This is how it was!

[Hinkelbein]

Hi all,

I got a rejection:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewreject_b.php?id=2219901

I understand the criticism, but this is how it was!
Must I "lie" and make everything brighter??

Isnt' that manipulating?
It's like Stalin had Trotsky removed from photographs ...

Must I conclude from this that:
- planes in snowy conditions or snow storms can never be accepted because the weather is too dark;
- all photos depicting planes in snowy conditions that got accepted have been manipulated?

I hope I don't sound too frustrated
It's not an attack on anybody, I just want to know for the future.

Thanks.

Greets,

Hinkelbein

[PMN]

I understand the criticism, but this is how it was!

Must I "lie" and make everything brighter??

It's all very well saying 'that's how it was' but unfortunately how it was in this case doesn't make for a very good photograph. You're taking a photo of an aircraft, but the weather conditions have obscured that aircraft to a point where you can't get a decent, clear shot. As photographers we can't simply take a photo of an aircraft in any conditions, say "that's how it was" and expect the images to be accepted on that basis; we have to be more selective than that. Sometimes giving up and going to the pub for a beer really is the best option! Either that or continue shooting, but realise what you produce may possibly not be what aviation photography sites are looking for.

Must I conclude from this that:

- planes in snowy conditions or snow storms can never be accepted because the weather is too dark;

- all photos depicting planes in snowy conditions that got accepted have been manipulated?

Absolutely not. Brightening an image isn't manipulating it as such; you're simply making the most of the dynamic range have available to you. There are many people who think adjusting the Levels on a JPEG or Exposure on a RAW file is manipulating, but it's really no different to what people do shooting on film. You can make an image shot on film darker or lighter when you develop it; you can even selectively dodge and burn. People have been doing that for decades to make a photo look as they want it to, so why should digital be any different?

Paul

[wrxflyer]

I think Paul's right.

Even hot photo's, for example a delivery of a brand new aircraft , should be from a certain quality, when it's quite clear that there will be hundreds of good quality pics from that aircraft coming up soon.

So, you don't have to stay at home in bad weather, but taking pics of every aircraft is a waste of time.
You can imagine that there are lots of other- good quality- photo's in the database from this common aircraft. So, leave it for your personal collection.
Taking pics in a heavy snowstorm isn't a good idea, but waitin' until the sun comes out of the clouds again, can give you sometimes excellent opportunities for nice snowshots.

Good luck
Freek

[Hinkelbein]

Thanks for your answers, I appreciate it.
I guess I'll give it a try by adjusting - not manipulating - some things. I hope I can get a better pic.

Would you say it has no chance at all ever to be accepted, when adjusted?

Greets,

Hinkelbein

[seahawk]

[photoid=5749688]

Would you call this manipulated ?

And in fact there are weather conditions during which it will be impossible to get an acceptable shot.

[LX-A343]

First of all, a photography will NEVER show you how it really was. A camera will calculate the real world into digital figures, the dynamic range of a photo is never, what is needed to cover the reality. So, all you do is, to simply making the most of the available data to to get a decent photo.

it would be the same as saying, manipulating camera settings would be like manipulating a photo.

[brianw999]

I'm going to have to very careful how I explain this but...

What IS digital manipulation and, more importantly, what IS NOT ?

It IS manipulation when elements of the original image are removed, altered or added.
For removed I mean cloning out light poles, obstructions, buildings etc.

Altered refers to, for instance, changing a registration in an attempt to get a picture of an aircraft that you haven't photographed into the database. ( That has happened before !! )

Added...well, a combination of the first two such as removing the sky and replacing it from another pic or just flood filling with a colour. We also recently had a pic of a backlit outline photoshopped onto a beautiful sunset. Nice looking pic it might have been ... but it was totally false.

What is NOT digital manipulation ?

This is the difficult one but it basically means that the picture has been processed, probably using layers, to modify the exposure, contrast and maybe sharpness of different areas of the picture to create a properly balanced image.

