QE2 Leaving Liverpool

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wirral Tog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah I'm expecting one of the passengers to call me next week and call me a cheater.
 
petemc said:
Yeah I'm expecting one of the passengers to call me next week and call me a cheater.
Click to expand...

At least we know how level the playing field is now:thumbs: If you cheat and get away with it it's ok:thumbsdown:
 
Do people really not get that there's a difference between adding content to a photo something like exposure blending? Seriously? Wirral Tog's photo never happened. Those fireworks where never there. Mine happened, just my camera is limited by a contrast ratio so it couldn't handle the two different light sources. I blended two exposure together to compensate for that. No-one is going to look at mine and say "Those fireworks weren't there!" or tell me off for adding a QE2 shaped QE2 into a firework shot :p Oh and by the way I fully admitted what I did fully knowing that people here would have a go at me for what I said here. However I know that there is a difference so I was ok with it. If I wanted to cheat and get away with it I probably shouldn't have posted the photo and discussed the technique.
 
hypnotic said:
I quite like this shot ... Even with extra firework(s) ... :shrug:

On a less serious note I agree I thought it was a cracker.;)

My Father was a photographer and had his own darkroom.He would spend hours putting Brides and Grooms in Brandy glasses,or the couple looking at themselves.So its been happening for years.To each his own
Click to expand...
 
My Take is...
If the QE2 had been shown docking somewhere other than Liverpool (in this case) then thats changing history for me. Adding fireworks is as serious as you Pete making HDR's, as my eyes dont see those tones you produce.

Dave

PS Pizza is Pisa:lol:
 
I appreciate the tower is lop sided anyway, but the horizontals are way out on that second pic...look at the harbour wall.
A bit sloppy in my opinion

;)
 
Wirral Tog said:
petemc said:
O rly? So if I put a flying Delorean into my photos everyone would be ok with that? If I put another QE2 in there that'd be ok? Can't have enough QE2's. Maybe some dolphins, a whale, the leaning tower of PizzaQUOTE]

Strange you mention that Pete

As it happens i just caught the QE2 arriving and low and behold there where the dolphins, cheerleaders and that lob sided tower you mentioned.

qe2fake.jpg


:D

Please dont shoot Pete folks he's just miffed because i almost got the shot :woot:

:thumbs: No hard feelings hey
Click to expand...

Where is the DeLorean?:)
Click to expand...
 
"The world in binary" - By Pete MC :bang:
 
"People who don't seem to get it" - By neo2810 :p Next!
 
Where is the Dolorean?....Delorean

Sorry it was a bit late Pete borrowed it and tried to go back in time to see if he could get out of this awful mess:D

That is actually me sitting in it (no ps by the way)

qe2fake2.jpg
 
pete.jpg


^^^ :lol: Never noticed that before
 
Hats off to Wirral tog IMHO. What he did is no different to people swapping out blown skies etc. :lol:

Oh, and hats off to Marcel too! :thumbs:

As for pete... I'm putting it down to the dizzyness from his flight :D
 
I demand petemc and wirral_tog go on a liverpool shoot together!

PPV event!
 
Welcome to the forums Wirral Tog....you seem to be able to hold your own so I think you'll do just nicely around here :)
 
fstopeleven said:
I demand petemc and wirral_tog go on a liverpool shoot together!

PPV event!
Click to expand...

How about it Pete although i would insist its a Wirral shoot


"Welcome to the forums Wirral Tog....you seem to be able to hold your own so I think you'll do just nicely around here "

Thanks m8
 
How about an hour on the Wirral...an hour in Liverpool....and no PP :p
 
I do live on Wirral but I'm a little too busy with work. Anyway, it would be pointless since it seems everyone agrees with you anyway.
 
You watch. Wirral_tog will turn out to be Petes younger brother or something in a shocking twist of sibling rivalry.
 
I'd hate to think that Pete was taking all the flak in this debate, or that he was in a minority in the "manipulation" debate.

He wasn't the only person to use provocative language in this thread, and I felt that some of it was aimed at me too! That's why I kept my head down.

I'd still like to think that photography has some value as a documentary medium, and the ability of people to add extra elements, willy nilly, into a picture, to make it look better, worries me.

I know it was always done in the darkroom as well, but now it can so easily be done and by so many people.

We all do our best to make a picture as good as it possibly can be, using various methods. But dropping some extra fireworks into the sky, for example, is a trivial example of going too far. If photography is meant to be fun, then fine, but if it has a greater value than that , where do you draw the line?

