsets in the holiday brochures!?
Having said that, I agree that A.Net should consist of "records of fact". The question is, does adding a better cloudscape (or digitally enhancing an existing one) count? If so, are we to also ban the use of all filters?
Cheers,
Colin
-
- Guest
RE: NikonF100
Well, it was a thing between me and a friend, we wanted to see the reactions of our friends - silly? Yes! However, when reading the topics on faked images I realized that it would be best if it was removed! Maybe it can get Johan to delete the other pictures that I asked him to delete earlier...
/Fredrik
/Fredrik
RE: Fake Image!
While I entirely agree that composite photos have no place being grouped in with the others, I would like to see them in a seperate category. They do represent a lot of hard work, and can sometimes show something impossible to show otherwise.
To the site administrators: If these pics can be completely segregated (i.e. not show up under the new pics link, like the humor photos) then I'd like to see them, but only if there is no chance of confusion.
Cheers,
Charles
To the site administrators: If these pics can be completely segregated (i.e. not show up under the new pics link, like the humor photos) then I'd like to see them, but only if there is no chance of confusion.
Cheers,
Charles
RE: Fake Image!
Administrator is doing a fine job with growing this nice sight, I think while Fredrik has brought up an interesting topic, he owes Johan an apology for "graying his hair"!
Mark G
Mark G
-
- Guest
RE: Composite Category
The special "composite" image category would be fun!!! Then of course there should be a demand of high quality.
/Fredrik
/Fredrik
RE: Fake Image!
Colin,
I believe that a certain amount of "touching up" is needed on many, if not all pictures. It is very rare that a scanner will produce an absolutley clean, and perfect image. Here is how my "mentor" described it, "A film image is less sharp than what you see in real life, with your eye. When you get that image, and scan it, the image is less sharp than the film, and 2x less sharp than in real life."
I think that correcting colors (Adding magenta to drop the blue out etc...) Sharpening an area where it is a bit fuzzy, or adjusting the brightness/contrast are ok. These do not fall under "digital enhancment" (in my opinion)
The digital enhancments, such as adding clouds, removal of ground, adding clouds and pretty colors are not acceptable for this site. Yes, many mags use them, and that is ok, but is that really what photography is about? Faking images...do we really want this site to have a bunch of "fake" images, when myself, and many of the other photogs on this site bust our ass to go on trips, to nail stuff, and then spend countless hours with the scanner humming, and uploading to AN until the wee hours of the morning.
I think that there is a certain amount of 'acceptable' enhancing, as i mentioned above. We just have to draw the line somewhere...
Just my $0.02 inflated American cents.
Chris
ps. Happy Holidays all!
I believe that a certain amount of "touching up" is needed on many, if not all pictures. It is very rare that a scanner will produce an absolutley clean, and perfect image. Here is how my "mentor" described it, "A film image is less sharp than what you see in real life, with your eye. When you get that image, and scan it, the image is less sharp than the film, and 2x less sharp than in real life."
I think that correcting colors (Adding magenta to drop the blue out etc...) Sharpening an area where it is a bit fuzzy, or adjusting the brightness/contrast are ok. These do not fall under "digital enhancment" (in my opinion)
The digital enhancments, such as adding clouds, removal of ground, adding clouds and pretty colors are not acceptable for this site. Yes, many mags use them, and that is ok, but is that really what photography is about? Faking images...do we really want this site to have a bunch of "fake" images, when myself, and many of the other photogs on this site bust our ass to go on trips, to nail stuff, and then spend countless hours with the scanner humming, and uploading to AN until the wee hours of the morning.
I think that there is a certain amount of 'acceptable' enhancing, as i mentioned above. We just have to draw the line somewhere...
Just my $0.02 inflated American cents.
Chris
ps. Happy Holidays all!
RE: Fake Image!
"Digitally Enhanced" is supposed to mean touched up.
"Composite" refers to an image completely altered.
Whoever decided to call Composite photos "Digitally enhanced photos" was not thinking at the time...
C. Wassell
"Composite" refers to an image completely altered.
Whoever decided to call Composite photos "Digitally enhanced photos" was not thinking at the time...
C. Wassell
RE: Fake Image!
Neg, a composite isn't an image "completely altered". A composite image refers to more than one image cut, copied, and pasted, and flattened into the same layer...
RE: Fake Image!
Okay FastGlass thanks for setting me straight on that, I was unsure on what exactly Compsite meant.
But I know i was correct regarding what "Digitally Enhanced" means...
C. Wassell
But I know i was correct regarding what "Digitally Enhanced" means...
C. Wassell
RE: Fake Image!
I agree with Chrisair - a lot of people put a lot of work into their pics. But I don't see that this has anything to do with the composite/enhance debate.
I see no "ethical" difference in using, say, tone curves to bring detail into a washed out sky and compositing in a better sky - as long as you don't pass the picture off as a meterological study!
