Digital Manipulation...No No

[T-Bird76]

[MODERATOR NOTE: For the sake of the member's privacy, the name in question has been removed from all posts. Please contact if you have any questions, please email [email protected].]

So tonight I was screening and ran across some photos taken at JFK by [name removed] that were clearly digitally manipulated. He attempted to copy and paste the plane into clear blue sky. First off stuff like this generally gets picked up and can result in being banned. From a screener's stand point it not only wastes our time but IMO is a bit unethical. There are clear rules against it as your taking a picture and altering its true surroundings.

What really disappointed me though was he's a fellow NY spotter and part of our spotting group. I would have expected better being that I'm a screener for JP.net and there's a chance that I might screen it, which I did. Screening does take time, its not just as simple as accept/reject as some think. Yes its not rocket science either but we volunteer our time and have to screen a minimum of 1000 photos a month, often times each of us do allot more and that takes time. Please do me a favor and don't waste the screeners time by manipulating your shots when it isn't necessary. Your just going to make an a$$ out of yourself when you get caught.

[Matt Molnar]

The missing posts in this thread have been moved to viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9207&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Please keep this thread on topic. Thanks.

[NIKV69]

I hope [name removed] learned a lesson here. You have to realize that with todays editing software there is much manipuation that goes on. Much gets caught some doesn't but I think a photog should judge for himself if it's right and not lower himself to blatant cheating. Which is what any cutting and pasting or cloning of anything except dust spots is. Yes that includes light poles too.

I hope [name removed] realizes what he did and also that he won't be viewed any differently here. I have never met him but if I run into him in the field I won't hold it against him. Though I don't feel his actions warranted a thread here Tommy did so and I respect it, but we should move on.

Please do me a favor and don't waste the screeners time by manipulating your shots when it isn't necessary.

Tommy I disagree with you a little here. I think as a screener it is not a waste of time when you catch a pic that is not geniune. I think not only are you a standard for your site's DB but also a check and balance for this very thing. As bad as it is I bet there is a certain percentage of photogs that try to get these pics through. Some do it out of malice, some out of ignorance but as PS gets more advanced you are the only the line of defense against this and IMO and important part of your daily duties.

[PhilDernerJr]

Nick actually put this quite well. I see it as unfortunate, and something that certainly deserves action from JP, especially if there's been warnings.

Some people do it with intent, some out of ignorance. In the end, I hold nothing personal against the person, either.

[Andriy]

Hello.
First of all, why did you guys deleted my name from your posts, it was there in the morning...your posts looked actually cool with my name in them! ( by the way, I am that "Yanishevskiy" ).
Digital Manipulation? Well, at least now I know who rejected my shots the first time I uploaded them (to be specific only 3 shots were rejected which where edited the same way as others). I will upload shots which were rejected by A net for being too soft and by JP net for being manipulated. I my opinion T-Bird76 should apologize for making false statements about me as a person, photographer and aviation enthusiast and also for using my name without my permission and contacting me first. What were you trying to accomplish? Why haven't you contacted me first and asked for the original shots and etc.??????????? Shame on you, I have nothing else to say.

photo rejected by A net for being soft (if you don't believe me I can make a screen shot of my "Rejected Photos")cropped, background noise is averaged and faded by 45% I think, adjusted levels,resized, unsharp mask : http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/reje ... C_0180.jpg

same photo rejected my JP net for digital manipulation:cropped, background noise is averaged and faded by 60% or 75% I think, adjusted levels ( a little different than the first shot),resized, unsharp mask

original photo:


T-Bird76, now think again about banning my account on Jetphotos.net

If you need more, just ask me.


PS: I would like my JP name (account) to be deleted from NYCAviation group, don't want any screeners from here making up fake stories about me and basically calling me a cheater, Thank you.

[NIKV69]

Hmmmmm. Well as I look at this picture the sun seems to be hitting the fuselage. I don't understand why someone would cut and paste an aircraft that has proper lighting. Even if the background sky was dark the subject is lit enough to be accepted on that premise as long as the crop, center and USM are up to par. I was hoping Mike M could look at it and give us his opinion if he is still around the boards.

[Andriy]

Hmmmmm. Well as I look at this picture the sun seems to be hitting the fuselage. I don't understand why someone would cut and paste an aircraft that has proper lighting. Even if the background sky was dark the subject is lit enough to be accepted on that premise as long as the crop, center and USM are up to par. I was hoping Mike M could look at it and give us his opinion if he is still around the boards.

JP shot might look a little too good because the background noise was averaged and faded at a little higher % but it's not manipulated and the plane was not cut off!


PS; Here's the same shot which passed the screening process but with slightly different colors ( had to change colors because I didn't know what the DM was and what screeners wanted from me)

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php? ... 229&nseq=4

[T-Bird76]

Your world MD-11 shot clearly had a fake sky, I didn't screen your KLM shot. You have 17 rejections currently, many for manipulation that other screeners rejected and you were given warnings by other JP.net screeners for the same thing so guess what buddy it wasn't only me, I guess all of us have it out for you right? You also didn't appeal any of the rejected shots for manipulation. If the rejections were wrongly rejected why didn't you appeal them, prob because the head screeners will agree, no?

