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)
-   -   Digitally Manipulated ??? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10804)

Chris Z 09-25-2009 01:49 AM

Digitally Manipulated ???
 
I don't understand this reject. All I did was crop, saturation, and a little highlights. No sharpening as the recent equipment I had purchased does a very good job.

Can someone explain what this means and how to fix it?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=734581&key=0

Chris Z

sd9 09-25-2009 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Z (Post 99751)
I don't understand this reject. All I did was crop, saturation, and a little highlights. No sharpening as the recent equipment I had purchased does a very good job.

Can someone explain what this means and how to fix it?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=734581&key=0

Chris Z

I think they hit the wrong button! looks good to me

Chase55671 09-25-2009 02:00 AM

The clouds look pretty fake. Other than that, the photo seems alright.

Chase

TAMR159 09-25-2009 02:01 AM

The steam engine is glowing...look around the smokestack and the cab area, notice how the cloud gets lighter right around the edge of the locomotive.

Freericks 09-25-2009 02:03 AM

It means something along the lines of, you added the sky from another shot, or you really hiked the saturation to make up for no light on the engine, but to be honest, I can't figure out what they saw to hit you for that.

So, it's very possible they hit the wrong button.

Although, trying to figure out what they didn't like, I'm not sure (maybe cropping or angle, in that the picture cuts off the train... honestly not able to figure it out).

Sorry... just not sure.

Chris Z 09-25-2009 02:21 AM

I don't see the glow on my monitor. There is also steam coming out of the steam generator which kind of mixes with the clouds and also some smoke coming out of the stack that may also be contributing to the illusion, but I still don't get it. I've taken quite a few shots from that spot, maybe I'll try another one. I was hoping to get some of the lightning flashes, but no such luck. Funny the lightning there killed some cattle near the side of the road. Should have shot that too, but I didn't.

Chris Z.

sd9 09-25-2009 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Z (Post 99756)
Funny the lightning there killed some cattle near the side of the road. Should have shot that too, but I didn't.

Chris Z.

why shoot em, weren't they already dead?:lol::lol::lol:

Chris Z 09-25-2009 02:25 AM

Maybe this shot would be better? Less of the fake clouds being shown.

Chris Z

cblaz 09-25-2009 02:26 AM

Nope, no wrong button pushing here. The clouds look fake, and like Nick said, there's a glow around the engine, both signs of Shadow/Highlight overuse.

- Chris

Chris Z 09-25-2009 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd9 (Post 99757)
why shoot em, weren't they already dead?:lol::lol::lol:

Yeah. What was interesting is that a lot of the live cattle was just standing there staring at the dead ones.

Chris Z

jnohallman 09-25-2009 03:02 AM

I'm not seeing the "glow" around the engine on my monitor. Still, you could try backing off a little bit on the saturation and highlights. I think it's a great shot, as is the other you posted.

As far as the digitally manipulated rejection is concerned, I don't understand why it's around anymore now that HDR images are being accepted into the DB. I'd love a little clarification on the matter, just for curiosity's sake.

Jon

Chris Z 09-25-2009 03:12 AM

I redid the photo without using highlights. Does this look okay or is it still a problem to those who see halos?

Chris Z

wds 09-25-2009 03:36 AM

When I looked at the 1st shot on my laptop monitor the sky looked really fake, as in it jumped right out at ya. Looking at it now on my desktop, it looks just fine. Little bit of glow around the stack, but scarcely noticable. Guess it all depends on your monitor. Tomorrow I'll look at it on an old CRT monitor that's hooked to an old computer dedicated to label-making and compare it to my regular computer's LCD. Should be interesting...

wds 09-25-2009 03:51 AM

I see pic number 2 made it in. Congrats, but don't give up on #1 just yet. Try what Jonathan said and give it another go, with a note to the screeners saying what you did.

Freericks 09-25-2009 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Z (Post 99760)
Yeah. What was interesting is that a lot of the live cattle was just standing there staring at the dead ones.

