This is gonna piss people off

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by troy12n

So they pulled this one and left the piece of paper? WTF?

Like I said, this one had some merit, unlike the piece of paper.

Of course it's still there. The piece of paper is going to be a #1 PCA in a couple of weeks.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Of course it's still there. The piece of paper is going to be a #1 PCA in a couple of weeks.

All hail "the paper"!!

[cblaz]

Originally Posted by stlgevo51

Wow. It's gone! I posted the pan shot and walked away for a minute and when I came back it was gone! That was pretty darn quick if you ask me.

That wasn't the pan I was thinking of. Though I doubt the admin would ever admit to letting a faked shot become a PCA winner.

- Chris

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by troy12n

All hail "the paper"!!

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by cblaz

That wasn't the pan I was thinking of.

Did you mean this faked pan?

PhotoID: 350554 Photograph © RobinCoombes

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Why not, we have several named photos:

The 3 points of light, the fake snow, the canoe, the fake dash 9, i'm sure we have others, now we have "the paper"

[nikos1]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Did you mean this faked pan?

Are you having fun trying to level it?

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by nikos1

Are you having fun trying to level it?

Already did.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by troy12n

Why not, we have several named photos:

The 3 points of light, the fake snow, the canoe, the fake dash 9, i'm sure we have others, now we have "the paper"

Don't forget this crap:

PhotoID: 304262 Photograph © David Honan

As for "the paper", it's a stretch but it's railroad related and does tell a story.
What I find inconsistent is that that got on, and more to the point, plaques have made it on yet a photo of a USA Rail Speed Record plaque from Hamilton NJ was rejected. Forget for a minute that photo was well composed and lit and look at the value of documenting in a visible place such as RP the official marker and actual record speed so often either unknown or misquoted. Dog gone it, I could go on.

/Mitch

[Walter S]

Originally Posted by cblaz

That wasn't the pan I was thinking of. Though I doubt the admin would ever admit to letting a faked shot become a PCA winner.

- Chris

You mean the pan with the smoke plume showing no sign of blur?

[cblaz]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Did you mean this faked pan?

That one's not a PCA winner (yet). I was talking about Robin's other shot:

PhotoID: Photograph ©

Interestingly, the EXIF data on this shot, which was available when it was first posted (and showed a shutter speed of 1/500) has now conspicuously disappeared. The EXIF data on the shot Jim posted above is also not available, while the data is visible on all of Robin's other shots. Hmmmm.

I don't believe the admin have ever pulled a faked shot that won a PCA before, so it will be interesting to see what the response to this photo is.

- Chris

[Walter S]

Originally Posted by cblaz

That one's not a PCA winner (yet). I was talking about Robin's other shot:



Interestingly, the EXIF data on this shot, which was available when it was first posted (and showed a shutter speed of 1/500) has now conspicuously disappeared. The EXIF data on the shot Jim posted above is also not available, while the data is visible on all of Robin's other shots. Hmmmm.

I don't believe the admin have ever pulled a faked shot that won a PCA before, so it will be interesting to see what the response to this photo is.

- Chris

I enjoy looking at Robins work. I am however not a fan of taking the easy approach to producing an image such as this. It would be much better if he at least explained that it was indeed faked. He would regain more of my respect as a photographer if he did so.

Other than that, I think it should stay.

[cblaz]

Originally Posted by Walter S

I enjoy looking at Robins work. I am however not a fan of taking the easy approach to producing an image such as this. It would be much better if he at least explained that it was indeed faked. He would regain more of my respect as a photographer if he did so.

Other than that, I think it should stay.

I enjoy Robin's work as well, but the admins have set a standard of not allowing faked pans or blurs. Usually, when one is discovered, it is quickly pulled. The fact that this has been allowed to stay while the EXIF data plainly showed it was faked makes it seem the admins are willing to "look the other way" if the shot brings in the views.

Plus, this undermines the work and skill that AB, Mitch and others (including you Walter) put into doing actual zoom pans and blurs, since it's so much easier to fake one.

- Chris

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by cblaz

...makes it seem the admins are willing to "look the other way" if the shot brings in the views.
- Chris

Dog gone it, if that were the case, my avitar would be have made top of the day! I suppose it does not carry the weight of Craig's paper in the window as far as being railroad themed with a story behind it.

