My account was blocked

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 5:32 am

Hello. I was blocked to upload pictures on the site, because of cloning at one of my pictures. I do not know what cloning you saw, but you're totally wrong, there's nothing wrong with my picture. We received the email with the following message. Your image YR-FEL shown signs of cloning in the grass which is not acceptable. Please telll me what is cloned here. Please tell me what is wrong there in the grass as you mentioned in the message. I will send you a sceen print with the raw image, see that they are identical and nothing is changed. I ask in this way to block my blocking, to apologize, and upload the images to screening as a priority, because the verification time has arrived. Thank you ...

https://www.airliners.net/user/photo-cor ... to/4356379

And without editing.

airkas1 · Tue May 16, 2017 9:58 am

Original: http://imageshack.com/a/img924/4690/TPlFA0.jpg
Cloning: http://imageshack.com/a/img924/1141/rFGlpG.jpg

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 11:36 am

My friend, is editing, up to dark area, shadows etc. All people increase this settings in lr or ps. Up light in dark area is cloning? OMG...I have other picture rejected for dark, or dark parts, down on the wings, dark corners, and now u tell me this picture is colned. All spotter use different filters for light, shadows, sharpnes, contrast etc.
I'll contact the site administrator and see what he thinks of the situation. If it is, I think you have to delete half of the pictures on the site. Incredible !!!!

airkas1 · Tue May 16, 2017 12:51 pm

It's hard to see on your original (because it's only a screenshot of it), but it seems like grass has been put over part of the curb to cover it. Can you send the original RAW file to airkas1[at]airliners[dot]net? I'll have a better look and I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

speedbored · Tue May 16, 2017 1:04 pm

airkas1 wrote:
It's hard to see on your original (because it's only a screenshot of it), but it seems like grass has been put over part of the curb to cover it. Can you send the original RAW file to airkas1[at]airliners[dot]net? I'll have a better look and I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

From the links you posted in your previous reply, it actually looks to me like the picture has been cropped and the shadow area lightened. At first glance, it looks very different but I personally can't find any detail in the "cloning" image that doesn't appear to also be there, in the same place, in the "original".

airkas1 · Tue May 16, 2017 1:09 pm

I agree and the small size of the original makes it really hard to judge. I'm leaning towards your opinion as well, that's why I would like to have a better look (or even attempt an edit myself). To be absolutely sure.

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 1:12 pm

We have already reported this problem to the leaders, to see what they think about this issue. But my opinion is that you have abused the buttons. It may also cost you the wrong decision. Let's see what's coming out. It's incredible.

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 1:17 pm

speedbored wrote:
airkas1 wrote:
It's hard to see on your original (because it's only a screenshot of it), but it seems like grass has been put over part of the curb to cover it. Can you send the original RAW file to airkas1[at]airliners[dot]net? I'll have a better look and I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
Well, it's normal to be a difference, because the first is edited, with filters applied for light, sharpnes, counter, filters that everyone uses for editing. To say I have covered a curb with grass is incredible, or that it is too luminous and with many details.
From the links you posted in your previous reply, it actually looks to me like the picture has been cropped and the shadow area lightened. At first glance, it looks very different but I personally can't find any detail in the "cloning" image that doesn't appear to also be there, in the same place, in the "original".

Well, it's normal to be a difference, because the first one is edited, with filters applied for light, sharpnes, contrast, filters that everyone uses for editing. To say I have covered a curb with grass is incredible, or that it is too luminous and with many details.

airkas1 · Tue May 16, 2017 1:18 pm

.. Cost me what?

You do know that your contact form ended up in my E-mail inbox, right? And that 'the leaders' are the headscreeners, of which I am part?
I wasn't the one who banned you. I'm trying to help out and am willing to lift the ban if I indeed see nothing wrong. But you also need to understand that I need to be 100% sure of my decision before overturning something like this. So please get me that RAW file, I'll look tonight when I get home and then we can all have this sorted by midnight.

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 1:47 pm

I sent you the mail with the raw image. The problem is that those who are wrong have to apologize to me and take my pictures back because my pictures have already been checked and uploaded to the site or not. I do not like uploading pictures and waiting 7-10 days. Either upload and climb them as a priority.

speedbored · Tue May 16, 2017 1:54 pm

Catalin81 wrote:
We have already reported this problem to the leaders, to see what they think about this issue. But my opinion is that you have abused the buttons. It may also cost you the wrong decision. Let's see what's coming out. It's incredible.

