# Running fro the Storm



## erniehatt (Sep 24, 2005)

I went fishing this morning


----------



## MDowdey (Sep 24, 2005)

holy Crap. thats awesome!!!!


----------



## JonMikal (Sep 24, 2005)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> holy Crap. thats awesome!!!!


 
that pretty much sums up my thought as well.


----------



## MDowdey (Sep 24, 2005)

hey ernie, is it photoshopped at all?


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 24, 2005)

My God, I have never seen anything like that in all my life! :shock:
I wonder if wxnut has ever had a chance to take a cloud formation such as this one!?!?!?!?

Just called my daughter over to show her this and she says, Wow, and Super and all this and then: "With the negative of this one he should have a HUGE poster made in the shop, but really huge! That I would love to have in my room on the wall". 

Wow. This daughter of mine.
This photo would give ME nightmares.........!


----------



## doenoe (Sep 24, 2005)

i wanted to say holy crap, but since thats allready been used: WOW. Thats one hell of a picture.


----------



## JonK (Sep 24, 2005)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> holy Crap. thats awesome!!!!


exactly my thots when I opened the page :lmao:  :lmao: 

Wow, I'd be runnin too! :shock:


----------



## 'Daniel' (Sep 24, 2005)

Wow...just Wow!


----------



## deveel (Sep 24, 2005)

Repeated WOWs ... That's awesome! Definitely big print quality. Hope you made it away from the storm in time.


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 24, 2005)

Nice capture Ernie.
Did you get any in colour and without the outboard motor in the frame?


----------



## erniehatt (Sep 24, 2005)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> hey ernie, is it photoshopped at all?


 
Time to come clean folks, yes it has been photoshoped. I got the idea the last time I was out in the boat, when I saw the wake. I had these awesome sky pictures, so this was the end result of my trip yesterday.I thank you all for the great comments, and sorry if you feel deceived. Goes to show what can be done with a little thought and patience. Ernie


----------



## Knopka (Sep 24, 2005)

Well, at least you weren't in any danger, that's a good part . About the picture... I have to say it looks quite impressive.


----------



## MDowdey (Sep 24, 2005)

i have the photoshop eye to end all eyes. 

damn im good.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Sep 24, 2005)

> Hope you made it away from the storm in time.



I would have thought that would be evident by him posting the photo :lmao:


----------



## M @ k o (Sep 24, 2005)

Oh my God... this is an awesome shot. Just awesome !


----------



## wxnut (Sep 24, 2005)

One should give credit where credit is due though... The storm picture was taken by a good friend of mine. Here is his picture.  Please refrain from posting other peoples pictures as your own.







Here is his site...

http://www.extremeinstability.com

Doug Raflik
wxnut@charter.net


----------



## ShutteredEye (Sep 24, 2005)

wxnut said:
			
		

> One should give credit where credit is due though... The storm picture was taken by a good friend of mine. Here is his picture.  Please refrain from posting other peoples pictures as your own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now's when I say "Holy Crap!!!"

That's not cool! :thumbdown:


----------



## LittleMan (Sep 24, 2005)

mountainlander said:
			
		

> Now's when I say "Holy Crap!!!"
> 
> That's not cool! :thumbdown:


no kidding.... :er:


----------



## TBaraki (Sep 24, 2005)

wxnut said:
			
		

> Please refrain from posting other peoples pictures as your own.



..Phrased in the nicest possible way.   


Shame. :thumbdown:


----------



## Raymond J Barlow (Sep 24, 2005)

very sad., someone who is always so critical resorts to such measures., sure is pathetic.


----------



## thebeginning (Sep 24, 2005)

oh my gosh. that guy's site is incredible.  i want to take storm pictures now...

yes, that is a shame. UNLESS they took the picture from relatively the same place at the same time! aha!


----------



## JEFFB (Sep 24, 2005)

Agreed that you should not post other peoples work as your own, and maybe I gun a little too much for the underdog in situations like these. But he didn't say that he took the pictures of the storm he only said that he used them. Given the context of this forum, people should be clear if they are using images that they did not take themselves, in fact that should just probably be avoided all together. However this being the internet, there is a reasonable chance that the image was found from a place other than that site, so the creator of the photo may not have been known, making credit hard to give?  