/Mitch

[Walter S]

Originally Posted by cblaz

I enjoy Robin's work as well, but the admins have set a standard of not allowing faked pans or blurs. Usually, when one is discovered, it is quickly pulled. The fact that this has been allowed to stay while the EXIF data plainly showed it was faked makes it seem the admins are willing to "look the other way" if the shot brings in the views.

Plus, this undermines the work and skill that AB, Mitch and others (including you Walter) put into doing actual zoom pans and blurs, since it's so much easier to fake one.

- Chris

I agree with you there.


I guess what I am trying to say is the photographer needs to step up and say in the remarks the image has been digitally enhanced. Of course that would probably rarely happen.

Maybe add a digitally enhanced category?

I try to keep my work as true as possible. If I don't know how to do something, I don't fake it, I just work harder at producing the image.

I feel that when a photographer manipulates an image such as this and hides the fact, he looses some of his integrity.

[Ween]

Originally Posted by cblaz

Interestingly, the EXIF data on this shot, which was available when it was first posted (and showed a shutter speed of 1/500) has now conspicuously disappeared.

Looking at the photo in CS2, it shows a shutter speed of 10/5000. Hmmmm...

[Watain]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

well duh.. unlevel = artistic.. sheesh..



Loyd L.

Photog scene kids who shoot crappy jap cars would say ''Its got dat jdm lean yo!''. (Japanese Domestic Motors)

Originally Posted by troy12n

All hail "the paper"!!

Oh I lol'd. As far as the paper, It's rail related. But I'm still asking myself if its interesting enough to be on the site. But then again, thats not my decision.

Originally Posted by JimThias

Did you mean this faked pan?

Wow, interesting concept but its crookedness makes my neck hurt.

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Don't forget this crap:




/Mitch

Hah, crap I see what you did there.

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by MTM9

The first thing I thought about when I got on tonight was when did the "guidelines" change because they obviously have again.

When they allowed the first image in the database that used HDR.

Now there are many and HDR by its very nature "digitally manipulates" the image.

I like HDR by the way.

It has its uses.

[Holloran Grade]

Originally Posted by troy12n

Why not, we have several named photos:

The 3 points of light, the fake snow, the canoe, the fake dash 9, i'm sure we have others, now we have "the paper"

No way, that was a real canoe!

Ain't nothin fake about the canoe shot.

And I still going to recreate it in Cajon creek when I find a canoe to borrow.

[troy12n]

I didnt say it was fake, just "named shots", you can add "the poop" and others im sure. I call that unlevel one from RobinCoombs "Batman"

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Ween

Looking at the photo in CS2, it shows a shutter speed of 10/5000. Hmmmm...

While it was removed on the link, It still shows up on opanda iexif as well.

Mitch, where did you get that 1/25th from? I'm not a math genius, but I know 10/5000 doesn't reduce down to 1/25th

In my opinion, if you're going to fudge reality, don't act like you're not fudging reality.


Loyd L.

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Mitch, where did you get that 1/25th from? I'm not a math genius, but I know 10/5000 doesn't reduce down to 1/25th

Loyd L.

1/25th at ISO 800 is what Robin stated the actual image was shot at in an e-mail response. Based on the blur on the driving rods, I accepted his claim though the lack of any blur on the plume is a bit puzzling. Here is a zoom pan of my own at 1/10th with a steam engine as the subject.

PhotoID: 255767 Photograph © Mitch Goldman

/Mitch

[JezG]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

In my opinion, if you're going to fudge reality, don't act like you're not fudging reality.
Loyd L.

The way I see it, the image is so obviously 'fudged' that an explanation is not required. Perhaps the Photographer/Photoshop operator thought so too?

[crazytiger]

Originally Posted by JezG

The way I see it, the image is so obviously 'fudged' that an explanation is not required. Perhaps the Photographer/Photoshop operator thought so too?

You wish. As Mitch pointed out, he claimed it was at 1/25th, and removed the EXIF which had said 1/500th.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JimThias

You know what's pissing me off? All the unlevel shots being accepted lately. WTF?

And now there's a blatantly obvious unlevel photo as the top of the last 24. This means at least TWO people were blind.

edit: Both of the current top of the last 24 are unlevel.