I really think you are being far too harsh on the volunteers who carry out these tasks.

Even though the screeners are screening photos for adherence to the site rules, it is ultimately an opinion, and mistakes can be made. They are spending their own time looking at thousands of submitted pictures so they can't microscopically analyze every single one. At first glance, it does appear as though grass has been cloned in. Having now spent some time really looking at it closely, it does actually appear to just be lightened but I'm still quite surprised at how much lightening has been achieved without losing detail.

If you don't like the initial screening response, a polite request for a review is far more likely to get you the result you want - making threats really isn't going to help your cause.

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 2:09 pm

Because I applied both, light and details with various filters that all consumers use. But to say there is a curb that I covered with grass seems to me aberrant. There is no threat, I just said that I will contact the site administrators to solve the problem if a screener is not able to. Plus I need to be asked what to do with the decision, and the pictures that have been deleted from me, although yesterday and today have to be checked and accepted or not. Now what do I do, load them back and wait for a week or more? Not to find a solution and to upload a set of photos as a priority to fix this mistake.

Miguel1982 · Tue May 16, 2017 2:12 pm

On this lower-resolution version provided it looks like it was no cloning, but really strong lightening. Also I see no real reason to lighten the grass in that irrelevant zone, but that's another discussion altogether.

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 2:18 pm

Miguel1982 wrote:
On this lower-resolution version provided it looks like it was no cloning, but really strong lightening. Also I see no real reason to lighten the grass in that irrelevant zone, but that's another discussion altogether.

I did not apply special grass filters, just for the plane. The problem is that the filters were applied both on the airplane and on the grass or the building, except for the sky, as is normal for everyone, and so it went out for editing. I did not edit the grass especially for the brethren. No light would be the problem, and it is said that there is a curb that I have intentionally covered with grass, and hence cloning the image. Read above and see what I'm talking about.

airkas1 · Tue May 16, 2017 2:50 pm

Catalin81 wrote:
BPlus I need to be asked what to do with the decision, and the pictures that have been deleted from me, although yesterday and today have to be checked and accepted or not. Now what do I do, load them back and wait for a week or more? Not to find a solution and to upload a set of photos as a priority to fix this mistake.

If it turns out to have been a mistake, I will offer an apology on behalf of the screening team. Regarding your photos, the photo in question may be uploaded as priority. Any other photos that were in the normal queue (so not priority/creative) will unfortunately have to be uploaded again without priority.

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 3:19 pm

Well, those pictures have been waiting for the screening period. You did not have to erase them, they had to be blocked on the money. The photos had already been waiting for screening for 7-8 days and had to be done, now that I do, I have to wait for almost 10 days to see that a square head of screener has seen it? Well, let me personally apologize for me. Someone has to pay some for mistakes, so it's everywhere, you pay wrong. Well, let him be suspended from the screener for at least a week to learn to see another date well, and not to make such decisions. Why did not he consult the whole team? Or did he want to highlight it as deleting pictures and banning people on the site?

vikkyvik · Tue May 16, 2017 3:23 pm

Catalin81 wrote:
the filters were applied both on the airplane and on the grass or the building, except for the sky, as is normal for everyone

My understanding is that per A.net rules, you're NOT supposed to apply filters to just one part of the image, with the sole exception of sharpening.

Just sayin'....

Catalin81 wrote:
Someone has to pay some for mistakes, so it's everywhere, you pay wrong. Well, let him be suspended from the screener for at least a week to learn to see another date well, and not to make such decisions. Why did not he consult the whole team? Or did he want to highlight it as deleting pictures and banning people on the site?

You know, if I were a head screener, I'd probably not even bother to take away your ban after all the stuff you're saying.

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 6:22 pm

Well, theoretically applies to everything in the picture, except the sky, as there are controversial problems in the application of the filters. No one applies color filters, contrast, sharpness, etc. Just on the aircraft, apply on the background, except when the aircraft is photographed up in the sky.

Catalin81 · Tue May 16, 2017 6:25 pm

vikkyvik wrote:
You know, if I were a head screener, I'd probably not even bother to take away your ban after all the stuff you're saying.

HA,HA,HA How funny you are

What did I say? That I would appeal to the leadership that unity is wrong against me? And that they make decisions without consulting the entire staff? Well, what did I say? Yes, the mistake is paid, and he may also be withdrawn from screening 1 week later to be more careful not to make mistakes. Everywhere in the world is paid in any field.

G-CIVP · Tue May 16, 2017 8:47 pm

Cloning goes on all the time.

airkas1 · Tue May 16, 2017 10:07 pm

Right, I'm done with my 'investigation' and I doubt you're going to like it.

Your edit: http://imageshack.com/a/img923/4725/uJ7X33.jpg
Our edit: http://imageshack.com/a/img924/3572/Fu3CrM.jpg
Your reprimand history: http://imageshack.com/a/img924/6563/PavIb0.jpg

Putting the photos side by side in 2 different tabs (flicking back and forth), there has definitely been unacceptable editing (cloning) in the bottom left corner, this in addition to the image being overedited in general. Which means that the upload ban will NOT be lifted. Also considering your reprimand history, you should be happy it's not a longer ban, as you should be well aware that this kind of editing.

Finally, Vik has a point; You've been quite rude towards us in this thread, especially for someone who is lying. Consider yourself lucky that I don't extend the ban for that.
Next offense like this will likely result in a much longer ban than just a week.

Catalin81 · Wed May 17, 2017 4:52 am

My friend, I have two different frames, and I probably sent one to the site, and the other one, hence the confusion with the grass. In a closer frame there is no longer a part of the curb, and in the other it appears, but there are different frames, hence the difference, and I have not timis the one up, now I checked myself. How can you say I would have laid the grass intentionally over the curb? Regarding the one you show me, I did not do anything wrong, the helicopter pictures and the traces of the blade area were more obvious in editing, but they also exist in the real picture, there was no cloning of the sky how you thought . Regarding the image with Iar 92 registration 109 is a mistake 22, im miss 23, not problem, we discussed about this by mail. Linked to the two in 2016 and 2015 I do not see what the pictures are about because I do not find those records mentioned there. If you want to be so happy and quiet, you can banish your life and delete all your pictures if that makes you happy. Good luck....

vikkyvik · Wed May 17, 2017 4:55 am

airkas1 wrote:
Right, I'm done with my 'investigation' and I doubt you're going to like it.

Your edit: http://imageshack.com/a/img923/4725/uJ7X33.jpg
Our edit: http://imageshack.com/a/img924/3572/Fu3CrM.jpg
Your reprimand history: http://imageshack.com/a/img924/6563/PavIb0.jpg

Putting the photos side by side in 2 different tabs (flicking back and forth), there has definitely been unacceptable editing (cloning) in the bottom left corner, this in addition to the image being overedited in general.

Kas, those don't appear to be the same photo. There are subtle differences in the perspective and position of some plants/leaves. Looks to me like two different frames.

Most obvious thing is the stalks of tall grass or whatever that are directly below the shadow of the wing on the fuse.

It seems Catalin81 provided you with the incorrect photo.

Catalin81 · Wed May 17, 2017 5:01 am

Check this please. First is a bit up in frame, see disttance up the tail, and second is a bit down and expousure time a bit low and more light. 1/640, and first 1/800, check exif in the right corners.

airkas1 · Wed May 17, 2017 8:38 am

I realized that the photos were not the same when I attempted an edit last night. I asked for some feedback from within the team, but the result wasn't what I had hoped for and it resulted in the above post. So far lesson learned and I will do this myself now. Please send me the correct RAW file this time, I will make my own similar crop edit, judge the 2 photos side-by-side and then make a decision. If you send me the file before 14:00 today, I can still help out. Otherwise it will have to wait until tomorrow.

speedbored · Wed May 17, 2017 8:47 am

vikkyvik wrote:
Kas, those don't appear to be the same photo. There are subtle differences in the perspective and position of some plants/leaves. Looks to me like two different frames.
Most obvious thing is the stalks of tall grass or whatever that are directly below the shadow of the wing on the fuse.

I agree that they do not actually appear to be the same frame. But ...

If you zoom in on the bottom left corner, you can see that a significant amount of vegetation has suddenly appeared at the curb, and that there is some very clear duplication of some of the leaf patterns (e.g. a sort of green diamond shape with a dark centre appears 3 times, and at the RHS of the remaining piece of curb, there is a black/white patch which is clearly duplicated. I think Airkas is right - there does appear to be cloning.

Miguel1982 · Wed May 17, 2017 9:19 am

Even though those aren't the same frame I fail to see how such a minor change in perspective has achieved that most of the curb is now covered with vegetation. Not to mention the repetitive patterns that speedbored pointed out.

Catalin81 · Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am

airkas1 wrote:
I realized that the photos were not the same when I attempted an edit last night. I asked for some feedback from within the team, but the result wasn't what I had hoped for and it resulted in the above post. So far lesson learned and I will do this myself now. Please send me the correct RAW file this time, I will make my own similar crop edit, judge the 2 photos side-by-side and then make a decision. If you send me the file before 14:00 today, I can still help out. Otherwise it will have to wait until tomorrow.

Have you not even cleared the problem yet? It is obvious that in the first phase I sent you the next frame of what I was going to on the site, and hence the differences. I have put both of your raw materials at your disposal now, zooming on the problem area and the whole frame. What do you want ? Do not say that you do not even see that I do not believe you, the image has over 1200 px. Why should I give you that image to edit it? Well, do you think you know what settings I used for editing and what filters?

Catalin81 · Wed May 17, 2017 9:40 am

Miguel1982 wrote:
Even though those aren't the same frame I fail to see how such a minor change in perspective has achieved that most of the curb is now covered with vegetation. Not to mention the repetitive patterns that speedbored pointed out.

My fiend, nothing covered, a portion of the curb is covered, and another, not in a picture was a different angle and does not appear the grassless side, and the other without the grass. Probably from here, and the tendency to believe that where you can not see the uncovered curb you think I put the grass there over it. It's aberrant to believe that. If you do not see these two frames, it can tell you a much wider frame.

airkas1 · Wed May 17, 2017 9:51 am

Catalin81 wrote:
What do you want ?

airkas1 wrote:
Please send me the correct RAW file this time, I will make my own similar crop edit, judge the 2 photos side-by-side and then make a decision. If you send me the file before 14:00 today, I can still help out. Otherwise it will have to wait until tomorrow.

Catalin81 · Wed May 17, 2017 10:22 am

Tell me the number picture rejected. DSCO 9669 or 9670 ?
On the old site I could see no. From that image, now I see it does not appear anymore, but I do not know exactly what you want, and I do not know which one was edited and uploaded to the site.

airkas1 · Wed May 17, 2017 10:23 am

9670 was the wrong file, so I think it should be 9669 then?

Catalin81 · Wed May 17, 2017 10:29 am

I say we were complicated, the image is obvious, and it was not modified, only after the crop was cut off from the grass, and the side of the curb is seen a bit, and the other is below, caught And the unspoiled corner, and here the impression that the edited picture was covered with the grass curtain intentionally. Do not you really realize it would be a pity to think about it when I know it was no problem? The light side is from editing and the filters that have been applied. The extractor filter even illuminates and gives contrast and sharpness, plus three more filters used with various settings. I say that the screener who made this decision without consulting was rushing to stand out blocking users on the forum to show that he is a great screener, but he was miserably cheated. The same filters have been using them for all the pictures for a while, and they have no trouble seeing them anymore, now they may be drinking or tired

but rushed to block me and to create these discussions. Why do not you go here to talk to tell me what he or she thinks maybe now is clearer to my mind, it seems to me normal, but his silence is not normal, and someone else can handle a problem he creates. It would be good to look, and now see and admit it was wrong, but it does not, and it's not normal.
If I had changed the plane I would have said it, but saying that I put the grass over a curb is aberrant. To be ashamed !!!

Catalin81 · Wed May 17, 2017 10:31 am

airkas1 wrote:
9670 was the wrong file, so I think it should be 9669 then?

OK.

airkas1 · Wed May 17, 2017 11:18 am

Your edit: http://imageshack.com/a/img922/9238/J5qAsS.jpg
My edit: http://imageshack.com/a/img923/2830/tcPHti.jpg

As you can see, I was able to pretty much reproduce your photo. But in my edit, there remains a border in the bottom left corner. In your photo, there is no border. Opening both photos in a different tab and then flicking back and forth between them, the difference is obvious. So it does like you cloned vegetation there to eliminate the border. As a result, the ban will not be lifted.

/case closed

Catalin81 · Wed May 17, 2017 11:48 am

Thanks a lot..... Add more time please. Maybe it would be better to ban me permanently and delete all the pictures and it will be better for you.

vikkyvik · Wed May 17, 2017 2:36 pm

airkas1 wrote:
So it does like you cloned vegetation there to eliminate the border.

What a silly reason to clone, when the crop could have been adjusted by just a small amount.

Catalin81 wrote:
Thanks a lot..... Add more time please.

So you admit that you cloned, finally? Why not just admit it at the beginning and save a lot of time?

My account was blocked

My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Re: My account was blocked

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net