Probably the best way to define this is to use one of my early images. I would add that the process I went through was explained to the screeners and they accepted it.

[photoid=5790537]

The original was rather dark so I brightened up the aircraft using ( in those days ) the shadow/highlight tool. Trouble was, the sky promptly blew out.
The cure was to create a background layer, process the aircraft, delete the blown out sky leaving the original (still too bright sky) visible. Flatten the image, create another layer and this time process the sky to show more detail including the moon. Delete the now too dark aircraft and background, flatten and ... bingo ! a nicely balanced exposure of both sky and aircraft.
If you think about it, I nothing differently to the old days of dodging and burning in the darkroom. ( Yes, I'm old enough to remember those days of darkness and chemical fumes !! )
So..is this manipulation ? I say no on the grounds that nothing has been removed from or added to the picture. All the detail you see exists in the original RAW image.

BUT !.......

If I had processed the image badly, maybe forgetting to remember that the sky was seen through the canopy and not adjusting that part, then
I would expect a digital manipulation rejection...because the manipulation is clearly visible and the picture would become completely unbalanced.

Many times the screeners see an image where this type of processing has been performed, and performed very badly with gaps in undercarriages showing bits of differently exposed sky. Those pictures quite rightly get rejected for manipulation.

So, that's my reputation put on the line !!

If enough people think that the Mustang picture should not be in the database, photogs and/or crew, on the grounds of unacceptable manipulation then I'll happily delete it. Remember though that the line I'm trying to draw is to illustrate the difference between unacceptable manipulation and good, acceptable use of photoshop skills. I very rarely use the process I've described and it has to be done well or the picture simply fails. That Mustang shot, by the way, involved a good 1 1/2 to 2 hours work with attention to fine detail at individual pixel level to get it right.

[Diezel]

Hi Hinkelbein,

First let me tell you to never give up taking pictures in (very) difficult circumstances just like you did!

Be prepared to bin a lot of them but I promise you, that when you keep trying, good things will happen It just takes time, persistance and some experience.

Back to the picture: I was one of the three screeners that had a look at your picture and I voted to reject it. Basically for the reasons mentioned in the posts in this thread. I loaded it in Photoshop to have a better look at it and found that you can improve the pic a lot as it is pin sharp and pretty well exposed. I gave it a try, adjusted just the levels and colors. I think it looks better now. I'm not sure that it is good enough to accept it here but you never know!


Roel.

[Hinkelbein]

Hi Brian,

Altered refers to, for instance, changing a registration in an attempt to get a picture of an aircraft that you haven't photographed into the database. ( That has happened before !! )

Are you kidding me? Wow, thatīs pretty ... unbelievable!
(Have to admit, it made me laugh, but please donīt tell the others on the forum!)

Anyway, thanks for your elaborate answer.

Greets,

Hinkelbein

[Hinkelbein]

Hi Roel,

First let me tell you to never give up taking pictures in (very) difficult circumstances just like you did!

I most certainly wonīt!
Besides, itīs a nice pic for my private collection.

Thanks for your attempt to improve my picture. I will try again, but know now what to pay attention to!

Groeten,

Hinkelbein

[paulc]

Well having been a member of a photographic society for the past 15 years I can say that there is little that photoshop or other such programmes can do that has not been done in a darkroom by someone somewhere. The RPS and PAGB only see and judge the final image - not what was done to get it.

[PMN]

Well having been a member of a photographic society for the past 15 years I can say that there is little that photoshop or other such programmes can do that has not been done in a darkroom by someone somewhere. The RPS and PAGB only see and judge the final image - not what was done to get it.

Absolutely! As long as the image doesn't 'look' processed (because we are working to certain technical guidelines with aviation photography), then I don't see how any of the standard processing usually applied can be called manipulation. As you say, these techniques were around long before Thomas Knoll and his crew!

Paul