Digitally manipulated ???

[borgcar]

Hello

I got this image rejected for image manipulated.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=886402

The reason is because they think I have placed the bird on top of the plane (i also got a warning about it !!!).
I have done the usuall post process like levels and sharpening.

Is there any way i can prove the image is not manipulated ?? I still have the RAW file

Thanks

[E-Diddy!]

That's kind of a load of crap, there's no way it can be proven that you placed the bird in the photo. Nice shot dude!

[CPH Aviation]

I you use a Nikon camera you can send the RAW image to me soren @ jetphotos.net

Soren

[Will M]

If this bird is apparently just above the 737 and the shadow of the 737 is directly underneath it then why isn't the bird casting a shadow on the plane ??

this equalized pic indicates thick light blue edges around the bird not consistent of the sky colour in the rest of your photo.

[Greg Wilson]

If this bird is apparently just above the 737 and the shadow of the 737 is directly underneath it then why isn't the bird casting a shadow on the plane

Because the bird is probably on the far side of the aircraft.

this equalized pic indicates thick light blue edges around the bird not consistent of the sky colour in the rest of your photo.

Matthew has his camera sharpness set to hard,and has also uploaded in RGB.
The halo around the bird (a small object) is what could be expected in those circumstances.
Let's not kick the guy too hard until right of reply.
In these circumstances with a detailed manipulation rejection reason given (claims of cloning the bird) I would suggest members contact screeners direct.These sort of rejections are better for all concerned if done in private.

[Wrighti]

Hi Guys. I think that this is not fair. I was with my friend when he took the photo. I can prove it is not a fake because I saw it. In Malta we get to see a lot of these 'large' birds in the airfield. The reason being that the airfield is one of the few parts of GREENERY we have in Malta. You can check out my below photos and you will see that we get many of these birds 'in the middle' of our shots!!

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5696988

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5696949

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5623223

IAN

[AJ]

We trust our photographers 100%, unfortunately when this trust is breached you can expect us to be suspicious of future uploads. In the same round of uploads this was screened:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject.php?id=886378

Equalise this shot and tell me what you think.

[E-Diddy!]

Whoa hold up. I retract my previous statement, and I don't need to equalize the shot to be able to tell something's up. Just a little simple shadow tracing.



as Gene Wilder would say:

So you get NOTHING!
YOU LOSE!
GOOD DAY sir!

[Greg Wilson]

I am also responsible of supporting this photographer until proven guilty.On the basis of the one picture we had there were some grounds for doubt.
I can now see by commenting only on the actual question and photo posted by Mathew,Will was being diplomatic in the severity of the issue.
Going by the queud number of the second picture posted today,that one would have been rejected at the same time if not before the first picture.Now i'm not sure why Matthew would start this thread after surely realising the situation...........and I didn't need to equalise either.
This after 2 years and 412 photos............a good reason these rule violation rejections should not go public.

[borgcar]

Hello all,

I understand my mistake with the moon photo, and I give my most sincere apologies. I have learned my lesson. I got carried away too much with PS and I promise it will not happen again.

I also understand I lost the trust of the screeners, but I will do what I can to regain that.

Thanks

[Longreach747]

Hello all,

I understand my mistake with the moon photo, and I give my most sincere apologies. I have learned my lesson. I got carried away too much with PS and I promise it will not happen again.

I also understand I lost the trust of the screeners, but I will do what I can to regain that.

Thanks

why on earth did you go to such lengths to include a moon that is totally irrelevant to the photo? just upload normal shots without trying to be a smart arse.

[MaxPower]

Reconsidered my post.

Thanks for apologizing Borg !

[Greg Wilson]

Unbelievable........................
I have spoken with matthew via email a couple of times over this incident.
Naturally he is embarrassed about the whole situation,and wrote about how he would apologise.
He has decided to make his apology here where it may be seen by a good majority of screeners and members that read the topic.
After admitting his error and making a public apology why is it necessary for members to hand out further admonishment.

[Crism]

Why the heck would someone edit a moon or a bird into their shot anyways? I see no point but that's just me...I like my pictures right out of the cam!

[Longreach747]

Unbelievable........................
I have spoken with matthew via email a couple of times over this incident.
Naturally he is embarrassed about the whole situation,and wrote about how he would apologise.
He has decided to make his apology here where it may be seen by a good majority of screeners and members that read the topic.
After admitting his error and making a public apology why is it necessary for members to hand out further admonishment.

fristly, you have no idea how many times this issue has come up with Mr Cardona, this is not the first time he has submitted suspect photos, seems he hadn't learnt from his previous mistakes. The reason why this was made public is because we are sick to death of him uploading shots that he has manipulated beyond acceptable limits. He wouldn't have anything to apologise for if he followed the rules.