[NIKV69]

JP shot might look a little too good because the background noise was averaged and faded at a little higher % but it's not manipulated and the plane was not cut off!

I am not accusing you, if you read what I wrote I made an argument for the fact that you wouldn't cut and paste an aircraft that is being properly lit by the sun onto a sunny backdrop. If the background sky was dark, ie t-storm or something and the sun was still out and behind you hitting the subject the pic would be fine. Coincidentally my KLM 777 pic is exactly like that. See.

[airlinerstp://www.airliners.net/open.file/1160673/L/[/airlinersIt makes no sense to cut and paste a subject already being lit properly no matter what the background sky is.

[Andriy]

Your world MD-11 shot clearly had a fake sky, I didn't screen your KLM shot. You have 17 rejections currently, many for manipulation that other screeners rejected and you were given warnings by other JP.net screeners for the same thing so guess what buddy it wasn't only me, I guess all of us have it out for you right? You also didn't appeal any of the rejected shots for manipulation. If the rejections were wrongly rejected why didn't you appeal them, prob because the head screeners will agree, no?

Well to be specific, I have about 7 shots for being manipulated which are not!!! And who cares how many rejections I have? Well, yes I was warned but until this morning I didn't know what DM so I reuploaded them and most of them got in except for some which were rejected for lighting and at least those screeners didn't run around the forums and posted comments about my shots.
I never appeal my shots because I am never sure if they are what the sreeners want, I have only 40+ shots in the database and still have a long way until I can appeal and argue that my shots are perfect
the background noise is certainly averaged and faded but the aircraft is not cut off and there's no need to use my name and call me a cheater!!! and here's my World Airways Cargo Shot:
rejected:


and original:

[Andriy]

JP shot might look a little too good because the background noise was averaged and faded at a little higher % but it's not manipulated and the plane was not cut off!

I am not accusing you, if you read what I wrote I made an argument for the fact that you wouldn't cut and paste an aircraft that is being properly lit by the sun onto a sunny backdrop. If the background sky was dark, ie t-storm or something and the sun was still out and behind you hitting the subject the pic would be fine. Coincidentally my KLM 777 pic is exactly like that. See.

[airlinerstp://www.airliners.net/open.file/1160673/L/[/airlinersIt makes no sense to cut and paste a subject already being lit properly no matter what the background sky is.

I'm not really sure what's your point is but by playing with levels I can get this also:




My first shots might be too dark but as I know it the rejection reason for that is: quality color ? Correct me if I'm wrong

[NIKV69]

I'm not really sure what's your point is but by playing with levels I can get this also:

What I mean is someone that is going to manipulate a shot does so to improve the quality. If the subject is properly lit. (yours is) There is no reason to cut and paste because you gain nothing. Unless you prefer a sunlit backdrop. Most would say clouds behind a lit aircraft is a nice effect and a change from the norm. That's what I meant.

[NIKV69]

Since I think that has been resolved privately I would like to take this oppurtunity to publicly give my apology to Andy. I, and others that I have shown the pic to feel it was not doctored. As I said in my replies it makes no sense for someone to take an aircraft that is properly illuminated by the sun to paste it on a sunny background. It gains nothing and if it is cropped properly and everything else is in order it is good to go. My first reply I posted to the effect that it was a fake and I would like to say to Andy that I am sorry for not taking the time to see for myself the pictures before I spoke. I would also like to say sorry that he had to go through this. I hope he doesn't harbor any ill feelings and hope to see him maybe in the spring out in the field.

[Andriy]

Since I think that has been resolved privately I would like to take this oppurtunity to publicly give my apology to Andy. I, and others that I have shown the pic to feel it was not doctored. As I said in my replies it makes no sense for someone to take an aircraft that is properly illuminated by the sun to paste it on a sunny background. It gains nothing and if it is cropped properly and everything else is in order it is good to go. My first reply I posted to the effect that it was a fake and I would like to say to Andy that I am sorry for not taking the time to see for myself the pictures before I spoke. I would also like to say sorry that he had to go through this. I hope he doesn't harbor any ill feelings and hope to see him maybe in the spring out in the field.

Thank you. I'm glad that everything has been resolved and I got my JP net account back. :)

[PhilDernerJr]

As I said in the Site Related thread and in private, I am sorry to AndriY for all that has happened. I'm also to NYCAers for having witnessed the drama that unfolded.

In order to prevent certain mistakes and flaming, we will soon be releasing a clear set of rules to follow, and stronger moderator procedures to help avoid misunderstandings and grey areas in our rules.

Thank you all for your support.

-Phil

To put this all behind us, this thread will be locked.