Recalculation in the Green IV challenge

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

03/28/2014 12:24:16 PM · #51

Originally posted by ambaker:

As a no talent, non ribbon winning hack, I probably am not qualified to post an opinion...

I understand pushing the envelope for art. But it seems the discussion has become how far can a rule be pushed before it breaks?

I understand that the photographer has an idea of the finished image, prior to pressing the shutter. At leat you good ones seem to...

My question becomes, why not set the scene that way in the first place? A house, or a power line may not be feasible to move, but lighting in a set scene is.

Yes you are correct. And that is what I was doing....intentionally using that large unmovable cabinet as a background for the tones of it....along with the north facing window light, that I knew would be soft, and flattering. I was not planning on having anything moved from the backdrop.

Unfortunately writing on a forum can not distinguish the tone of my 'voice". I am writing this, not with anger, but to let you all know what went into the image and the thinking process behind it. I do realize there is a "line" for SC to either let the rule pass or result in a DQ. So at this point, this is a good discussion to educate all of us on the rules, and the thinking behind the site councils decision, as well as mine.

I, too, looked at the image on several different monitors (after the DQ), and I can see both horizontal and vertical lines on my 'most used' monitor, but my husband's screen, just vertical lines. Yes, they are muddy, and unclear, but distinguishable on my screen.

I have a feeling this re-edit would have been legal:

Message edited by author 2014-03-28 18:23:41.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/28/2014 12:52:54 PM · #52

Originally posted by njsabs:

I have a feeling this re-edit would have been legal:

Absolutely. You haven't crossed the line there.

03/28/2014 01:12:40 PM · #53

So my next question goes out to everyone, does the re-edit compared to the submitted entry, " change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color or crop)".

very curious to hear some of your comments.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

03/28/2014 01:16:28 PM · #54

Originally posted by njsabs:

between images no, but i can see a line between the original and reedit.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/28/2014 01:29:56 PM · #55

Originally posted by njsabs:

So my next question goes out to everyone, does the re-edit compared to the submitted entry, " change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color or crop)".

That's not the issue. There's a continuum between unedited and as-submitted for this image, and there is, in fact *someplace* on the continuum where the edit is acceptable. How close that point is to the as-submitted image is irrelevant. Show me a guy with no hair, and I'll say he's bald. A million hairs, I'll say not-bald. 2 hairs? Bald. 20 Hairs? Bald. at some point "n", not-bald. N-1 is bald, n+1 is not-bald, but the difference between them is insignificant. This is a common problem in metrics of measurement. We have to live with it whenever we are dealing with subjective evaluations.

Either that or tell my neighbor he's NOT bald because bald is an absolute condition of zero-hair. He'll be delighted :-)

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/28/2014 03:13:02 PM · #56

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by njsabs:
So my next question goes out to everyone, does the re-edit compared to the submitted entry, " change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color or crop)".

That's not the issue. There's a continuum between unedited and as-submitted for this image, and there is, in fact *someplace* on the continuum where the edit is acceptable. How close that point is to the as-submitted image is irrelevant. Show me a guy with no hair, and I'll say he's bald. A million hairs, I'll say not-bald. 2 hairs? Bald. 20 Hairs? Bald. at some point "n", not-bald. N-1 is bald, n+1 is not-bald, but the difference between them is insignificant. This is a common problem in metrics of measurement. We have to live with it whenever we are dealing with subjective evaluations.

Either that or tell my neighbor he's NOT bald because bald is an absolute condition of zero-hair. He'll be delighted :-)

Yes, yes, I know that is not the issue.....I am asking on my behalf, I understand the DQ, and accept it. However, would the image have done as well scoring wise, with the background visible? Not sure, and we will never know, but was looking for some opinions on what some members viewed it now, with the re-edit, if there is a difference on their perspective.

tanguera

Nikon D750

03/28/2014 03:18:07 PM · #57

It's really not a fair comparison, Jen, since in the "legal" background version, the face also has a different edit on it. It is somehow paler, glowy-er. I happen to like seeing a bit of the bg because it gives it some context. But I don't like the more recent edit on the face.