British Airways Boeing 747-400 G-CIVK
Image ID: 168773
Operator: British Airways - G-CIVK
Aircraft: Boeing - 747-400
Airport: India - Bangalore - Bengaluru Intl (BLR / VOBL)
Category: Main database
Photo taken on 2010-11-21 by Praneeth Franklin [Contact]
EXIF information is not available.
(23.11.2011, 18:13 CET)
Photo is not for sale or other commercial use.
1 Darryl Morrell
(23 November 2011 - 18:33 CET)
With all due respect it looks way too over the top,
2 Paul Nichols
(23 November 2011 - 20:00 CET)
I have to agree with Darryl, I'm not quite sure what such unrealistic and aggressive processing adds to the image. Admittedly it's all personal opinion, but I think everything you do in editing should be done for a reason and it's that reason I'm not quite seeing here.
(23 November 2011 - 20:27 CET)
I actually quite like it, it's certainly different, each to their own I suppose.
4 Darryl Morrell
(23 November 2011 - 21:25 CET)
Its not creative photography, just creative photoshop!!
(23 November 2011 - 21:54 CET)
As I said, each to their own.
(23 November 2011 - 22:20 CET)
This is a 'point n shoot' image from a backup camera that I carry along with my SLR. The image was back-lit, but I felt that it had a bit of potential. So I went for it. Also, the image is not photoshopped. In fact, I don't have photoshop. I used a simple photo editing software called photoscape for colour filtering it and I tone mapped the image just a tad bit. Now with that being said, I also want to say that I'm not really a big fan of this kinda processing, but I go for it every now and then. It would be silly to fill up my portfolio with over-processed D-SLR images, but I play around with my point n shoot images and that's that.
7 Paul Nichols
(23 November 2011 - 23:17 CET)
The kind of camera it came from isn't really relevant, there are plenty of photographers getting stunning results from very low end cameras because what they do is artistic and meaningful. Again, it's the meaning of why you chose to edit like this I'm missing. It just doesn't seem to add anything to the image. Naturally, as previously said it's all personal opinion but I'm still a big fan of the motives for such a high level of processing being obvious, and they're really not obvious here. If an image is inherently low in quality when you take it then nothing you do in post-processing will change that; in fact if anything such massive processing detracts from what was there in the first place. Again, to emphasise, it's all personal opinion but if you're trying to approach this from an artistic point of view then there should really be a reason for what you've done beyond simply trying to cover up a poor quality original image.
(24 November 2011 - 09:51 CET)
I would like to correct you there; a low quality image, with the right amount of processing, CAN be turned around. Also, when it comes to aviation photograph, the camera up to some extent, matters. Now what that means is if something that would normally go into the database unnoticed, HAS created some amount of aesthetic appeal, then the work that went into it was absolutely worth it - not to mention where the image came from. Now, there IS a line drawn. Pushing it to a point where it would look like nothing more than a drawing is a failure, but if one can create something with the awareness of the amount of processing that goes into it, then that IS quite significant.. but then, that's just me. Back-lit subject - right amount of processing - you get something. (Not for every image. Worked for this one).. not just a cover-up at all.
(24 November 2011 - 10:56 CET)
So who accepted this pic?
10 Paul Nichols
(24 November 2011 - 11:49 CET)
I'm sorry but you're simply wrong (and this isn't personal opinion, it's a straightforward fact). You haven't increased quality here, you've merely hidden flaws that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Quality is either there in an image or it isn't, it has to be there when you press the shutter release and it can't be 'added' afterwards in processing. Any experienced professional photographer will tell you exactly the same. Process your images this way by all means; it's your right to do so, but you'd benefit from a greater understanding a few fundamental principles in photography, namely what quality actually is. Aesthetics and quality aren't the same. Technical quality isn't based on opinion, aesthetics are, and incidentally this processing hasn't given this image any aesthetic appeal at all to me. In fact it's completely ruined it because it's ostensibly been done without reason other than to hide flaws, which should NEVER be the motivation for applying a certain kind of processing to an image (if you didn't nail it, bin the photo and take it again). Please don't take any of this personally; it isn't intended as such, but when you post images on the net you do open yourself up to wider opinions. :)
11 Wallace Shackleton
(18 February 2014 - 14:34 CET)
Personally I do not like seeing poorly made tone mapped images. However there is no one right way to make a photo and though it may offend the purists like myself, we do have to accept that a photographer sees the image the way they want to and not how the general population expects a photo to look like.
Certainly this image has generated more correspondence the the thousands of conventional images on the database.
Tolerate others styles.