And I thought that was an oxymoron...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6221701
Printable View
And I thought that was an oxymoron...
http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6221701
Interesting, surprised it got through screening.
So am I.......but it went for Sr. review and the Sr. Screeners said yes....so what they say goes. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by GothamSpotter
How do you do a double exposure with a DSLR?
Buy a D300 and use Image Overlay.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
How is that not a manipulation reject?
I'd say because it was done in the camera, and not in photoshop.Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
Honestly, Im not a fan of it, both aircraft are soft, and personally I hate the fisheye look.
They will let something like this in, but god-forbid you clone out a traffic cone on a ramp shot.
I think Kenny is referring to the obvious dust spot manipulation in the upper left hand corner.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrummanFan
While that seems to be an obvious reason for an objection I personally think it's always nice to see some artistic shots get accepted. The common side on shot does get quite boring after a while, no?
It's soft, hazy, poorly cloned, and very clearly manipulated. Sure not a side on shot but jeebus man. Guess that's why I'm not a screener.
Kenny the shot isn't manipulated other then what was done to capture it in the camera. We've run it through the software we have to uncover manipulated shots. This one is not manipulated in PS. As I stated I'm not a fan of it at all but it was screened by three screener's and sent for Sr. review. The Sr. guys are pretty good at making decisions so I support their choice. In the end to its doing what its meant to do.....garner hits. Dam thing has 11K in hits...all those hits mean revenue for JP.net so its doing its job. Hell look at us talking about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wunaladreamin
Not just one, but two vertical in a line...Quote:
Originally Posted by Iberia A340-600
I don't like it, in fact I think it is really really sad and a very poor decision that it was accepted. There is clearly dig. manipulation in the removal of dust spots, and just because it wasn't done in Photoshop, the double exposure thing shouldn't be accepted.. It is no different than doing it in photoshop, except that the camera does it for you!
Plus it is also blury and hazy,
Ok, I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't think it was that great a shot. I mean, I'm glad they are accepting photos where the photographer tried to get creative, but I've certainly seen people post better artistic shots around here...
I was looking around JP for a clear "Mission Statement" but couldn't find one (might have overlooked it), but I assume it would be something along the lines of "To help people share their love of aviation and aircraft spotting through the sharing and display of photographs and information."
The whole point of taking a photo is not solely to say "I saw this plane, here is proof" but also to tell a story. Yes, this may not be your "standard" photograph. It may be a little hazy and blurry, but is it terrible? Do those minor imperfections really take that much away from the event the photograph is trying to depict? I really like this photo. Maybe this photo struck a nerve with me because I'm getting back into film again, and rediscovering the fun of double exposures. I like the unique perspective, and the depth of field.
I do see the downside of accepting "creative" photos. Anybody can claim that their photo is "creative and different," which would in turn make it good enough to get accepted. It is difficult to define what "good" is because everyone has different tastes, so the line obviously has to be drawn somewhere. (Take a walk through the Modern Art exhibit at the Met; how someone can nail a fluorescent light to the wall, call it art and make millions is beyond me.)
In regards to digital manipulation: I agree about the dust spot cloning, that could have been done better. But I always try to draw similarities to film cameras. "Digital Manipulation" corresponds to anything that would be done in a darkroom, long after the picture has been taken. Double exposures can be done on the oldest and simplest cameras, and any effect that can be achieved through the use of a camera alone is not "manipulation," but merely knowing how to effectively use the tool that you have. As long as a feature on a digital camera can trace its roots to something a film camera can do, then its fair game.
Even though accepting a picture like this may ruffle some feathers, I think that it is very good to see something like this pop up every once in a while. Everyone has different tastes, and I would think that a site as popular as JP would try to reflect that. It reminds us about the power of photography, and the amazing and creative things that can be done with it.
First, to what Grumman said, well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by nwafan20
Matt its far from sad which is a bit over dramatic that you'd you use such a term and it is far from a poor decision. Removal of dust spots do not fall under manipulation, they fall under CMOS/Scan Dust. We've accepted worse shots before this one and I wager we'll accept even more questionable shots in the future.
If you want to get very technical every time you push the shutter button you are manipulating the picture as the settings you use manipulate the light. Cameras can do strange things when you push that button, that's what makes photography interesting.
As for a mission statement for JP.net...amoung the crew forum Chris and the Sr. Screeners have always used the phrase "We look for reasons to accept rather then reject."
I also agree with Grummanfan.Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
However, when you take an artform and apply technological confines to it, then you cannot expect not to have dialogue disputing the technological aspects. Dialogue is good whilst flat out ridicule is pointless and spiteful.
("Whilst"....what was for Matt. :wink: Another one of my favorites is "abreast".)