Thats my $.02 

I am quite happy that this has has happened if only for the fact that wxnut has posted this http://www.extremeinstability.com, because that guy has got some absolutly incredible photos. 

Jeff


----------



## Corry (Sep 25, 2005)

JEFFB said:
			
		

> Agreed that you should not post other peoples work as your own, and maybe I gun a little too much for the underdog in situations like these.* But he didn't say that he took the pictures of the storm he only said that he used them.* Given the context of this forum, people should be clear if they are using images that they did not take themselves, in fact that should just probably be avoided all together. However this being the internet, there is a reasonable chance that the image was found from a place other than that site, so the creator of the photo may not have been known, making credit hard to give?
> 
> Thats my $.02
> 
> ...



To me, it totally sounded like he was claiming them.  His exact words:



			
				erniehatt said:
			
		

> Time to come clean folks, yes it has been photoshoped. I got the idea the last time I was out in the boat, when I saw the wake. *I had these awesome sky pictures*, so this was the end result of my trip yesterday.I thank you all for the great comments, and sorry if you feel deceived. Goes to show what can be done with a little thought and patience. Ernie




He didn't say "I found these" Or "I had these awesome sky pictures taken by so-an-so"...he said "I had these awesome sky pictures".  That leads me to believe that he had taken them, and they were in his archives.


----------



## terri (Sep 25, 2005)

wxnut said:
			
		

> *One should give credit where credit is due though...* The storm picture was taken by a good friend of mine. Here is his picture. Please refrain from posting other peoples pictures as your own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Agreed. For the time being, suffice it to say this thread is being reviewed.


----------



## terri (Sep 25, 2005)

erniehatt said:
			
		

> Time to come clean folks, yes it has been photoshoped. I got the idea the last time I was out in the boat, when I saw the wake. I had these awesome sky pictures, so this was the end result of my trip yesterday.I thank you all for the great comments, and sorry if you feel deceived. *Goes to show what can be done with a little thought and patience. *Ernie


 Not to mention, while having no qualms regarding blatant plagiarism. You had no "awesome sky picture" of your own. I find your action reprehensible. :thumbdown:


----------



## Meysha (Sep 25, 2005)

And here I was so excited about this photo, because unlike this photo, I have actually been in that situation before. In the boat, running away from a huge storm. It does look exactly like what you've PS'd here though so credit to you on the good PS work. 

But like the other's have said, definately a big no-no on the plagiarism.


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 25, 2005)

Oh, the outcome of this entire story makes me sad and disappointed. 
And there I was yesterday afternoon, wondering if not wxnut had ever seen or photographed something like this. And indeed, it was his good friend's photo in the first place here... 

To do this and not indicating with one word that the photo is a montage and the important, the impressive part, comes from someone else's photo all together is just not fair. 

And the caption "I went fishing this morning" does not suggest the photo was mounted!

Even if the author of the second photo used for this one is not known, it would still have been fairer to say: "I found this absolutely stunning photo of a storm formation in the internet somewhere and used it for my montage". 

But without any word in this direction, I do feel deceived. For we usually (so I would assume) all post only our own creations here.


----------



## terri (Sep 25, 2005)

We share in your outrage and disgust, Corinna. 

It would be nice if this member came back here to admit to his actions and offer an explanation as well as an apology.


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 25, 2005)

I feel very decieved. Ernie made out like that it was all his own original material.


----------



## vonDrehle (Sep 25, 2005)

This is one of the few ways that the internet has negatively affected photography, and I guess you could generally say "printed" art as well (Paintings, Drawings, ect...). Once you post some of your work on the internet without either having a watermark cover the entire thing or downgrading the quality significantly, people can just say it is theirs, while odds are for the most part its not going to hurt you don't want to be searching the internet and find one of your photos being used as something like a website header, especially if it were a picture of your family. 
The way I see it is if you keep your photos to a small size people will not be able to make good prints out of them.



 On a side note, I think some should contact Doug Raflik and tell him to start posting in the gallery whenever he gets some news photos.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 25, 2005)

terri said:
			
		

> It would be nice if this member came back here to admit to his actions and offer an explanation as well as an apology.


