Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Spotty PJ photos

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Spotty PJ photos

 
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2008
Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=24
>
>
>


Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)

Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
that it really matters in the context.

(O:


Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of
image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very
slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...

It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards -
I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Poldie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2008
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit of
> image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a very
> slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes, then...
>
> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards -
> I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.


Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
clone tool:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...m_Beirut&only=
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2008
Poldie wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit
>> of image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a
>> very slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes,
>> then...
>>
>> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing safeguards
>> - I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.

>
> Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
> clone tool:
>
> http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...m_Beirut&only=
>


(O:

Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I
first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what
happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone
tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".

It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that
image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication
so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any
editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2008
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=24
>>

[]
> Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
> image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a
> bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that,
> and not that it really matters in the context.


They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2008
David J Taylor wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=24
>>>

> []
>> Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
>> image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a
>> bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that,
>> and not that it really matters in the context.

>
> They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....
>
> David
>
>

Aha! Sounds like an admission of guilt... (O:


Actually, no, it's still there - try here for the original pic:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=26

and there's several other examples of dust spots, eg:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=17

Browsing through these reveals quite a few good-to-exceptional images,
especially below about no.15, but they'll prolly shift them again...
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2008
Mark Thomas wrote:
[]
> Actually, no, it's still there - try here for the original pic:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=26
>
> and there's several other examples of dust spots, eg:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=17
>
> Browsing through these reveals quite a few good-to-exceptional images,
> especially below about no.15, but they'll prolly shift them again...


Thanks, Mark. Yes, I see what you mean, although in such dusty
circumstances it's hardly surprising.

Look to be quite bad fires....

Thanks,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2008
On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:12:36 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
: Alan Browne wrote:
: >
: >
: > http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...llery?index=24
: >
: >
: >
:
: Perhaps they are just bugs flying by near the camera... (or pigs!)
:
: Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
: image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a bit
: funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that, and not
: that it really matters in the context.

I think the foreground figures are simply out of focus. These pictures aren't
so hot (pun not intended, but recognized), and the one Alan selected may be
the worst of the bunch. But the photographer(s) were in a danger area and
obviously in a hurry, so I'd cut them some slack. The amateurs at the
Minnesota bridge collapse a few months ago did a better job, but they had
neither danger nor time constraints to contend with.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
MI
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2008



On 7/5/08 11:30 PM, in article g4popa$prc$(E-Mail Removed), "Mark
Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...82.photogaller
>>>> y?index=24
>>>>

>> []
>>> Also... it's difficult to judge given the size and compression of that
>>> image, but the bokeh and edge effects around the firefighters look a
>>> bit funny. Not that a PJ would ever do anything naughty like that,
>>> and not that it really matters in the context.

>>
>> They must have changed the index - I see no firefighters.....
>>
>> David
>>
>>

> Aha! Sounds like an admission of guilt... (O:
>
>
> Actually, no, it's still there - try here for the original pic:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...photogallery?i
> ndex=26
>
> and there's several other examples of dust spots, eg:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...photogallery?i
> ndex=17
>
> Browsing through these reveals quite a few good-to-exceptional images,
> especially below about no.15, but they'll prolly shift them again...


What you list as the original pic is not the one I saw. It was as Alan
Browne stated in his post. Could be they automatically update the pictures.

--
Martha


 
Reply With Quote
 
Vagabond
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2008
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Poldie wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Looking at the images in my local press, I do suspect that a fair bit
>>> of image manipulation is now slipping through, and I think it is a
>>> very slippery path to go down. Starts out with 'harmless' changes,
>>> then...
>>>
>>> It would be nice to think that the industry is implementing
>>> safeguards - I've seen a few cases brought into the light, but not many.

>>
>> Starts with removing dust, ends up making the picture `better` via the
>> clone tool:
>>
>> http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...m_Beirut&only=
>>

>
> (O:
>
> Yes, that example sprang to mind as I was typing my reply.. When I
> first saw that image, I was simply dumbstruck. It looks like what
> happens the very first time someone encounters Photoshop and the clone
> tool - "ooh, look at what *that* does!".
>
> It just defies belief that someone could even be bothered to save that
> image, let alone submit it (accidentally or otherwise) for publication
> so it would actually be seen by anyone else.., let alone that any
> editor, even if blind drunk, would let it get through.


