Digitally Manipulated?

Ru1056 · 07-26-2005, 02:07 AM

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.

busyEMT · 07-26-2005, 02:13 AM

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.

Donna · 07-26-2005, 02:17 AM

Shame on you.

It does look odd on the left, but as they say, that is how you saw it.

busyEMT · 07-26-2005, 02:17 AM

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?

Ru1056 · 07-26-2005, 02:47 AM

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.

busyEMT · 07-26-2005, 03:07 AM

Very, very interesting. I returned to the photo several times while writing my replies. The picture became more intersting each time.

bnsf sammy · 07-26-2005, 03:22 AM

the railroad "X" looks correct, but the red lights look like they were widened.

CUDA7185 · 07-26-2005, 03:31 AM

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

Guilford350 · 07-26-2005, 04:03 PM

It looks flat and out of proportion. Did you stretch the photo in any way?

Super2000 · 07-28-2005, 08:07 AM

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.

Ru1056 · 07-28-2005, 09:59 AM

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

brunswickrailfan · 07-28-2005, 01:46 PM

Not as original...

You "manipulated" size incorrectly so as to distort it. Just a "whoopsies" moment.

mtrails · 07-29-2005, 12:56 AM

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.