ShipSpotting.com Forum

Shipspotters all over the world => Consultations and review of site standards => Topic started by: davidships on September 05, 2015, 01:04:48 PM

Title: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: davidships on September 05, 2015, 01:04:48 PM
The site standard currently reads:
Quote
Photos taken with fish eye lens that produce distorted images are not allowed.
If a digital photograph that has been enhanced and appears as good quality at screen size and also remains as good quality when enlarged then it has been done correctly, if on the other hand when enlarged it becomes corrupted and unnatural in appearance then it has been over enhanced and will not be allowed.

Are there other types of distortion that should be mentioned?

Is it possible to describe acceptable limits for digital enhancement?  Would inclusion of examples be helpful?

What degree of high-dynamic-range (HDR) imaging should be permitted?

Please add your views on this topic below, before 5 October 2015.
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: lappino on September 05, 2015, 02:12:45 PM
HDR should be permitted, as long as it goes in a separate/new category, "HDR photos".

:)

(Good HDR should not have problems with this, as with good HDR it's hard to notice that it's HDR at all.)
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Dеnis on September 05, 2015, 03:05:47 PM
Enhanced or not, all photos must look realistic & not some FLickr-ish.

Fake black & white photos - one might make such on a attention-grabbing grounds to have more hits or comments. Sometimes a b/w photo looks better than a normal one though.  Should there be a rule that if you post a b/w photo, you also post an original?  But the site is "ship spotting" which means share your ship pic of how you saw the ship yourself.  So fake, over-enhanced, clearly unrealistic photos shouldn't be welcome, I think.
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: simonwp on September 05, 2015, 08:04:51 PM
Current standard OK
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Captain Ted on September 05, 2015, 08:56:44 PM
current standard for me ok too
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Robbie on September 05, 2015, 11:10:05 PM
I agree with Lappino, there should be no B&W photos if they are taken on a digital camera to gain more attention.

Photoshop or other photo editing software has a lot of capabilities and I think there are a few people who use every single function on their photos before uploading them here. Again just like the last topic in regards to sharpness I think the end result should be quite similar to what you would have seen if you were there shooting the ship yourselves. There is a photo in the top pics today that I think is over enhanced. I could be wrong but i think it is the use of the detailing function (I very rarely use photoshop) and the image looks odd and unrealistic.

Regards Robbie
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Tony des Landes on September 05, 2015, 11:41:43 PM
I think sometimes photos are overcropped so that all we see is one long narrow strip with hardly any sea or sky.

Tony


Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Brent on September 06, 2015, 05:42:29 AM
Agree current standards are fine, but do we need a minimum size for cropped images. And should shots with items such as tugs cloned out be declared?
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Dеnis on September 06, 2015, 11:55:14 AM
I think sometimes photos are overcropped so that all we see is one long narrow strip with hardly any sea or sky.

Tony

I saw not long ago there was a number of overcropped photos where there was barely any sea or sky & the ship was only some 5-10 pixels from the photo frame. It's understandable if one wants to crop out the undesired parts, but if such overcropping is done for attention-grabbing purposes then it's ridiculous.
Should there be a sorta rule that there should be at least some 100p (or a different number) distance between the ship & the frame (from above & below or left & right) ?
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Cornelia Klier on September 06, 2015, 03:26:53 PM
The current standard is o.k.

I think, if a photo is enhanced in such way, that it makes the ship look natural and does not make the colors etc. look in a way, like it never looks in reality, it is o.k.

It is in my opinion ok, to remove seagulls, some things are in the way, as long it is not possible to see this in a photo.

HDR images, I am against them, because they make the photo look un-natural, the sky and ship look like a drawing and not like they do look in reality. It is good, that these photos are not allowed because this is a page for photos and not for "piece of art". and "playground for photo-editing program".

Framing should also not be, just for the ake of making all photos here look the same.

Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Tuomas Romu on September 08, 2015, 09:57:17 AM
I agree with Lappino, there should be no B&W photos if they are taken on a digital camera to gain more attention.

