| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/11/2010 10:55:12 AM · #1 |
I was looking through the Paul Simon Lyrics challenge and in the end there is a disqualification which I don't understand. This is the picture:
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=844172
The disqualification says:
You may not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture.
The photographer's comments say:
7 captures combined in Photamatix
a little topaz, levels, sharpening, highlights/shadows
Since this challenge was under was under the Advanced Editing rules and since HDR is allowed and also selective coloring/desaturation is also allowed, I'm a bit puzzled as to what specifical rule did it break to get disqualified.
Disclaimer: I'm not related to the original photographer in anyway (that I know) and I'm not questioning the disqualification, I'm just trying to understand why so I don't go through the same.
Thanks.
Message edited by author 2010-01-12 06:16:20. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 10:56:30 AM · #2 |
Parsed URL, and here's a thumb:
|
|
|
|
01/11/2010 10:58:01 AM · #3 |
| I was wondering about that also. I don't see any features added by the processing. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 10:59:10 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by duartix:
I was looking through the Paul Simon Lyrics challenge and in the end there is a disqualification which I don't understand. This is the picture: 
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=844172
The disqualification says:
You may not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture.
The photographer's comments say:
7 captures combined in Photamatix
a little topaz, levels, sharpening, highlights/shadows
Since this challenge was under was under the Advanced Editing rules and since HDR is allowed and also selective coloring/desaturation is also allowed, I'm a bit puzzled as to what specifical rule did it break to get disqualified.
Disclaimer: I'm not related to the original photographer in anyway (that I know) and I'm not questioning the disqualification, I'm just trying to understand why so I don't go through the same.
Thanks. |
You can't create new shapes or features, ever. Photographer created a set of squares by selecting and desatting/satting. You can only use this selective desaturation along existing boundaries, basically. Otherwise you'd be able to create a rainbow out of whole cloth in the sky, or rays of light striking down where none existed with the dodge tool, and so forth.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/11/2010 10:59:21 AM · #5 |
May not create new objects.
I would say it's because of the several new rectangles that weren't there before the processing.
ETA: Or, what Bear said. :)
Message edited by author 2010-01-11 10:59:58. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 11:02:17 AM · #6 |
Yes, what Bear said. You can change the color or saturation of existing objects, but you can't use either to create new shapes that didn't exist in the capture.
 |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 11:02:32 AM · #7 |
as Bear said...you can't create new shapes which weren't in the original capture. This was dq'ed for the same reason.
Joe |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 11:03:34 AM · #8 |
It's not the how, it's the what. It's not the technique, it's what you did with the technique. Basically, the "major elements" rule is there so you don't use the legal techniques to create something that wasn't there. You can desaturate everything but an object*, or everything but a single color**, or just everything***, but not create frames from differently processed versions.
*Everything but an object - you can argue the color of an object was really amazing, or it's what popped out to you. So you're just showing what you saw - a really brightly colored object in a sea of boring objects. You're selecting a specific object, not a square.
**Everything but a color - a single color could've popped out to you, so you're just showing what you saw - a really intense color (or not so intense) that shows up throughout the scene.
***Everything - you just saw the way light and dark parts looked or you just saw the forms rather than the colors, so you're portraying that by throwing out color.
You can't argue you saw squares of differently colored areas in front of your eyes.
Note: I use "you" throughout the post. I mean the photographer, not you you. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 11:06:41 AM · #9 |
Yup, what Robert said.
Honestly, when I was on SC, I consistently argued that unless the photographer was trying to pass off the new shape as something present in the original, it should be OK. In this case, I don't see a thing wrong with what was done; it's very clear that the selective coloration is added in post. It does not masquerade as something that was present in the original shot.
The above logic is *exactly* what is used to assess legality under the artwork rule, however for some reason it is not acceptable for this application. I think that's a shame. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 11:06:44 AM · #10 |
Maybe cuz of this? |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 11:52:43 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You can't create new shapes or features, ever. Photographer created a set of squares by selecting and desatting/satting. R. |
So, if the photographer had used a Hue/Sat layer to desaturate the photo, and then applied a radial gradient mask so the center was colored but the color gradually faded away toward the edges ... I think that would be legal. No new shapes would be created. But we'd see a similar effect of color fading to B&W. Would that be correct? |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 12:08:58 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You can't create new shapes or features, ever. Photographer created a set of squares by selecting and desatting/satting. R. |
So, if the photographer had used a Hue/Sat layer to desaturate the photo, and then applied a radial gradient mask so the center was colored but the color gradually faded away toward the edges ... I think that would be legal. No new shapes would be created. But we'd see a similar effect of color fading to B&W. Would that be correct? |
I wouldn't be the one to answer that. I'm with Kirbic that the rule's too restrictive, pretty much. Maybe SC has an answer for this.
R. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 12:57:03 PM · #13 |
i got dq'd for that before................... |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 01:36:20 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
In this case, I don't see a thing wrong with what was done; it's very clear that the selective coloration is added in post. It does not masquerade as something that was present in the original shot.
The above logic is *exactly* what is used to assess legality under the artwork rule, however for some reason it is not acceptable for this application. I think that's a shame. |
Would you deem something like this as being legal, then?
Sorry for the crudity of this... I just grabbed the first shot and first clipart I was able to find. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 01:37:43 PM · #15 |
| Uh oh. What does this say for 2nd place in "Paul Simon"? Bruises done with colour burn. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 04:02:23 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Uh oh. What does this say for 2nd place in "Paul Simon"? Bruises done with colour burn. |
Well, it could be argued that he didn't create new objects, he just colored what was there (skin). Now if he had added an eye or an arm using color, it would be different. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 04:06:30 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Louis:
Uh oh. What does this say for 2nd place in "Paul Simon"? Bruises done with colour burn. |
Well, it could be argued that he didn't create new objects, he just colored what was there (skin). Now if he had added an eye or an arm using color, it would be different. |
Hmmmm, to me bruises are a new feature that didn't exist before. Could be a tough call for SC. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 04:30:14 PM · #18 |
I would say that adding "bruises" using any tool(however legal under advanced) definitely constitutes changing the context of the shot. Let's say the bruises weren't added with the burn tool, would that present the viewer with a different shot? To me it would. Without the bruises, it's just a guy sitting on a chair that looks like he is contemplating a fight. With the bruises, it now tells me he just got his ass kicked in the ring and is bummed about it.
Just my take... |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 07:57:00 PM · #19 |
| I agree....and see no difference in this and the dq'd pic. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 09:16:50 PM · #20 |
I was thinking about this , this afternoon. And came this conclusion , when we use dodge and burn we darken (say) the clouds. They weren't that dark to start off with , but they where there. The bruises, I think, come under that as well. The skin was there, it was just darkened.
Make sense, or am I totally off base? |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 10:37:08 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I was thinking about this , this afternoon. And came this conclusion , when we use dodge and burn we darken (say) the clouds. They weren't that dark to start off with , but they where there. The bruises, I think, come under that as well. The skin was there, it was just darkened.
Make sense, or am I totally off base? |
Well, he used a color burn, so there's an added color as well. Plus we already have been told in no uncertain terms (there was a DQ) that we can't dodge out "rays of light" from the window to the floor if they didn't exist before. So are the bruises any different?
*I* don't know... It seems like a tempest in a teapot to me, we can turn a blah sky into an angry sky (I do it all the time) but not a blah skin into an angry skin? When I morph my skies I'm accentuating detail that was always there. The bruises aren't there at all until he creates them. It's something of a can of worms, logically :-(
R. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 11:45:03 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Would you deem something like this as being legal, then?
Sorry for the crudity of this... I just grabbed the first shot and first clipart I was able to find. |
Not really wanting to start that whole sordid debate over again, but I guess I was the one that opened the can o' worms... yes, in fact. I can't think of a reason it should not be legal. It's ugly as sin, but there's no mistaking it was added in post.
Now the bruises on the 2nd-place "Paul Simon" entry, that's an interesting question. I can't and won't register an opinion, I have not seen the original, but if they were wholly created, to me it is very questionable, as it seems to violate the spirit of the rule. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 11:45:19 PM · #23 |
I think creating bruises is venturing out into spot editing territory. when you "create" bruises you are creating something/object that wasn't there. It would be the same as creating a shadow on a table to give the illusion that something was sitting there. You would have to argue that the light was there you were just making it darker.....darker with a predetermined shape maybe =)
When you use a burn tool to darken clouds, you aren't creating little dark doggies, bears, or unicorn clouds. For the most part you are darkening the whole sky evenly to draw less of the eye.
If using the dodge tool to create rays of light that were not there to begin with is illegal, then using a burn tool to create bruises that were not there should be as well. |
|
|
|
01/11/2010 11:54:54 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by ASTONishing:
If using the dodge tool to create rays of light that were not there to begin with is illegal, then using a burn tool to create bruises that were not there should be as well. |
And that is a perfect example of my line of thinking. If you create something that appears to be a definable feature, and that feature seems to be a part of the original composition, it should not be legal. A relatively simple test as to whether something has been created is if you can name what's the thing, e.g. ray of light, bruise, lens flare, shadow, motion blur... then all you need to do is determine whether it is recognizable as added in post. Examples:
- That rectangle of color was created, and it it's obviously added in post (legal)
- That lens flare was created and it's not obvious to the observer that it was added in post (illegal) |
|
|
|
01/12/2010 06:19:22 AM · #25 |
Thanks for all the answers, this gives me an valuable idea of the whereabouts AFAIK rules limits.
I had no idea I was messing with Pandora's box but neither was the intention.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 04:37:49 AM EDT.