I think at least that.
The Board policy on copyright infringement is very clear. And I do believe this 'gentleman' has been warned about it before.
Even worse - a lot of people have been hurt and upset by this. They deserve the full abject grovel.


----------



## jesusloving (Sep 25, 2005)

OMG!!!! This picture is AWESOME!!!!!!!!


----------



## wxnut (Sep 25, 2005)

vonDrehle said:
			
		

> On a side note, I think some should contact Doug Raflik and tell him to start posting in the gallery whenever he gets some news photos.



Aww shucks... I didnt think anyone really noticed my work. Its been slow in the news dept. I do have a car wreck I will post right now though. (If I can find it quick enough)

Doug


----------



## erniehatt (Sep 25, 2005)

--Sorry people, but nowhere did I say the sky was mine, I only said I had these awesome sky images, they were in fact sent to me via email, I asumed they were stock items. As far as I am concerned, I admitted the image wasn't genuine only an example of Photoshop work. The sea part was taken that morning by me as quoted.. Ernie


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 25, 2005)

Where? Ernie? Where?

I replied to your FIRST post, and NOTHING there indicated this was a mounted photo!


----------



## Meysha (Sep 25, 2005)

erniehatt said:
			
		

> but nowhere did I say the sky was mine


What a load of bull ernie. And you know it is too. Your original posts are up there for everyone to see clear as day.

You just had the opportunity to redeem yourself and say that you're sorry for the confusion and that you wouldn't do it again. But you just lied through your teeth once again and pretended that you weren't deceiving us. Seriously dude... not cool.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 25, 2005)

erniehatt said:
			
		

> --Sorry people, but nowhere did I say the sky was mine, I only said I had these awesome sky images, they were in fact sent to me via email, I asumed they were stock items. As far as I am concerned, I admitted the image wasn't genuine only an example of Photoshop work. The sea part was taken that morning by me as quoted.. Ernie


I have had words with you before about posting other people's work on this Board without stating that you have their permission to do so.
Receiving images by e-mail does not absolve you of the requirement to ascertain the copyright position.
Your assuming that it was a 'stock item' is no defence or excuse.
In future please be more careful about what you post and the way in which you post it.


----------



## JEFFB (Sep 25, 2005)

Since you set your own precedent of of giving credit, or at least not taking credit of an image used in your post 2 months ago in your "infared conversion" thread, and in that thread there were questions of copyright raised. Then I would say that you should have been twice as careful about it this time Ernie. While I can understand why you made no mention of it in the first post, when you "came clean" you should have come clean. There are forums where photochopping, is the theme, these would be better for showcasing this type of work, this site is about photography, if you did not take it(and by take, I mean with a camera! ), do not post it. 

Jeff


----------



## Raymond J Barlow (Sep 25, 2005)

erniehatt said:
			
		

> --Sorry people, but nowhere did I say the sky was mine, I only said I had these awesome sky images, they were in fact sent to me via email, I asumed they were stock items. As far as I am concerned, I admitted the image wasn't genuine only an example of Photoshop work. The sea part was taken that morning by me as quoted.. Ernie



Hmmmmm... even more pathetic.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Sep 25, 2005)

Goodness me.  Why are people getting so riled up?  He admitted it wasn't his pictures in its entirity.  I'm sure if he kn ew who took the photo or didn't think it was stock photo he would have put the name in his confession post.  It would have been pointless if he put it in the first post.  How mny people are upset by this I find that very odd.  

He brings a valid point thats it's impossible to know if someones work is actually there work on the internet.


----------



## tat2me2 (Sep 25, 2005)

all i can say is WOW...seriously. i JUST got into photogrpahy, like two months ago. the form of the arts that i know well is writing. and ill tell you....if someone ever did that to me...huummm...id wanna *w*itch slap them at least. i cant tell you how low i think that is to steal someones elses creativity and claim it as your own.
what happended to ethics? what happened to pride (in what YOU do, not what someone else does and claiming it as you own?).

dude, you KNEW people would assume you took the shot. if nothing else, im pretty sure you worded your first post very caefully so if need be, later you could back pedal, as you have already done. did you REALLY think anyone would believe that excuse?

sorry....this really irritates me (to say the least) that someone would do this to another artist.


