Old 11-27-2005, 11:51 PM   #1
Cyclonetrain
Senior Member
 
Cyclonetrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Posts: 359
Send a message via AIM to Cyclonetrain Send a message via Yahoo to Cyclonetrain
Default Underexposed/Digitally Manipulated!

Origonally rejected for Underexposed, I kind of agree here, bit dark
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=189448
So I play around with the curves and gamma settings in PS, and re-try it
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=189504
Rejected for Digitally Manipulated! Im not sure what the screener wanted me to do with the first one if lightening up the photo is considered digitaly manipulating..

Last edited by Cyclonetrain; 11-28-2005 at 02:10 AM.
Cyclonetrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2005, 01:12 AM   #2
Frederick
Senior Member
 
Frederick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hastings, Minnesota
Posts: 594
Default

It looks like that 'LP' logo on the stack of lumber was added on there. I know it wasn't, though.
__________________
Railpics Photos

Flickr Account
Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2005, 01:41 AM   #3
cmherndon
Banned
 
cmherndon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lawrenceburg, KY
Posts: 883
Send a message via AIM to cmherndon Send a message via Yahoo to cmherndon
Default

I can't figure out the manipulation on the second one. However, it looks like you've overexposed it. It might just be best to let this one go. We all know you can do better than this, Glenn.
cmherndon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2005, 02:07 AM   #4
Cyclonetrain
Senior Member
 
Cyclonetrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Posts: 359
Send a message via AIM to Cyclonetrain Send a message via Yahoo to Cyclonetrain
Default

I kinda figured this was for the personal collection, I was just confused by the "Digitally Manipulated"..
Cyclonetrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2005, 12:53 PM   #5
RJSorensen
Senior Member
 
RJSorensen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 177
Default

I thought to be "Digitally Manipulated" one would have to add something that was not there, and or remove something that should have been? I don't think I have seen this type of rejection prior.
__________________
"No Soup For You . . . "

Please click here should you wish to view a portion of my railroad photography . . .
RJSorensen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2005, 01:52 PM   #6
ddavies
Senior Member
 
ddavies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 381
Default

The LP does look wierd. Is it printed on the end of a lumber pack? With that perspective, it sure isn't on the side.
ddavies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2005, 02:38 PM   #7
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
I don't think I have seen this type of rejection prior.
There have been a couple threads this year on it:

http://www.railpictures.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=2427

http://www.railpictures.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=2228

http://www.railpictures.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=1612

And I know there's numerous others that debate whether Photochopping a pole or person or wire out of a shot is a do or a don't...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2006, 03:28 AM   #8
TonytheTiger
Ex. Railroad Employee
 
TonytheTiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 136
Default More discussion on retouching

I'm from the old school where we called cleaning up distracting objects from a photograph "retouching". I have removed wires that were in the foreground and crossed the entire sky in both of these:

C&O in Richmond, VA

DW&P in Duluth, MN

I use Paint Shop Pro to retouch photographs on a regular basis in my job. Was removing the distracting cables from these photographs going too far?

I always clean up all dust specks, hairs, scratches, and smudges on all of my scans before I submit them. How much manipulation is considered too much? Sometimes when I have to slightly rotate a shot to level it I have to fill in the slivered trangles in the corners in order to keep the crop from becoming too tight. I use pixels from immediatly adjacent to the sliver and work them in so that they blend in with the surrounding area. Is this too much?

I would appreciate some guidance.
__________________
Rob Kitchen
Harrisburg, PA

You know you are old when the first car you owned is now considered a "Classic".
TonytheTiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2006, 05:51 AM   #9
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Was removing the distracting cables from these photographs going too far?
It depends. I don't do it as it's not a true representation of that moment in time. I like capturing the history in my shots, and if I'm digitally removing stuff, it's not a true history of the event or the place...
__________________
Ween 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 07:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.