The example of Frank Hurley and his Antarctic photographs mentioned by one poster is relevant here. To me it was shocking that it was done, and done so well, so long ago (and almost fraudulent).

So there are my thoughts, for what its worth.
 
I think this 'where to draw the line' is down to how YOU see photography. If you see it as a tool to document something as it is then fair enough you wouldn't want to add anything to your shots. If on the other hand you see photography as using a camera to create a pleasing image then maybe that line is a lot further for what you can do to create you own end.

Not saying these two can't be combined and that someone is either one or the other. For me personally I take photos of things that I think look nice, I then might spend a while making them look "how I want" which might not be how they were. Is this not photography? maybe not in some peoples books - sure is in mine though :D

And just for good measure, one of my 'fakes' from a few years ago :p
 
as far as I am concerned on the matter I have this to say.
If one person wants to photograph something and process it without adding elements then that is obviously a photograph.
Then if another person wants to shoot something and process that but then adds or rather clones in additional elements then that is also a photograph but should be noted as a manipulated photograph, or clearly states the image has manipulation.

You can argue this on both points. Wirral_Tog has not done anything wrong, just done something a little differently.

Peters argument is that you cannot call that a documented event when other elements have appeared. If Liverpool council was to view this image for use they might wonder who has fired a unauthorised firework from say the Liver Building.

The only reason this is making 4 pages is because its a matter of context and attitudes on the arguments.
This was already settled pages ago with a private understanding.
 
jerry12953 said:
I know it was always done in the darkroom as well, but now it can so easily be done and by so many people.
Click to expand...

As can photography in general...in previous decades it wasn't available to as much of the population as it is today...

I can't agree more regarding the documentation. If it was to document the event in a professional capacity then it would be wrong, but for his own amusement I see no wrong at all, he didn't try and fob us all off with the aim to pass it off as real did he?

You mention trivial...and I think this debate (read: argument) is a bit trivial too, if someone doesn't like it, then fine, make your point and leave the thread, or leave no point at all. If every HDR hater popped up in Pete's threads, they'd be the longest threads on TP!! There are numerous threads derailed daily by arguments of the rights and wrongs, which should, if so important, have threads of their own.

I'm disappointed such harsh language has been used by a few members, perhaps Pete could have been a little more subtle or friendly, especially to a newcomer who doesn't necessarily know the ins and outs of TP....but I'm not going to start any further discussion on that!

Ps. No purpose intention to metion you twice Pete, just the foremost examples that popped into mind!
 
purpleclouds said:
...he didn't try and fob us all off with the aim to pass it off as real did he?
Click to expand...

He never stated he'd added them to start with so I'd say he tried to. This is after all TalkPhotography, a forum for photographers and not digital artists.

purpleclouds said:
I'm disappointed such harsh language has been used by a few members...
Click to expand...

I used harsh language? I never swore. Saying its cheating is harsh language now? Would people lighten up? Read the first page and you'll see I even used smilies.

fstopeleven said:
The only reason this is making 4 pages is because its a matter of context and attitudes on the arguments.
This was already settled pages ago with a private understanding.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Afaik there is no issue between Wirral_Tog and I. For people to go on about rivalry, me being too harsh, bad treatment of a new member, and the general sacrificing of cute and innocent puppies and kittens to the God that gives me almighty power of HDR is just silly. Wirral_Tog seems ok, he's having a laugh with us and has said he's sticking around. If theres any issue here it should be with the image and thats it. No-one is offering any critique now, just finger wagging. Offer some critique instead.

The main problem with the image is that the fireworks, the real ones :p, are over-exposed and the skyline is under-exposed. I experienced the same problem last year when the QE2 came in. You need a wide enough angle to get things into the frame too and because of that the ship gets a bit lost against the skyline. You could fix that with a filter to darken the fireworks and bring out more detail in the ship. That was my plan till it fell into the Mersey :D A higher ISO would have helped make the ship look less blurred but she didn't really move until after the fireworks so you should have been fine. Unfortunately there won't be a next time, but there are other ships coming in so there might be another ship to shoot with fireworks.
 
petemc said:
He never stated he'd added them to start with so I'd say he tried to. This is after all TalkPhotography, a forum for photographers and not digital artists.
Click to expand...

Like I said....as a newcomer he probably wasn't aware of the ins and outs...the point was made by yourself, then everyone else decided to chip in..it railroaded out of control, which brings me on to.....

petemc said:
I used harsh language? I never swore. Saying its cheating is harsh language now? Would people lighten up? Read the first page and you'll see I even used smilies.
Click to expand...

