Old 07-26-2005, 02:07 AM   #1
Ru1056
Senior Member
 
Ru1056's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 438
Send a message via Yahoo to Ru1056
Default Digitally Manipulated?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=149491

This photo was rejected for being digitally manipulated. Has anyone else got this before? Does it mean the screener thinks it is a fake? If I was going to fake a photo, it sure wouldn't be of a crossing buck.
__________________
Billy

JREB.ORG. Moderated discussion forums about NS & CSX

Remember the ugly photo god.
Ru1056 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 02:13 AM   #2
busyEMT
Senior Member
 
busyEMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 902
Default

I am not sure what they mean by "digitally manipulated." It isn't on the moon or anything.

Although I would say the extreme angle gives the lower part of the photo a concave feel. I felt 1056 viewing it. I can't put my finger on it.
__________________
Aaron Florin- Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Visit Twin Cities Railfan.com
Visit the Twin Cities Railfan forums.

Don't do anything you wouldn't want to explain to the paramedics!
busyEMT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 02:17 AM   #3
Donna
Senior Member
 
Donna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shelby Twp., MI
Posts: 143
Default

Shame on you. It does look odd on the left, but as they say, that is how you saw it.
Donna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 02:17 AM   #4
busyEMT
Senior Member
 
busyEMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 902
Default

I looked at it again (partly because it is an intriguing photo). The crossbuck (the x part) is in focus but the rest is soft. This gives it an altered look.

Were you playing with focus and apeture?
__________________
Aaron Florin- Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Visit Twin Cities Railfan.com
Visit the Twin Cities Railfan forums.

Don't do anything you wouldn't want to explain to the paramedics!
busyEMT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 02:47 AM   #5
Ru1056
Senior Member
 
Ru1056's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 438
Send a message via Yahoo to Ru1056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by busyEMT
Were you playing with focus and apeture?
The camera is a cheap 2.0 MP Kodak. Exposure setting was at 0, and I had it on auto. Just thought I would grab the shot and see how it turns out.
__________________
Billy

JREB.ORG. Moderated discussion forums about NS & CSX

Remember the ugly photo god.
Ru1056 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 03:07 AM   #6
busyEMT
Senior Member
 
busyEMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 902
Default

Very, very interesting. I returned to the photo several times while writing my replies. The picture became more intersting each time.
__________________
Aaron Florin- Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Visit Twin Cities Railfan.com
Visit the Twin Cities Railfan forums.

Don't do anything you wouldn't want to explain to the paramedics!
busyEMT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 03:22 AM   #7
bnsf sammy
Senior Member
 
bnsf sammy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 638
Default

the railroad "X" looks correct, but the red lights look like they were widened.
__________________
BNSF SAMMY
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
bnsf sammy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 03:31 AM   #8
CUDA7185
Senior Member
 
CUDA7185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 94
Send a message via AIM to CUDA7185
Default

I would say it appears to have a typical "fish eye" prospective, except for the fact that the straight edges don't appear to curve like the should.

If you can, try shooting some other objects close up and see what kind of results you get... just a thought.

Matt
__________________
Matt

My Photos on Railpictures.Net
My Railroad & HO Scale Model Photos at Fotopic.Net
CUDA7185 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2005, 04:03 PM   #9
Guilford350
Senior Member
 
Guilford350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Terryville, CT
Posts: 542
Default

It looks flat and out of proportion. Did you stretch the photo in any way?
Guilford350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2005, 08:07 AM   #10
Super2000
Member
 
Super2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Posts: 84
Default

Looks like you resized it in one dimension only. The X suggests a sharp upward angle, but the ovoid lights do not.

Just to check my idea, I resized yours by shrinking it horizontally only, and the result looks a lot less weird.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg buck.jpg (38.9 KB, 212 views)
__________________
View my collection

Last edited by Super2000; 07-28-2005 at 08:14 AM.
Super2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2005, 09:59 AM   #11
Ru1056
Senior Member
 
Ru1056's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indianapolis IN
Posts: 438
Send a message via Yahoo to Ru1056
Default

Thanks Super2000 and everybody that replied. I got it rejected on appeal that it is a bit soft as well. Still wondering what digitially manipulated means
__________________
Billy

JREB.ORG. Moderated discussion forums about NS & CSX

Remember the ugly photo god.
Ru1056 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2005, 01:46 PM   #12
brunswickrailfan
Senior Member
 
brunswickrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Jefferson, MD/Shippensburg, PA
Posts: 208
Send a message via AIM to brunswickrailfan
Default

Not as original...

You "manipulated" size incorrectly so as to distort it. Just a "whoopsies" moment.
__________________
--Dan
KB3LDB
Web Photo Editor, SU Slate
http://dputz.deviantart.com
http://members.trainorders.com/dputz/v2
brunswickrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2005, 12:56 AM   #13
mtrails
Senior Member
 
mtrails's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ru1056
Thanks Super2000 and everybody that replied. I got it rejected on appeal that it is a bit soft as well. Still wondering what digitially manipulated means
Digitally manipulated means that the photo was altered in such a way that it doesn't present true form, aside from lighting and sharpness changes. The photo looks like it was cropped to viewing porportion, but not meeting a minimum size requirement, then stretched to meet the minimum boundary, resulting in a disporpotional looking photo. I don't know if the angle of which you took the photo, and the lens of the camera you were using truly resulted in the the exaggerated width of the crossbuck, but compared to the edited photo done by Super2000, it doesn't look right.

Digitally manipulated could also mean that an object or objects were added or deleted from a photo by crafty editing.

If in fact the dimensions of your photo were resized out of porportion, to meet a width of say, 800 pixels, then the photo was manipulated, and not resized. Make sense? The softness could theoretically be a result of dimension changes, porportional or not. You must examine your photo like a screener. Just some helpful advice. I am not trying to say you did anything to the photo, just giving you an insight to your question.
mtrails is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.