That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy attempt
to discredit the photographer.

I am new here, most people would not know me or have seen any of my profile
pages, but as a journalist of thirty plus years standing, I do not know of
any photographer with sufficient credibility to be published who isn't
extremely well experienced in photo manipulation. There is definitely
something untoward about that image. I am not a photojournalist by the way,
I use a photographer if I know beforehand that I will need one, but have
always carried a camera "just in case". There have been a lot of "just in
case" occasions over the years. Until recently it has been a Nikon SLR,
with a couple of primes and a 28-200 fitted. Plus an MD-12.

I started with an FT and for the last couple of decades it has been a less
than top of the line FE. It has never let me down so I never upgraded it. I
have recently made the switch to digital and am not really happy so far, to
the extent where I am still trying various cameras hoping to find something
with which I feel more confident. I have just purchased a Lumix DMC-FZ50
after seeing the results that one of my daughters has been achieving. It is
a very versatile camera, fast to get into action, amazing lens for such a
low cost camera, and the image stabilisation is remarkable. I prefer it to
either the Rebel or the Olympus E500 that I have been using to date. But
then my requirements are probably very different to many amateur or
professional photographers. I am not looking for a beautiful shot, just a
clearly defined graphical illustration. I often need to get a clean shot
very quickly, often without knowing beforehand what focal length to expect.
You don't know if they are going to come out of that door a metre away, or
the one at the other end of the block. That sort of thing.

The Panasonic has its limitations, as do all digitals, particularly small
sensor digitals so I still carry the Nikon for those occasions when
something faster is required.

I am well versed in Photoshop, right from Adobe's very early days. For
years I would shoot film and then scan (drum scanner) it into a digital
image for final processing. I am not alone in that, while everyone did in
the early days, now that DSLRs have made such advances it is mostly just us
old dinosaurs who are still doing it. My favourite photographer also still
uses a mix of film and digital on assignments. But then he is around my age
and we have worked together for decades.

This is just a little bit of introduction as I think that I might stay with
some of these groups for a while, but back to the thread, my other concern
is that not only a supposedly experienced photographer produced such a
pathetic image, but that it passed all editing and proofreading, that it
was actually published. That is amazing. There has to be more to the story.



Regards

Tony
 
Reply With Quote
 
Vagabond
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-06-2008
Alan Browne wrote:
> Vagabond > wrote:
>
>> That is also puzzling me. It is as though someone has made a clumsy
>> attempt to discredit the photographer.

>
>
> See my other reply to Robert Coe. That was certainly not the intent.
> And as a self declared "newbie" here you should not even make such
> hedged declarations.



What on earth are you on about?

Hedged?

What I said was quite clear, there was no hedging involved.

I responded to the discussion on this image.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/...m_Beirut&only=
I was agreeing with Mark Thomas' comments, not anything that you had said.
Threads do tend to wander a little, perhaps it would behove you to check
what a person is responding to before attempting to remonstrate with them.

As for the rest, I am not a "self declared newbie" at all, I have been
involved with usenet since its inception and ARPANET before that. Like many
of the old hands I started with limping into the backbone with a 300 baud
accoustic modem and Unix. Close to three decades from "newbie" status.

I simply took the opportunity to give some introductory detail about myself.

Regards

Tony


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Things are getting a bit spotty with the 500/4 Nikkor!! Tim Conway Digital Photography 35 08-03-2010 06:15 AM
Slow day again. Now this is a mouse for the spotty faced nerds Collector»NZ NZ Computing 0 07-09-2006 01:11 AM
Slow/spotty response configuring Linksys BEFSR41 v3 via web browser John A. Cisco 1 07-04-2004 05:39 AM
Are digital photos better than B/W photos? Iconoclast Digital Photography 11 01-24-2004 12:06 AM
Misc mountain photos and beach sunrise photos beachpirate2 Digital Photography 1 11-12-2003 04:41 PM



Advertisments