Harsh, was perhaps a little harsh a word to use :p

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular but the general consensus was that it was a bad thing he had done....if anyone has a problem with manipulation then leave it for its own thread (it's a big enough subject to deserve one)....as we have seen it derails threads put up for critique. He openly asked for info on how to improve the photographic side of things and nothing more.

That's all I was getting at!
 
I dunno. I thought the general consensus was that I'd been a bad bad boy and that this level of digital manipulation was ok :)
 
I must have misread a few posts then ;) More cheerleaders should sort that out.
 
petemc said:
"People who don't seem to get it" - By neo2810 :p Next!
Click to expand...

Nice try... but I get it, I just don't care enough :D

For what it's worth, I partly agree with both side of this agrument but i think it's one of those which will go on endlessly until someone drops a few pills into the teapot and everyone then agrees that the pink wings on the QE2 are a lovely addition.
 
neo2810 said:
For what it's worth, I partly agree with both side of this agrument but i think it's one of those which will go on endlessly until someone drops a few pills into the teapot and everyone then agrees that the pink wings on the QE2 are a lovely addition.
Click to expand...

lol, I think you've summed everything up in one nice sentence :)
 
petemc said:
He never stated he'd added them to start with so I'd say he tried to.
Click to expand...

He shouldnt have to explicitly state that he's added something to the shot, and I certainly don't want that becoming a 'requirement' as the norm.

If he had stated that this was exactly how it had happened, and no manipulation was done, then that would be wrong.
There are dozens of manipulated images on here every day, and theyre ALL part of the encompassing word that is photography.

YOU see photography as unmanipulated (or to be precise...manipulated, but only if its something that was there at the time, and its ok to manipulate it to make it look different to what was seen as long as you dont add anything extra or take anything away even if you're blending different exposures)

However, others don't.
Photography includes both the purists like yourself, and the creatives like others. It's ALL photography, and its ALL welcome on here, and people shouldn't have to explain themselves everytime they add something to an image, just to satisfy the purists.

Just like the purists shouldn't have to explain why they didn't add something that would make the image better.

I'm sorry Pete but you mentioned nothing of the overexposure of the fireworks, you steamed right in and said they shouldn't be there.

It all boils down to intolerance. You wouldn't do it, so you seem to have to tell others they wouldn't do it too, that's why this has blown up into a 4 pager ;) If you were more tolerant of others, and maybe said "I personally don't like adding elements into images that weren't in the original exposure, so this has ruined it for me. You've also forgotten that the 'extra' fireworks also need reflections ;)"

See? Much better. So yes, you have been a bad boy ;) and this *amount* of digital manipulation is fine, if the OP feels it is.

So I agree with both sides of the argument, photography is a personal preference, but once you start becoming intolerant of others then that's over the line IMO.
 
Chappers said:
Just shows how easy it is for things to get out of control in Forums. There are no visual clues as to the posters attitude. A word typed is not the same as a word said. Sometimes these things get out of control when no real hurt is intended.

Just shows how important the visual world is
Click to expand...

Pete time and time again falls foul of the forum as a result of his words being taken out of context. He lacks tact, but is not trying to hurt or upset anyone.

For the record, building a photo from several different images, whilst fine if you want to do it, does not sit right with me. I don't even like to clone things out. I hear that some people keep libraries of "sky" to use, and I really don't think I could consider that part photography.

Wirral tog, stick around and trust me when I say, Pete meant no harm. He's a good guy who sometimes comes across the wrong way.

Gary.


Gary.
 
Ha ha ha ha ha.

I agree with both sides to an extent but for pete to go off the way he did then the above link to be posted you just don't get any more busted than that.

Pete you should hold your head in shame.
 
Marcel said:
He shouldnt have to explicitly state that he's added something to the shot, and I certainly don't want that becoming a 'requirement' as the norm.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone said he had to. It was asked whether he tried to pass it off and I felt that since he didn't say he had added them and since this is a photography forum not a digital manipulation forum that people would accept it as a straight image. So by saying the settings used but not that he added 2 fireworks seems to hint that he wanted it to be accepted as a simple photograph.

I'm sorry Pete but you mentioned nothing of the overexposure of the fireworks, you steamed right in and said they shouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

I jumped right in and questioned why they were there. There's a difference. Do we really have to continue discussing me now? Wirral_Tog is ok, I've offered critique and I've apologised via a PM asking him to stay. Start up another thread on tolerance, hdr and I really don't care but even start a poll asking whether I should be banned or not. I'm sorry but this is just getting beyond the joke.


purpleclouds said:
Busted :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh noes! Should I list the other ones I've mirrored too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top