Unusual editing

[Calfo]

What are your funny/weird/diffrent edits of shots that are on here?
Sometimes (twice), I had a shot that I just could not get to look good. I tried everything I could think of, even auto settings. Then, I tried it in equalize mode, and it looks way better!

Yes, these are equalized
[photoid=6126558]
[photoid=5921100]

[Greg Wilson]

Anything else you want to admit to while you're at it?

[JordanD]

Hmm I'd be careful about admitting to out of the ordinary editing techniques on here.

[Calfo]

Oh, you mean I'l get banned? Whats wrong with making a picture look good?

Anything else you want to admit to while you're at it?

No, thats All

[Cam]

In that helio shot, is it just me or are there four ASI gauges on the flight panel?

[E-Diddy!]

Showing us the equalized version will only get you so far. In this case I guess it works...sort of...

And Screeners aren't idiots, either. If you want to upload a manipulated shot, you can expect a place on the ban list, and you won't have to admit it in the forums for us to spot it.

Although just equalizing a photo isn't technically a bad manipulation on its own, though you might find yourself the recipient of many Over Proc rejections.

[Calfo]

Although just equalizing a photo isn't technically a bad manipulation on its own, though you might find yourself the recipient of many Over Proc rejections.

Well, those are the only 2 that I have "manipulated", and they both got accepted.

And I'm not uploading equalized photos because I like it. Its because the shots looked better equalized.

[brianw999]

And I'm not uploading equalized photos because I like it. Its because the shots looked better equalized.

Actually...I've got some equalised prints in my "personal file"...and they look quite good !!
I've also got this Mustang pic in the DB which has a different exposure to the sky to accentuate the moonrise. Everything that you see in the picture is in the original image with nothing taken out or added. I left a comment to the screeners to that effect, got a "thank you" for my honesty and an acceptance because they felt it did not warrant a digital manipulation rejection, indeed that it helped to "balance" the picture.

[photoid=5790537]

I would, however, strongly recommend a "comment to the screeners" notation if you decide to upload equalised images again. It would be an awful shame to get a ban unnecessarily.

[Greg Wilson]

......................... which has a different exposure to the sky to accentuate the moonrise.,

So what do you call that if not digital manipulation?
I am also very surprised the two photos in the opening post are still on the DB.

[brianw999]

So what do you call that if not digital manipulation?

Read my post. I never claimed that I was not digitally manipulating the imaging.
In fact, I held my hand up to it right from the beginning with my note to the screeners. I would have happily accepted a rejection had they decided that it be so. At that time I was of the understanding that digital manipulation meant the removal or addition of items that do not exist in the original image. I used shadow/highlight to improve the image from the darker original but that tended to blow out the sky so I gave the sky a different level of processing. What I actually did was to create a layer, process the aircraft to the image that you see and then delete the blown out part of the sky to reveal the original exposure. The sky is actually closer to the original exposure than the aircraft ! I gave all of this information in my screeners note.

I rather think that this "digital manipulation" subject is a real minefield. Where do you draw the line ? Is the use of curves, shadow / highlight, exposure compensation, selective USM etc. not essentially digital manipulation ?
I think not, they are merely means to be used to produce an acceptable image much the same as dodging and burning were in the good old days of chemical processing of film and prints.

What counts to me as unacceptable digital manipulation is the cloning out of items that would, for instance, otherwise get an obstructing objects rejection. Very obvious changing of a bland sky to something more dramatic is another example of the unacceptable. Equalisation comes very close to this level of "unacceptableness !" as it is a very similar process to the old chemical print practise of "solarisation" where a print was exposed to light during the developer phase of processing to give a very different but still recognisable image.

I personally don't agree with equalised images being accepted here, and would not upload such an image, but I would never criticise Calfo for doing it nor do I criticise the screeners for accepting his two images. That is their decision and lets face it, they run this site.

I have a recent picture in the database of a very colourful Malaysian Airlines B747 leaving Heathrow. I equalised the strong cloud effect while leaving the aircraft in the normal exposure. That picture hangs on my wall at home and has received several comments from visitors on how strong an image it is. Totally unacceptable on this site and I hasten to point out that the database image is not the equalised one.

[LX-A343]

I am also very surprised the two photos in the opening post are still on the DB.

One problem here is, that we can't always know, what type of editing was done to an uploaded photo. The photos in the original post looked OK when screening, why should we delete them? If we start deleting these photos, I'm sure, we would have to delete far more photos in the db.

Of course, what we can do is be stricter on uploads. Now, that we know, that someone is overmanipulating his photos, I'm sure, some screeners will check a bit more in future.