RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Digital Manipulation: New Rejection? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18086)

Joseph Cermak 04-18-2018 02:49 PM

Digital Manipulation: New Rejection?
 
I had submitted this shot and it was rejected for foreground clutter, I assumed it was the pole in the front that was just touching the coupler of one of the locos. I decided it would be easy to clone out real quick and try and resubmission, which was rejected for digital manipulation, which is something I've never seen before. From my time in the forums, it seems one of the most common pieces of advice given in addition to an asked question is about cloning out some distracting item, whether its wires, cones, etc. so I was rather surprised by this. I'm all for not allowing photos where extra elements were photoshopped in, but it seems cloning out something like a wire or pole is common and suggested practice. Any one else have thoughts on this?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...78&key=2255081

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...83&key=6127904

bigbassloyd 04-18-2018 03:36 PM

That rejection has been around for quite some time. Makes it easy when they have the base image to compare it to.. lol

As for cloning out objects.. If it's a permanent part of the scene - do not. Shows poor situational awareness in the field if you have to fix it in processing. Pick better scenes, or become better at working around the items. If you still decide to remove something.. disclose it. Don't turn into a certain fauxtographer who creates false images of make believe consists and scenery and doesn't tell anyone he did it.

If people wander into the scene (aka any Steam excursion ever), removing them is fine in my book. Beats a felony charge for taking them out on site. :D

Loyd L.

RobJor 04-18-2018 03:55 PM

Yes, you don't want the rejection pointing to the manipulation. Interesting making the distinction between permanent and non permanent items. Didn't think of it that way but makes sense. Recently was nice steam photo at an old station and off to the side was a partial person taking a cell phone photo. Crop or clone should have been a fix.

I think historical photos could be another exception. I spent a lot of time removing weeds from a 1973 photo of FM units. They were nowhere near the FM units but never the less rejected. Imagine that, weeds in a 1970's yard.

Bob

miningcamper1 04-18-2018 04:47 PM

Bottom line: make your deletions good enough that they will not be detectable. :evil:

I process for Flickr. If the result doesn't find favor here, oh, well [shrug].

Here's a case where I had to draw part of the wire back in- part of it disappeared after downsizing to RP dimensions:

[photoid=555786]

chris crook 04-19-2018 12:22 AM

What did you do to the trucks? Maybe if you hadn't screwed that part up it would have been accepted.

Joseph Cermak 04-19-2018 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris crook (Post 193915)
What did you do to the trucks? Maybe if you hadn't screwed that part up it would have been accepted.

Oh guess I didn't notice that, must have been something I did back when I first took the photo and processed it back in 2017...before I really knew what I was doing. I'll have to find the original and start over.

miningcamper1 04-19-2018 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris crook (Post 193915)
What did you do to the trucks? Maybe if you hadn't screwed that part up it would have been accepted.

Huh? The trucks are exactly the same except for a tiny highlight above the third axle on 8746.

Joseph Cermak 04-19-2018 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 193917)
Huh? The trucks are exactly the same except for a tiny highlight above the third axle on 8746.

I didn't notice until he pointed it out, but there's a line of some sort along the lead truck of 8746 in both photos. Not sure if its something I messed with when learning how to use adobe tools or an artifact of saving or what, have to find the hard drive with the original and likely start from that, assuming it doesn't have that issue.

RobJor 04-19-2018 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 193917)
Huh? The trucks are exactly the same except for a tiny highlight above the third axle on 8746.

Still not sure it is anything but whatever, if the screener saw that?

Bob

JimThias 04-19-2018 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 193919)
Still not sure it is anything but whatever, if the screener saw that?

Bob

The screener likely saw the two poles that he cloned out. But they were so minor in the original that I didn't even notice them until I did an A-B comparison.

The little spot being removed on the third axle of 8746 is definitely a head scratcher though.

KevinM 04-19-2018 02:05 PM

Joining this discussion a little late.....;-)

I've been a member here for a little over 10 years, and digital manipulation has always been against the rules. That said, I think that most of us here have enough experience to know that such a rule can be difficult to enforce, because today's photo editing tools are so good, and people have become very skilled in their use. You're not likely to see a rejection for digital manipulation unless you do a poor job on the edit or you make an obvious edit in a scene that is familiar to the screeners. And of course, since the screeners are able to see your historical submissions, including rejections, they do have a means of doing a stare-and-compare between versions of an image. So, if you get a foreground clutter rejection and then attempt to remove the offending obstruction in a subsequent re-submission, you're going to get busted.

Moral of the story is......