----------



## JonMikal (Sep 25, 2005)

well Ernie, i must say i am a bit taken by this. you did say 'i had these awesome sky images', that in and of itself left most of us with the feeling you had taken it and simply merged them together. what you did may be acceptable on other sites, but at TPF we do discourage and point out in the guidelines that posting others work is not tolerated here. i have always liked your work Ernie and have enjoyed reading your comments/suggestions to others. i would think with the overwhelming concern of this incident you would act accordingly and accept responsibility publicly and admit this was wrong rather than simply trying to justify. do the right thing Ernie, don't just disappear from the site...you have much to offer.


----------



## Raymond J Barlow (Sep 25, 2005)

Daniel said:
			
		

> Goodness me.  Why are people getting so riled up?  He admitted it wasn't his pictures in its entirity.  I'm sure if he kn ew who took the photo or didn't think it was stock photo he would have put the name in his confession post.  It would have been pointless if he put it in the first post.  How mny people are upset by this I find that very odd.
> 
> He brings a valid point thats it's impossible to know if someones work is actually there work on the internet.



personally, i think he did this knowing there would be a fit over it, and he is just messing with everyone.


----------



## terri (Sep 25, 2005)

Daniel said:
			
		

> Goodness me. Why are people getting so riled up? He admitted it wasn't his pictures in its entirity. I'm sure if he kn ew who took the photo or didn't think it was stock photo he would have put the name in his confession post. It would have been pointless if he put it in the first post. How mny people are upset by this I find that very odd.
> 
> *He brings a valid point thats it's impossible to know if someones work is actually there work on the internet. *


 Yes, that's right. The Internet Image Fairy put it there. No one really took a picture. So it's fair game. 

Suggest you study, and come to appreciate, copyright laws. Someday you might even have your own image you feel proprietary about enough to become incensed if it was turned into someone's tricked-out PS game, posted as their own, who then refused to own up to their actions. 

The fact you see nothing wrong with this is what I find very odd.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Sep 25, 2005)

> Yes, that's right. The Internet Image Fairy put it there. No one really took a picture. So it's fair game.



There's no need for sarcasm.  I'm not the one who did anything wrong.  I just think people are acting rather strongly.



> The fact you see nothing wrong with this is what I find very odd.


 
I don't remember saying that.  I just have a different view.  Yes maybe if it was my hptoo i would act slightly differently but I even still I would not be that annoyed.  Within myself I would know I was the one who took the photo even if the person wouldn't admit they took it.  That's enough for me.



> personally, i think he did this knowing there would be a fit over it, and he is just messing with everyone.



That maybe so, I just don't prejudge people and I have never experienced him doing this in the past.  You've been here longer so it may be a different story.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Sep 25, 2005)

I see I get negative rep for having a different opinion.  And I came to the "wrong conclusion" as one person put it.  How ridiculous.  This board is really weird in someways.  It think this thread needs shutting.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 25, 2005)

Daniel said:
			
		

> Yes maybe if it was my hptoo i would act slightly differently but I even still I would not be that annoyed.  Within myself I would know I was the one who took the photo even if the person wouldn't admit they took it.  That's enough for me.


All photographs have an originator - the person that took the photograph. They have a number of legal rights that are recognised more or less Internationally, which means if you use their image without their knowledge and consent they can sue you.
As a host Board, if this happened we could also suffer serious consequences. We therefore take great pains to avoid this eventuality by insisting that any person posting an image on here must either be the originator OR have the specific consent of the person who's picture it is.
Erniehatt was not the photographer of one of the images used in his manipulated image - and he did not have the permission of the originator.
This is a clear breach of Copyright.
It would not have been so bad if Erniehatt had not already been warned about doing this.
Claiming that he assumed the image was a stock photograph and was therefore OK to use would be no defence in a Court of Law.
The onus was on Erniehatt to ascertain the copyright position, which he clearly failed to do.

The reason why the majority in this thread are upset is because his original post gave the impression that it was his photograph.
The admission in a later post that it had been montaged in PS and that half the image was, bluntly, stolen has made it obvious that Erniehatt deceived them - and intended to deceive them.
Would he have admitted his deceit if no-one had caught him out?
Only Erniehatt knows the answer to that.


----------