I might be stretching it a bit, but what if the user has a digital camera that can only take black and white photographs? Or, what if the member is taking photographs today using b&w film?
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Glenn Towler on September 09, 2015, 10:53:29 AM
What is wrong with a bit of enhancement ie, cropping a bit off the images, adjusting the light/colour as long as it does not make the image over enhanced?
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Tristin Woolf on September 14, 2015, 02:24:02 AM
GoPros have fisheye lenses which is right now not allowed as it is stated. But I think that GoPro pictures should be allowed even though they have fisheye lenses because GoPro cameras can take amazing photos in places that a normal camera cannot like drones, RC Helicopters, etc.
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Tuomas Romu on September 14, 2015, 03:22:36 AM
Do we really need to allow photographs from consumer-grade drones? I personally have experience from DJI Inspire 1 and in my opinion the 12 Mpix RAW files were not of good enough technical quality for this site.
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: pieter melissen on September 15, 2015, 01:34:04 PM
I agree with Lappino, there should be no B&W photos if they are taken on a digital camera to gain more attention.

I might be stretching it a bit, but what if the user has a digital camera that can only take black and white photographs? Or, what if the member is taking photographs today using b&w film?

The Leica Monochrome takes B&W only, but is horrendously expensive. Today's B&W film is the same as old B&W film ,so this should of course be allowed.

Some other points:

I am in favour of an aspect ratio, to avoid shots with no sky and sea. When HDR becomes recognisable as HDR, it has been wrongly applied, and should be disallowed. Distorted images should not be allowed, unless we have fishes among our member spotters....

I tend to edit out windmills from the background, which are quite prominent in Rotterdam these days. Seagulls are part of the natural environment, and should be left in. Normally you would see them in your viewfinder, so if you don't want them in the picture, wait a little.

Exiv data should not be removed from the posted picture, as it provides others with an option to see how a picture was taken, and possibly to learn from that.

Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Tuomas Romu on September 15, 2015, 02:11:04 PM
Exiv data should not be removed from the posted picture, as it provides others with an option to see how a picture was taken, and possibly to learn from that.

In my opinion, the decision whether or not to include EXIF data in the file should be left to the photographer. If I were not giving out photographs for free, it would be an important tool for me to show that I have the original and own the copyright. Of course, RAW or other digital negative format is just as good for that, equivalent to original film negative.
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: pieter melissen on September 15, 2015, 02:43:42 PM
Exiv data should not be removed from the posted picture, as it provides others with an option to see how a picture was taken, and possibly to learn from that.

In my opinion, the decision whether or not to include EXIF data in the file should be left to the photographer. If I were not giving out photographs for free, it would be an important tool for me to show that I have the original and own the copyright. Of course, RAW or other digital negative format is just as good for that, equivalent to original film negative.

Tuomas, if you post photographs here in full size, you are effectively giving them away for free. Many camaras still produce jpeg sizes that are well within the site limitations. (I have no idea about toys like phones and tablets, but these I do not consider to be cameras in the first place,  :)

You can also choose to resize a photograph, and post it, and you can still leave the EXIF data on there, as you will have the original full size version.
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Tuomas Romu on September 15, 2015, 04:37:55 PM
Tuomas, if you post photographs here in full size, you are effectively giving them away for free.

Well, I was thinking more in legal sense. If you need a proof of copyright, having the originals complete with EXIF data helps. Of course, just having slightly resized versions on the website is also sufficient.
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: lappino on September 15, 2015, 11:24:18 PM
I don't recall seeing the issue of "tilted" photos addressed, but many pictures here on site were not taken on "even keel" - or at least even horizon.

I understand that maybe not everybody will know how to "rotate" the picture in some software, so how about giving the mods the right to do it?
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Tristin Woolf on September 16, 2015, 02:26:32 AM
Here is an example of what I was talking about earlier with helis and go pros.

Credit of photos goes to Denis O'Hara
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Dеnis on October 09, 2015, 08:26:44 PM
I'd say, enhancement is allowed as long as the photo after such doesn't clearly/obviously look overenhanced/unrealistic.

I think someone should post an example here:
1) original photo
2) same photo but enhanced in a way you won't notice it was enhanced (if you haven't seen the original one)
3) same photo, overenhanced that it's obvious to anyone

If a camera has a feature applying which the original photo is already enhanced in some way - it must be in a way it would still look realistic (close as how you would see the same scene in reality).
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: pieter melissen on October 09, 2015, 08:57:27 PM
like this Denis?
1. as from camera (jpeg)
2. slightly enhanced and sharpened
3. overenhanced, looks dramatic, but unnatural.

all shots at 50% of the original
Title: Re: Topic 3: Distortion, enhancement and appearance
Post by: Dеnis on October 09, 2015, 09:13:44 PM
Thanks, Pieter - that's pretty much it: second photo looks much better than original one, but it still looks as if it IS an original; 3rd is where it's obviously too much & it's where a photo admin would begin to question it's acceptance.