Golden Gate: Of course I had seen any number of photographs of this bridge over the years but being there and actually seeing it, I stood in awe at the marvel of engineering that this...

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Of course I had seen any number of photographs of this bridge over the years but being there and actually seeing it, I stood in awe at the marvel of engineering that this structure is.

(Download)

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Seems they went with a low bid painting contractor.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, Rob,
I'm hoping you worked the scene enough to get some more advantageous perspectives. It's technically an OK image but I've always thought that magnificent bridge deserves a more impressive perspective than a slightly low 45° profile. (OK...maybe it's 30°...?)
A closer and lower perspective that would throw not just the superstructure but part of the ascending supported roadway up above the background land and skyline would have far more impact... sort of an upward swoop toward the top,left corner(?)
I was actually more than a bit surprised that you'd post a snap that appeared to have been taken in an "open the car window...that's that big famous bridge!" Kodak moment.

Best regards,
Dave

randomeyes Loc: wilds of b.c. canada

Uuglypher wrote:

Hi, Rob, br I'm hoping you worked the scene enough... (show quote)

All it took was a little work: Duplicate the layer
Apply saturation adjustment layer color to orange
Mask out the background with Topaz re mask
Merge layers
Do Google search

And guess what, up comes a stock shot of G.G. Bridge. Pick a reference point in both photos and you will see they are the same photo, it's just that WR made a sloppy selection and changed the color of the bridge. So to get back to his point of
view and perspective of the shot, it appears it was lifted from the internet.
One has to wonder why someone would do that, he is implying that this is a photo he took. After all this is called "for you consideration", which, to me, means here is a shot I took and I would like a critique on it.

What say you?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

randomeyes wrote:

All it took was a little work: Duplicate the lay... (show quote)

I can not wait for his answer.

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

randomeyes wrote:

All it took was a little work: Duplicate the lay... (show quote)

I say it's not the first time.

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

some people clearly don't like orange. It is going to take Rob a lot of work to clean up the entire internet.

randomeyes Loc: wilds of b.c. canada

pfrancke wrote:

some people clearly don't like orange. It is going to take Rob a lot of work to clean up the entire internet.

Maybe he should clean up his act first.

dsturr

randomeyes wrote:

Maybe he should clean up his act first.

Blurry picture, horrible selection, banding in the sky... It sure looked like his work.

randomeyes Loc: wilds of b.c. canada

dsturr wrote:

Blurry picture, horrible selection, banding in the sky... It sure looked like his work.

The fact that there was no enormous yellow duck sitting on the bridge or in the bay
was the one indication that it was not his photo!

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

randomeyes wrote:

All it took was a little work: Duplicate the lay... (show quote)

What say I?

I was had!

Rob, you know full well the expectation that any image posted be made by the poster, having been called on the same antics before. What's your purpose in this?

Dave

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Now, now everyone - we need to show a little compassion here. Rob recently dealt with a number of health issues, as well as the stress of changing homes - and has been unable to do any photography for at least two years (his recent postings show exif dates of 2012 to 2014).

We should all be thankful that the internet affords an endless supply of free images to play with, because there will a come a day when we too are unable to shoot our own snaps.

randomeyes Loc: wilds of b.c. canada

Linda From Maine wrote:

Now, now everyone - we need to show a little compassion here. Rob recently dealt with a number of health issues, as well as the stress of changing homes - and has been unable to do any photography for at least two years (his recent postings show exif dates of 2012 to 2014).

We should all be thankful that the internet affords an endless supply of free images to play with, because there will a come a day when we too are unable to shoot our own snaps.

That's all well and good Linda, but do you not think that the proper thing to have said would be "here is a photo that I found on the internet and have changed" The implication from his statement about "standing " and viewing the bridge was that this was his photo. The rest of the stuff you mentioned is a red herring.

You are no doubt conversant with the boy who cried wolf, this is not the first time that his photos have been called into question (remember Debbie Wilde) There will come a time( if it has not yet happened) when people will question every photo he submits.

One has to question the reasoning for his actions.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

There is nothing to say that we are forbidden from putting up a stock internet image on the FYC in order to illustrate a point.

I did not state that it is an image of my own making.

That is your ill-considered conclusion.

Interesting that rather than questioning why I would post a very ordinary stock picture of the GG bridge crudely altered to false colour, you, who sprout a lot of crap about how "nice" you all are, instead immediately and in chorus resort to personal attack.

Kinda shows up your true colours I would say.

I put this up as the basis for what could potentially be enlightening for many but it seems that my expectation for a sensible, intelligent discussion was aimed to high for you regular club members.

Rob.

dsturr

winterrose wrote:

There is nothing to say that we are forbidden from... (show quote)

A bit late for that Rob.