Chris Z

There's a reason not a lot of cattle make it into the finer grad school programs in sciences or medicine... :)

UCRP93 09-25-2009 04:23 AM

I got the same rejection tonight, on this photo:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1089480122

All I did to the image was crop, sharpen, and slightly adjust the shadows/highlights. I made sure to send a message to the screeners saying that I did not manipulate the image. I don't see what could take the appearance of manipulation in my photo.

milwman 09-25-2009 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UCRP93 (Post 99774)
I got the same rejection tonight,
I don't see what could take the appearance of manipulation in my photo.

And I can tell by the blacks coming out grayer on both shots, Just back off the shadow-highlight sider till you have a normal contrast and more normal clouds.

Chris's shot is a great shot and light is good to. It can get in if he backs off the shadow sider, they want Black black's

milwman 09-25-2009 01:12 PM

Looks great that's a cool shot. glad it got on.

Chris Z 09-25-2009 01:15 PM

Thanks guys for the help. I made some adjustments like you said and resubmitted. It's in.
[photoid=298353]

Chris Z

ExNavyDoc 09-25-2009 03:07 PM

I guess it's moot now, but I thought the first image was ok. I'm not seeing the artifact you all are seeing.

Are you sure you are not looking at Mach bands, and not digital artifact?

Mach_bands

wds 09-25-2009 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNavyDoc (Post 99801)
I guess it's moot now, but I thought the first image was ok. I'm not seeing the artifact you all are seeing.

Are you sure you are not looking at Mach bands, and not digital artifact?

Mach_bands

According to the definition, Mach bands occur where there are "two wide bands, one light and one dark, separated by a narrow strip with a light-to-dark gradient". In the photo, looking at the stack/clouds in particular, there is no narrow strip with a light-to-dark gradient but a distinct contrast separation line. That should dispel the above theory as as applied to this particular area of the image, so yes, I'm pretty sure I wasn't seeing Mach bands. I won't rule out some other sort of illusion though. What I did see on my laptop screen though was what appeared to be oversharpening in the clouds particularily in the upper right corner, where it almost looked like the stipple artwork of that guy who posted a day or two back. As I said before, that went away when I viewed it on my desktop computer. I checked my old CRT at work as I said I would, and it's still a bit visible on that one when compared side-by-side with an LCD monitor. But as you said Mike, it's moot now. Congrats on getting it on, Chris. It's a nice shot and deserves to be on the database.
~Wayne

cblaz 09-25-2009 03:56 PM

The reason people keep digital manipulation rejections is because of overuse of the shadow/highlight tool. Unless your name is Matt Hicks or Mitch Goldman, there's almost no need to ever go over 25 on either Shadow or Highlight. Also, when you adjust shadow/highlight, you have to increase the contrast to balance the shot out. Shadow/highlight muddies the shot a bit, while a 7-10 increase in contrast will reduce the muddiness.

- Chris

John Ryan 09-25-2009 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UCRP93 (Post 99774)
I got the same rejection tonight, on this photo:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1089480122

All I did to the image was crop, sharpen, and slightly adjust the shadows/highlights.

The trees are glowing in this photo. I'm no expert, but based on the ugly shadows on the depot from the roof overhang, this location would be best photographed during the last two hours of sunshine on a crisp winter day.

JRMDC 09-25-2009 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cblaz (Post 99805)
Unless your name is Matt Hicks or Mitch Goldman, there's almost no need to ever go over 25 on either Shadow or Highlight.

Agree on Matt, we've discussed his stuff here more than once, but which shots of Mitch's are you talking about?

Well let's take a look, as I don't recall any. Hmm, this one, maybe?

[photoid=295828]

But then, a guy who did this shot (or the others from that series) doesn't have too much basis on which to criticize others for processing :)

[photoid=297399]

Your shots looks rather "off." I'm personally OK with Mitch's but can see where someone else might not be.

One person's opinion.

Cinderpath 09-25-2009 04:37 PM

I don't think they look fake, in fact skies like this are common in the are common in the area
For over digital processing:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=292426

Now don't get me wrong, this is a cool shot, but is borderline HDR. It should just be consistent what is and is not acceptable.

Worse than that however is the overuse of the saturation slider, which in some cases makes colors have a radioactive hue, and some of the screeners own work is guilty of this.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35 AM.

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