Indeed, it would seem a pity if we were forbidden to add an interesting sky to a photographically dull shot of a rare aircraft sighting.
For me, aircraft photography is about trying to portray the aircraft at its best. While I would never alter the subject I would have no qualms about altering the setting to flatter the subject (assuming that is I had the time!)
Cheers,
Colin
I see no "ethical" difference in using, say, tone curves to bring detail into a washed out sky and compositing in a better sky - as long as you don't pass the picture off as a meterological study!
Indeed, it would seem a pity if we were forbidden to add an interesting sky to a photographically dull shot of a rare aircraft sighting.
For me, aircraft photography is about trying to portray the aircraft at its best. While I would never alter the subject I would have no qualms about altering the setting to flatter the subject (assuming that is I had the time!)
Cheers,
Colin
-
- Guest
RE: Chrisair
I don't agree with you Chrisair.
I also spend time on getting images perfect (well, not on "Spotting pictures" but on "Aviation photography", and the fake image was my first...). However, if you are a photographer, or know anything about it, you appreciate real good photos. Of course, I also appreciate composed photos, but in a different way. Therefore I think it's unfair to say that real photos don't get their attention.
Click for large version
Photo © Anders Hviid
/Fredrik
I also spend time on getting images perfect (well, not on "Spotting pictures" but on "Aviation photography", and the fake image was my first...). However, if you are a photographer, or know anything about it, you appreciate real good photos. Of course, I also appreciate composed photos, but in a different way. Therefore I think it's unfair to say that real photos don't get their attention.
Photo © Anders Hviid
/Fredrik
-
- sunilgupta
- Posts: 771
- Joined:
RE: Fake Image!
I agree that correcting an image is not only perfectly acceptable, but also required. Correcting would include - cropping, contrast, saturation, gamma, sharpen, etc.
However, I can't agree with Colin that adding a better sky is ok unless you specifically mention it in the description. Take each photo for what it's worth - some will be great some will not. If you caught a rare subject in a bad setting then let it be. The bad setting doesn't diminish the rarity of the subject, in fact, sometimes it can make it more interesting.
Sunil
However, I can't agree with Colin that adding a better sky is ok unless you specifically mention it in the description. Take each photo for what it's worth - some will be great some will not. If you caught a rare subject in a bad setting then let it be. The bad setting doesn't diminish the rarity of the subject, in fact, sometimes it can make it more interesting.
Sunil
RE: Fake Image!
"Indeed, it would seem a pity if we were forbidden to add an interesting sky to a photographically dull shot of a rare aircraft sighting."
Sorry to disagree but thanks Johan to not allow pictures with added skies. I reinforce my idea that the real art of photography is in the moment when you shot the photo, not later in front of your computer adding clouds or cutting buildings.
There is no doubt that composite pictures, can be wonderful to watch but not on this site.
Luis, Faro, Portugal
Sorry to disagree but thanks Johan to not allow pictures with added skies. I reinforce my idea that the real art of photography is in the moment when you shot the photo, not later in front of your computer adding clouds or cutting buildings.
There is no doubt that composite pictures, can be wonderful to watch but not on this site.
Luis, Faro, Portugal
RE: Fake Image!
I agree with Mirage. This site is for real photos only.
C. Wassell
C. Wassell
RE: Fake Image!
I agree with Mirage also. I limit myself to adjusting curves and occasionally colour balance, cropping, and sharpening and this is just to get the image to look as close as possible to what I originally saw through my viewfinder. If the background or the skies weren't what you wanted at the time that's just too bad. If you permit yourself to modify or replace the sky then why not add other planes or modify the plane's livery or serial #.... Why would one modification be permissible while another isn't. The best thing to do is to let the original image stay original. It will make you appreciate those perfect images even more when you do get them.
Cheers,
Felix
Cheers,
Felix
RE: Fake Image!
Felix has a good point as well as all of you.
At this time, Its 3am and Im tired like an exausted east African elephant. At least I have no more school so YAA-HOO!! SO I have nothing to say but to agree to what everybody has pointed out. From the administrator to Joe Pries, and then to many others like Mirage,Bodobodo,Tappen,CFalk, more and more..
We are humans, we know whats right and whats wrong.
Good luck SE-HJORT on gettin ur picts removed..
Im Going to sleep, good night world.. Happy winter solstace..
Your Tired comrade photographer,
Bo Kimm --(-<==
At this time, Its 3am and Im tired like an exausted east African elephant. At least I have no more school so YAA-HOO!! SO I have nothing to say but to agree to what everybody has pointed out. From the administrator to Joe Pries, and then to many others like Mirage,Bodobodo,Tappen,CFalk, more and more..
We are humans, we know whats right and whats wrong.
Good luck SE-HJORT on gettin ur picts removed..
Im Going to sleep, good night world.. Happy winter solstace..
Your Tired comrade photographer,
Bo Kimm --(-<==
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests