Why my account wass banned, an remuve picture in the que ? What is here cloned? In this location, nothing obstuction for plane pass. OMG !!!!! Is INCREDIBILE !! Im waiting apologies, and repose all mi picture in a que. Look here original raw without editing.

Hello Lin,
According to this one it seems ok. Would u please show us the photo that you get rejected ? Also i don't think this one need to remove anything.

Cheers,
Harry

This is a reject picture. Im cloned concrete and grass, this is a mesages. "Your image of EI-ENH has signs of cloning in the tarmac/grass"
Is INCREDIBILE !!! OMG !!!
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 48bb3589ae

Catalin81 wrote:

Im cloned concrete and grass

Are you saying you did clone grass & tarmac?

The rejected image you linked does show what looks like clear signs of cloning along the lower edge of the tarmac.

Last time a screenshot of your RAW file proved to be worthless. Heck, the actual RAW file even proved you guilty! So you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe you right away.

If you send me the RAW file, I will have a look when I have time. You have my E-mail.

Also, talking about waiting for apologies, I'm still waiting on yours for wasting my time on your previous case: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1363259

scbriml wrote:

Catalin81 wrote:

Im cloned concrete and grass

Are you saying you did clone grass & tarmac?

The rejected image you linked does show what looks like clear signs of cloning along the lower edge of the tarmac.

What? I do not think you see good sir

airkas1 wrote:

If you send me the RAW file, I will have a look when I have time. You have my E-mail.

U have email.

Catalin81 wrote:

What? I do not think you see good sir

I see just fine, thank you.

The rejected image that you linked shows clear signs of what looks like cloning. If I remember correctly, you've been banned for this before? Given that, it's not unreasonable to think that what looks like cloning, might actually be cloning.

scbriml wrote:

Catalin81 wrote:

What? I do not think you see good sir

I see just fine, thank you.

The rejected image that you linked shows clear signs of what looks like cloning. If I remember correctly, you've been banned for this before? Given that, it's not unreasonable to think that what looks like cloning, might actually be cloning.

I advise you to put on your glasses, or if you change them, they are no longer good. How can you say I edited the edge of the concrete? For what ? As long as I have no obstacle. You probably have this impression from the applied editing filters. How can you say that I modified the cement or the grass is aberrant. Probably that screener says I put concrete there, though it was grass, or vice versa. Be serious ... It's a groolan aberration to say that. And if you do not believe it, look and see that I have enough pictures posted from this location, and you may find that I have poured concrete over grass in my pc, or I put turf on the asphalt.

Look here. Here is a ground in this picture see that ?
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Wizz-Air ... /4292597/L

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair/ ... /4273951/L

And here im planted grass in photoshop, see that clone ?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair/ ... /4419631/L

Here im planted more lot of grass and many, many more like this with clone.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army ... /4446555/L

https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army ... /4446551/L

Could you please finally start to be polite & respectful towards other members? Instead of telling them they are blind and need to put on glasses and publicly asking for other shots to be deleted and so on.

You open this thread as you are looking for feedback, so please accept feedback can go either way. Let's stay to the facts, you've been caught cloning before, so it is imaginable that you did it again. Personally I can't tell from the low resolution files provided here. Perhaps in this case the ban is even unjustified, but why not open a normal, respectful discussion about it? No need to be rude just because someone doesn't share your opinion.

You treat us like fools (just see the last thread that Kas linked) and I don't get what you are trying to show us with the links provided. Anyway to top it off, you are speaking about apologies, the only one that should be apologising after all is you (towards the community and especially towards the crew), this rude behaviour is really inappropriate.

Dragomir, be respectful to others. I should not have to tell you that.

Your editing filters have also caused problems in the past, so perhaps it's time to evaluate your editing workflow if it does not turn out to be cloning.

Catalin81 wrote:

You probably have this impression from the applied editing filters. How can you say that I modified the cement or the grass is aberrant.

Please explain what filters you've applied that would cause grass to look 'fragmented' and produce strangely blurred/smeary areas on the concrete. If your post-processing is causing that, then explain how it only appears there and not all over the frame?

Your behaviour in relation to this rejection is EXACTLY the same as the last time you were banned for cloning. Just saying.

I have nothing to change to my editing mode, because the same filters apply them to all the images I've uploaded for some time, and I see some of you do not find any problems like that. I have just put the above examples, and I have shown that there are no problems in this case, and I was ironic that we planted the grass over the cement, or we seeded the grass over the cement. I have every reason to be upset, I will never accept it. Just because I wait for 15 days to check my images to be deleted because a screener does not see well, as proof and other images that I was aberrantly rejected, to which I made the appeal, and were accepted. I say you try to find a more competent team, and not to grossly abuse those buttons, to see if there is a shame at a good image to be changed. Appeals and later acceptance must give you some thought. What am I doing now with the images I had 13-15 days on hold? Will i wait again this time? No, I find it difficult to remember what pictures I had loaded, not to mention that 4-5 were already at the top of the list. How do you pay for these abuses to be proved? I'm the only one paying for a lot of work and time to take some pictures again. What if you were in my place? Did you think about that? I think not, to see that it's even frustrating when you see such aberrations.

scbriml wrote:

Catalin81 wrote:

You probably have this impression from the applied editing filters. How can you say that I modified the cement or the grass is aberrant.

Please explain what filters you've applied that would cause grass to look 'fragmented' and produce strangely blurred/smeary areas on the concrete. If your post-processing is causing that, then explain how it only appears there and not all over the frame?

Your behaviour in relation to this rejection is EXACTLY the same as the last time you were banned for cloning. Just saying.

I still do not understand exactly what seems suspicious to you in this picture? Apply the same filters I use to edit all the spotters, nothing out of the ordinary. Check the photos from the link displayed, and there are others on my uploaded page. As I said in the examples, I put the grass over the concrete, or I put cement over the grass. Check to see "cloning"

Catalin81 wrote:

I still do not understand exactly what seems suspicious to you in this picture?

I've explained what looks suspicious - there are some very 'odd' looking bits of grass and blurry/smeared areas on the tarmac/concrete. I used to be a screener and if a colleague referred that image to me for a second opinion, I would be in agreement that it does look like cloning.

Catalin81 wrote:

Apply the same filters I use to edit all the spotters, nothing out of the ordinary.

Why can't you simply explain what filters you have applied? I'm struggling to understand what filters you could have applied that would result in the effects I'm seeing in the image and only in a small band across the image.

Catalin81 wrote:

Check the photos from the link displayed, and there are others on my uploaded page.

We're not discussing those pictures, just the one the screeners have banned you for.

Catalin81 wrote:

I have nothing to change to my editing mode, because the same filters apply them to all the images I've uploaded for some time, and I see some of you do not find any problems like that. I have just put the above examples, and I have shown that there are no problems in this case, and I was ironic that we planted the grass over the cement, or we seeded the grass over the cement. I have every reason to be upset, I will never accept it. Just because I wait for 15 days to check my images to be deleted because a screener does not see well, as proof and other images that I was aberrantly rejected, to which I made the appeal, and were accepted. I say you try to find a more competent team, and not to grossly abuse those buttons, to see if there is a shame at a good image to be changed. Appeals and later acceptance must give you some thought. What am I doing now with the images I had 13-15 days on hold? Will i wait again this time? No, I find it difficult to remember what pictures I had loaded, not to mention that 4-5 were already at the top of the list. How do you pay for these abuses to be proved? I'm the only one paying for a lot of work and time to take some pictures again. What if you were in my place? Did you think about that? I think not, to see that it's even frustrating when you see such aberrations.

Are you basically saying the screening team is incompetent and "abusing the buttons"?

The aim of this thread was to prove that a ban against you is unjustified, right?

I mean no matter the cloning or not issue, but your behaviour remains very rude and lacks any kind of respect, that initself justifies any ban.
There a certain rules of conduct, being dissapointed or not.

As part of the team, I feel insulted by your message. And by the fact that you basically opened the same thread a month ago, claiming enormous injustice and then basically dissapearing once you were proved wrong. Something that of course you knew from the very beginning.

Don't you think that if your allegations were true, we would see a lot of this kind of posts in the forum, and yet we don't?

scbriml wrote:

Why can't you simply explain what filters you have applied? I'm struggling to understand what filters you could have applied that would result in the effects I'm seeing in the image and only in a small band across the image.

I do not have to give any explanation how I edit my photos. The procedures I follow are found in web tutorials, which you all know, nothing different. I still do not understand what is not clear. Check the raw and you will see that they are the same. It is clear in raw that I have nothing to hide in this picture, because I have no obstacle. If you do not know how to work with cameras, do not ignore it anymore. Some topics may be unclear depending on the situation. If you check the prince with the raw image, you will see that I used a diaphragm greater than 6.3, the one in the dim light, as in this case was a later hour, there is also the sense of blurring in some parts, and With editing, those areas were more detailed with the clarity of applying contrast filters, clarity, sharpness, etc.
I gave you examples with other images from that angle, and I have a few, you find them on my page, and check and see if I put the grass over cement or cement over the grass. Please even check and tell me that all of these are cloned, just as I say in the examples given above.

Catalin81 wrote:

I do not have to give any explanation how I edit my photos.

No you don't, but you're the one coming here looking for explanations as to why you've been banned. You don't seem prepared to accept help offered in good faith.

Just as in the previous case, all we get from you is rudeness and insults, outraged indignation, obfuscation and a refusal to plainly answer perfectly reasonable questions.

Catalin81 wrote:

I still do not understand what is not clear.

I've explained twice what I can see in the linked image. It looks like very typical cloning. If it isn't cloning, then we would need to understand exactly how you've edited the image to arrive at the end result.

Catalin81 wrote:

Check the raw and you will see that they are the same.

I don't have the raw file and your Photoshop screenshot is of no use whatsoever.

Well, it's pretty big if you hit him. I'll read the part that explains to you about the low-light photography scene with f-8 diaphragms and longer exposure times. If you do not know these details, please ask questions on the forum about these things. I have no reason to explain how to edit, or to say what filters are used. I said, there are filter-specific editors, so what other photographers use to highlight contrast, light, better clarity, etc. In the raw it is clear that the same edges you are talking about are the same as those in the edited image, nothing changed, covered with grass or concrete as you say or in the screener message, the raw state was very clear there was nothing to hide . Simply areas are more marked after editing, and some parts in the background can be blinked sometime due to the aperture, or moved due to longer exposure times. If you know how it works, you can deduce from the settings that what I say is true, I can see quite clearly in that print.

explains to you about the low-light photography scene with f-8 diaphragms and longer exposure times. If you do not know these details, please ask questions on the forum about these things

Dude - you are not making any sense. The image you have shown was taken at f/6.3 and 1/200. There is nothing 'longer exposure' about it.

You get asked a simple question (multiple times) and then reply with some nonsensical response - avoiding the actual (direct) question. How can you possibly expect to be treated fairly when you aren't even willing to do the same for others? You seem to be more interested in attacking the opinions of others, rather than solving the issue you started a thread about.

Personally, I can't tell if you have cloned anything, the image you have posted is much too small to make such analysis. But, your image is horrible dark, and you should spend some time learning how to properly expose a photo.

First of all, i think you should have a good attitude when you ask help or opinions from others. It is important to have a polite manner . According to the above message ... your attitude seems not so good.

Regarding to your photos which has rejected for Cloning. The grass indeed seems pretty odd i can't 100% you have clone something there as the size of that photo is too small it is hard to judge actually. But it is indeed makes people feel odd and wired so it makes screeners and Head Screeners suspect this one has used cloning. Well, as you say you have already sent the RAW File to Kas and let him help u to have a look . So we can wait for his reply as he has the original big photo .
But according to last time .... you have spent so much time to talk the problem finally you admitted it don't you think you have spent their too much time ? It is not necessary to do it if you did it. I don't know the result of this, if the result says screeners are right ...so you wast their time again. Thus, according to the Apologies Problem.. i think you should give it to them first as they have spent so much to to your case last time.

Let's go back to your photo which has rejected with cloning.
First of all, except for the cloning problem, i think there are some other problems.This one seems pretty dark which means that it lacks exposure.
Besides, the whole aircraft is too low in frame i think. The space of the sky is much bigger than the ground. It is pretty easy to see.

In addition, you have mentioned the long period exposure. Well, i don't see this effect in your photos. According to your photo EXIF information, we can know that you used f/6.3 and 1/200 also with ISO 200. This data tells us that this is not a Long exposure photo. We also know what is the long exposure photo looks like so it is not necessary for you to mention this.

Finally, please , please ,please respect to everyone who gives you his opinions here. It is very very very important.

clickhappy wrote:

Dude - you are not making any sense. The image you have shown was taken at f/6.3 and 1/200. There is nothing 'longer exposure' about it.
Personally, I can't tell if you have cloned anything, the image you have posted is much too small to make such analysis. But, your image is horrible dark, and you should spend some time learning how to properly expose a photo.

Dude at 1/200 and that diaphragm, it is enough for the background to come out a bit or some blued parts. What you understand prints with low exposure, only 1/2 sec. ? You're a big dude. Good to teach you how to expose the pictures. I can not afford to pose with 1/50 to have the perfect focus and f8 diaphragm that I can not afford the equipment I have. I say that you keep your opinions about the photos for you. No one asked you if it is horrible or not. I say you can see your dude.

f/8 creates sufficient depth of field that, given the composure (and I use that term lightly) of your image everything would be in focus. It sounds like you are trying to describe bokeh, which has zero bearing on this discussion.

Maybe it is a language barrier, but your understanding of basic photography skills, at least as described in your English, is woeful.

Your reply is a perfect example of the Hamlet quote, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Your edit: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 48bb3589ae
My edit: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v104/ ... 8367-2.jpg

Based on the above, I don't see any obvious cloning, so I have lifted your ban.
HOWEVER (!!!), it looks very HDR-like, which is not allowed either. So I don't know what 'filters' you use, I strongly suggest that you stop using them.
If you continue to use them, I can't guarantee that you won't receive another unrightful ban and next time I may be tired of investing the time to research it just because you have a poor editing technique. Sorry for being so blunt, but it has to be said. The image is quite marginal (besides HDR).

Dear friend, these filters use them for all the photos that have been uploaded for some time, and I see there are no problems, but there is also one that sees cloning. Perhaps the difference makes it low and seems to be different, but a good-looking image does not have such problems. Finally, I do not see any problem in my editing filters, because they are used by everyone who uploads photos to aviation sites. As an example, I give the filters used by Angelo Buffalino in her tutorials, so that's not the problem. My big problem is if the screener pays for the mistake somehow. Why did I lose 15 pictures that already had 13-15 days waiting and had to be done so far? I do not like to wait two weeks again. Or, I'm going to get 15 pictures to me as a priority, that's a reward, and you'll be mistaken. Well, what do I do, I lose twice as much as I spent 3 days with my bad account? Does that seem normal to you?

Here why no see cloning ? is same filter applied on the picture, and lot of picture.I'm not talking about making some pictures like bluff, too exposed, too dark or soft, and in the appeal, I was right . How explain that?

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... XR/4436751

https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army ... 0A/4436735

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair/ ... AS/4419631

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled ... 7E/4418479

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Cobrex-T ... 82/4411327

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Romania- ... an/4397605

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair/ ... AS/4392747

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Romania- ... im/4387353

Catalin81 wrote:

Dear friend, these filters use them for all the photos that have been uploaded for some time, and I see there are no problems, but there is also one that sees cloning. Perhaps the difference makes it low and seems to be different, but a good-looking image does not have such problems. Finally, I do not see any problem in my editing filters, because they are used by everyone who uploads photos to aviation sites. As an example, I give the filters used by Angelo Buffalino in her tutorials, so that's not the problem. My big problem is if the screener pays for the mistake somehow. Why did I lose 15 pictures that already had 13-15 days waiting and had to be done so far? I do not like to wait two weeks again. Or, I'm going to get 15 pictures to me as a priority, that's a reward, and you'll be mistaken. Well, what do I do, I lose twice as much as I spent 3 days with my bad account? Does that seem normal to you?

You misspelled 'thanks'.

As an example, I give the filters used by Angelo Buffalino in her tutorials, so that's not the problem.

Actually, that IS the problem. Angelo takes nice photos, but his editing workflow does not suit A.net. His photos are overedited and too HDR-like. And while it may work for some images, it does not work for all of them and then you end up in a situation like this.

As for your other photos, no-one likes to wait and I understand it's very annoying to have to wait again for them to be screened. However I cannot just say that we will priority screen those photos. Because if I grant you that, then others will want that too and that's just not doable.

EDIT: some of the photos you linked above are also too overedited and should not have been accepted. This shows that mistakes are also made in your favor. But if you want to keep whining, I can go through every single one of your photos and make sure all that all photos that have mistakenly been accepted are removed. Up to you.

Incredible !! Now you are threatening to delete my pictures as they were accepted. Intriguing thing / Well, let's take it that way. If you do not want to redeem your mistake as a reward for your mistaken mistake, it's a priority, although my pictures have been waiting for you for 13-15 days, so why do not you give it to others so beautiful eyes. You have made me an injustice, or I only pay, do you not? Then you tell me you're deleting my pictures. Well, if it's that, I think you have to delete half of the database, and then we're all happy, do not you just delete me that it's up to you that I have the urge to get you when you get wrong and do An abuse. I have seen that although I give you concrete examples of blushing, moving, dark, overexposed, doume / same, you say you will not wipe them like that is, it is a mistake that they were accepted and ready, and now you are my Do you say you're looking for me in pictures and delete those that are accepted? That's just the culmination. After that's your fault, now you find me worse and you will be revenge on my pictures. I am aware that I have drawn you antipathy and you will reject my images that will be good just to make your ambitions with me but I will also think about deleting the account and implicitly all the images on the site, Can live without airliners, there are dozens of aviation sites, I already climb to a few, do not stand in airliners.

I wasn't threatening you at all, I was trying to make you see how rediculous and unrealistic your complaints sometimes sound.

Catalin81 wrote:

After that's your fault, now you find me worse and you will be revenge on my pictures. I am aware that I have drawn you antipathy and you will reject my images that will be good just to make your ambitions with me

Actually, I just accepted your most recent 5 photos (a few minutes ago). So much for that theory then, eh?

airkas1 wrote:

You misspelled 'thanks'.

Catalin81 wrote:

Finally, I do not see any problem in my editing filters, because they are used by everyone who uploads photos to aviation sites.

No, they are not used by everyone who uploads photos to aviation sites. I don't usually use any filters beyond the standard Photoshop "Levels", "Color Balance", "Sharpening".

Catalin81 wrote:

My big problem is if the screener pays for the mistake somehow.

Do you pay them when they accept your photos?

airkas1 wrote:

You misspelled 'thanks'.

Catalin81 wrote:

Can live without airliners, there are dozens of aviation sites, I already climb to a few, do not stand in airliners.

We'll miss you. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out!

Catalin81 wrote:

Can live without airliners, there are dozens of aviation sites, I already climb to a few, do not stand in airliners.

Good one! You've been banned from another major website for subsequently cheating on the upload dates. Do you mean that with "climbing a few"?
Nice record!
And how do I know that you will stick to airliners and we'll see another thread of this or "delete this photo" or "screening too long" very soon? Be realisitic it is going to be exactly like this.

Otherwise people are doing you favours and even lifting your ban, though your behaviour doesn't justify this at all and you are still going on with your Insults? Come on.

it looks very HDR-like, which is not allowed either. So I don't know what 'filters' you use

Yeah, i agree with Kas in this point. Your photo looks very HDR. Especially after comparing yous and Kas editing version. And HDR is absolute not allow to use in A.net i don't know other websites but here is not allow to use.

Why did I lose 15 pictures that already had 13-15 days waiting and had to be done so far? I do not like to wait two weeks again.

Regarding to this,i have to say all of us who uploaded to A.net need to wait for the same time to get result. As you know that , the screeners here are volunteer to work they have their own life ... they don't get any salary from screening photos.

Can live without airliners, there are dozens of aviation sites, I already climb to a few, do not stand in airliners.

Yes, there are a lot of Aviation Sites and some. You have your choice. But there is an important point , please respect to the people who help you and be polite to them.

JKPhotos wrote:

Good one! You've been banned from another major website for subsequently cheating on the upload dates.

If you do not know why you're talking? I tell you if you really want to, so do not stop talking without knowing. Those there were disturbed by my appeals to some pictures that were rejected, and I thought they were unjustly rejected. On appeal, I was saying the reason, and I gave examples of accepted pictures that were not rejected for the same reason, although they were identical as quality, light, etc. The rules allowed me to appeal to 5 pictures at the same time, not as the airliners at two, but the boys there were badly bothered by it, although I did not break the rules by doing that, but on the contrary, their rules gave me this right. Seeing that I was disturbed by all this, we started to exchange, to threaten to ban, etc, after which I asked them something wrong, and I did something on their site and that was. So do not talk about your ignorance. I do not think anyone came here to make an unfair scandal here. I appeal to what I consider to be unfair, and even with arguments, I give examples, and I have often given the right to appeal.

airkas1 wrote:

Actually, I just accepted your most recent 5 photos (a few minutes ago). So much for that theory then, eh?

It has no relevance. Anyway, these were for the first time on the site and have priority. You do not have to come now to tell me that you see, I accepted 5 pictures now, well, no, do not accept them if they are not good, and if they are good, you will not tell me you have accepted them, you have them Accepted because it was normal if they were considered good.

airkas1 wrote:

You misspelled 'thanks'.

I know what you mean by that, that I did not thank you. What can I say thank you? Because you fixed a mistake made by your man? I have no reason to thank. I did not even have an apology that 15 images were lost, and they lasted 13-15 days waiting, and now I'm going to stay, and my account has been abusively banned for 3 days

I give up.

Before this drags on any further, I'm locking this thread.