Digital Manipulation - No - But Do I Fix the Glare?

[Freericks]

I got hit for digital manipulation on this image, although all I did was a level auto fix in Microsoft's photo editor (and a slight sharpening).

There are three "rays" near the seagull, that were caused by the reflection of shooting this through glass.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=803442&key=996312421

I'm inclined to just fix those (although that would actually be manipulation, as they were in my image). Just curious what others think.

I completely understand why these three rays upset the screeners, but the only way to shoot this train is through a window that causes that. Would removing them be the same as removing a wire or telephone pole, making others think a shot is possible that cannot be done?

[bigbassloyd]

They've already hit you for digital manipulation. I say that double jeopardy law applies now. :D

Remove em.

Loyd L.

[troy12n]

It's really not that interesting, is it worth it?

[Freericks]

It's really not that interesting, is it worth it?

Making friends, for the world to see...

[nikos1]

The train sucks but its a nice composition that will probably get you some views. Id say its worth it.

[KevinM]

I think they've put you between a rock and a hard place. If they're implying that you 'shopped the seagull into the image, you'd need to find a way to convince the Screeners you didn't. Even if you succeed, you might still not get the shot in with the reflections present. Now that everyone knows they're there, if you 'shop them out, it will just solidify the Screener's conviction that the scene has had prohibited work done on it.

I'd park this one for a while and work on it in your spare time.

[Mgoldman]

Looks good - not sure why you ever bothered adding the glare digitally. ; )

/Mitch

[JimThias]

I got hit for digital manipulation on this image, although all I did was a level auto fix in Microsoft's photo editor (and a slight sharpening).

There are three "rays" near the seagull, that were caused by the reflection of shooting this through glass.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=803442&key=996312421

I'm inclined to just fix those (although that would actually be manipulation, as they were in my image). Just curious what others think.

I completely understand why these three rays upset the screeners, but the only way to shoot this train is through a window that causes that. Would removing them be the same as removing a wire or telephone pole, making others think a shot is possible that cannot be done?

I'm guessing they saw the rays and thought it was a bad wire clone job or something. I say, fix them. Clone out the rays. It looks like a simple job and you wouldn't be compromising the scene. IMO, removing the rays wouldn't be any different from cloning out dust spots or light flares.

[Ween]

I mean, digital manipulation for the bird? And they let people add the moon to the night sky. Pffffffffff...

[Freericks]

Jim,

I think you hit it on the head... never occurred to me until you wrote that.

I had thought they thought the bird was fake too, and was ready to send the RAW out to show it was there (as were the rays).

Anyway, I got rid of them and it got in.

I think you are right, window glare is more like dustspots. It won't be there at other times of day.

[JRMDC]

Charles, congrats on getting past the first ever RP rejection for insufficient digital manipulation. :)

[photoid=321134]

[Freericks]

Charles, congrats on getting past the first ever RP rejection for insufficient digital manipulation. :)

[photoid=321134]

I actually did laugh out loud at J's line.

[crazytiger]

I did too! Nice one J and good job Charles.