If I would have had the chance...

to take this photograph, I would have at least taken the time to straighten the damned thing before selling it, or publishing it.
Such a beautiful shot. Totally destroyed by about 2.5degrees of rotate that was ignored.

http://www.nasa.gov …es/j2x/500_sect​est_1.html

Source: http://www.nasa.gov …/j2x/500_second​_test.html

Also, the second picture down suffers the same angle challenge. /sigh.

Could this just be a case of "No Editing on reportage photos" legislation gone overboard? I know that publishing and reportage groups will operate reduced/limited/no editing on produced photos to increase the authenticity of what their publication presents.

There is also the chance that this shot might have been taken and passed right on from card to printers/online publication with very little to no time left for a closer inspection and that the slightly tilt simply did not get noticed before it went to publication - I know many sports togs shoot and pretty much have their shots sent to the printers/online publishing almost as soon as they are taken.

I'm not industry-savvy, so I wouldn't know. Seems to me they would at least straighten it, knowing human psychology they way the government does...

Okay, enough sarcasm. It would have taken, what, 60 seconds to straighten the photos? I understand that there are deadlines. But, this story doesn't seem like "breaking news" that needed to be rushed to the newsstands. Like I said, I'm not too knowledgeable about the industry.

Hey, if it's not your pic, POTN rules say to post a link, not the pic!

tonylong wrote in post #13388603
Hey, if it's not your pic, POTN rules say to post a link, not the pic!

Whoops

Str0ntium wrote in post #13388613
Whoops

It's fixed, good for you!

Str0ntium wrote in post #13388576
to take this photograph, I would have at least taken the time to straighten the damned thing before selling it. Or, if I were the editor... You get my drift.

Such a beautiful shot. Totally destroyed by about 2.5degrees of rotate that was ignored.

http://www.nasa.gov …es/j2x/500_sect​est_1.html

Source: http://www.nasa.gov …/j2x/500_second​_test.html

Also, the second picture down suffers the same angle challenge. /sigh.

...with all due respect I'm at a loss as to why you are so upset and why you think a documentary photo has been "destroyed." I didn't even notice the horizon was off: and I guarantee most people looking at it wouldn't have noticed either.

What makes you think the image was "sold"? The credit on the image goes to NASA/SSC, so they probably took it themselves. And who looks at NASA images to complain about the horizon? Should the "editor" have taken time to straighten this photo?

http://www.nasaimages.​org …NVA2~59~59&mi=3​1&trs=2277

Str0ntium wrote in post #13389404
I didn't assume the image was "sold". If you re-read my post, I also said "OR". That "OR" means that I didn't assume anything. Thanks for taking time to READ the OP.

Good day.

FAIL!

If you want to use your grammar to make a point, be sure you understand grammar.

You did say it was sold. Your "or" implies you had an alternative thought after saying it was sold. Why? Because you placed a period after "selling it," thus finishing and closing that thought. The next sentence, beginning with "or," does not reopen the previous thought. Rather, it posits an alternative.

And a snarky attitude gains you nothing but disdain.

Now, as to the "problem" that seems to be vexing you so much....

It's a government-owned or government-sponsored photograph. Anyone in the industry would know that it's probably as good as one could expect. There is, after all, a reason for the old saw, "good enough for government work!"

This is the way it is in real life. Live with it.

20droger wrote in post #13389640
FAIL!

If you want to use your grammar to make a point, be sure you understand grammar.

You did say it was sold. Your "or" implies you had an alternative thought after saying it was sold. Why? Because you placed a period after "selling it," thus finishing and closing that thought. The next sentence, beginning with "or," does not reopen the previous thought. Rather, it posits an alternative.


<snip>

An alternative, nonetheless. Making the assumption that I made an assumption, based on one sentence, isn't too bright either.

I snipped the rest of "your" snarky reply... Have fun.

Fixed OP to make it VERY apparent, that no assumptions were made about the origin of the photograph. Yeesh!

And as for the "learn to deal with it" attitude: It was a mini-rant. YOU deal with it. Yeesh, again.

Str0ntium wrote in post #13389744
An alternative, nonetheless. Making the assumption that I made an assumption, based on one sentence, isn't too bright either.

I snipped the rest of "your" snarky reply... Have fun.

Str0ntium wrote in post #13389803
Fixed OP to make it VERY apparent, that no assumptions were made about the origin of the photograph. Yeesh!

And as for the "learn to deal with it" attitude: It was a mini-rant. YOU deal with it. Yeesh, again.

As to the original uncorrected post, I made no assumptions. I went by what you said. If you could not say what you meant, that is not my problem.

As to your corrected post, better, but still terrible grammar.

As to the whole subject of a government photo destroyed by a 2.5° degree tilt, definitely Shakespearean.

You do realize that attempting to troll a troll is futile. Correct?

/ignored

Str0ntium wrote in post #13389969
You do realize that attempting to troll a troll is futile. Correct?

/ignored

Excellent idea.