Obviously, do your best to get it right in the camera. In the heat of the moment however, some of us don't always see the entire frame in the viewfinder. If you feel you need to "clean up" the image, by removing errant weeds, branches, trash, body parts, etc. that aren't really part of the scene, for goodness sake, do it before you submit the image and make sure you've done a clean job of it. On the other hand, if you decide to make alternations to fixed elements in the scene....like poles, etc.....you'd best have a very good reason for it, and you'd best explain it in a note to the screeners, so you're open and honest about it. As the rules state: "The purpose of our website is to display genuine, authentic photographs of trains and railroad related scenes." That rule is also in place with most of the major railroad magazines.

RobJor 04-19-2018 08:44 PM

Deleted, could be an error.

BarrySr 04-21-2018 05:03 AM

Don't forget to remove the...
 
...pole shadow along with the pole.

Joseph Cermak 04-21-2018 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarrySr (Post 193928)
...pole shadow along with the pole.

I don't see anywhere noticeable where that pole cast a shadow. The one on the concrete blocks was from the pole at the bottom of the stairs, not the one at the top which I assume was the one in question.

miningcamper1 04-21-2018 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 193929)
I don't see anywhere noticeable where that pole cast a shadow. The one on the concrete blocks was from the pole at the bottom of the stairs, not the one at the top which I assume was the one in question.

Such a minor issue in the first place. The screener probably just didn't like the photo. If not obstructed, unlevel might have been next. :(

BarrySr 04-22-2018 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 193929)
I don't see anywhere noticeable where that pole cast a shadow. The one on the concrete blocks was from the pole at the bottom of the stairs, not the one at the top which I assume was the one in question.

Well, there's the DER moment of the day. Yes I see it now.

Sorry for the miscue. As I said....

DER!!

Joseph Cermak 04-23-2018 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 193930)
Such a minor issue in the first place. The screener probably just didn't like the photo. If not obstructed, unlevel might have been next. :(

Which way does it look unlevel? I can at least fix that for flickr.

amtrak07t 04-23-2018 01:03 AM

I don't think it's even the poles (that was cloned out) that are the problem. Typically, poles and wires are fine as long as they don't obstruct the lead locomotive. The two that were removed obstructed the auto carrier...I didn't really notice them ( the third,not removed pole to the right of 8746 stands out more)

I find more of an issue with the crew's bags in front of the fuel tank, directly in the center of the frame. The red and purple nature of the bags stand out.

Joseph Cermak 04-23-2018 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amtrak07t (Post 193938)
I don't think it's even the poles (that was cloned out) that are the problem. Typically, poles and wires are fine as long as they don't obstruct the lead locomotive. The two that were removed obstructed the auto carrier...I didn't really notice them ( the third,not removed pole to the right of 8746 stands out more)

I find more of an issue with the crew's bags in front of the fuel tank, directly in the center of the frame. The red and purple nature of the bags stand out.

Yeah I could see the bags being an issue, but with both doors open for the crew change, I left them in as they are part of the scene.

I'm not sure which the third pole to the right of 9736 that was not removed you are referring to? Can you clarify that?

amtrak07t 04-23-2018 01:36 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 193939)
Yeah I could see the bags being an issue, but with both doors open for the crew change, I left them in as they are part of the scene.

I'm not sure which the third pole to the right of 9736 that was not removed you are referring to? Can you clarify that?

This is the pole. I still don't think any of them were concerning, but of the poles, this one stuck out to me the most.

I really think it's the bags. They'd be harder to remove.

Joseph Cermak 04-23-2018 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amtrak07t (Post 193940)
This is the pole. I still don't think any of them were concerning, but of the poles, this one stuck out to me the most.

I really think it's the bags. They'd be harder to remove.

That's a brakestick, used by crew members for operating brakewheels on freight cars. Again, something set down by the crew during crew change, but it's part of work on the railroad so I didn't see an issue with it. It wasn't clear what the original foreground clutter rejection was for, the bags and brakestick or the pole on the stairs.

miningcamper1 04-23-2018 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 193937)
Which way does it look unlevel? I can at least fix that for flickr.

0.5 CW should take care of it. :-)

amtrak07t 04-26-2018 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 193941)
That's a brakestick, used by crew members for operating brakewheels on freight cars. Again, something set down by the crew during crew change, but it's part of work on the railroad so I didn't see an issue with it. It wasn't clear what the original foreground clutter rejection was for, the bags and brakestick or the pole on the stairs.

There's a way to incorporate the crews and their equipment into a photo in a way that's not distracting.

You can argue that the poles that you did remove from the photo are part of the railroad(ing) as well. Just as you didn't find them appeasing to your shot, the bags and the brakestick detract from the photo as well. I'd bet that the screeners rejected the image for the bag. It truly doesn't belong unless you had a railroader carrying them or something.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.