| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2004 05:33:22 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
Art is in the eye of the beholder. The Vision of the artist is what matters most, not how it is achieved.
While one's ability to use PS may exceed yours (or mine) does not mean they should not be allowed to use it. You may have a better 'eye', or more time, a better camera, lens, etc. To limit your tools is to limit your vision.
It is pre-emptive Art sensorship. |
I think there are places and contests for digital art, there is no arguement there. The fact is though, that this is a photography site, not a digital art site. That's the difference and is why the distinction should be made. I don't see anyone trying to censor art, just to assure everyone is playing by the same rules.
My .02 |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 05:56:30 PM · #52 |
wow, keep DQing these and I might have a chance with my 4.7 rated entry. :)
I did like both of these images. The girl looked a little too manipulated, although it was a great image.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 06:06:29 PM · #53 |
I really like the picture but it looks like it was done using liquify in imageready. If I am wrong sorry!Some neat effects can be made using that filter.Make fat peple skinny and skinny peole fat!LOL
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 18:12:44. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 06:13:41 PM · #54 |
| hehe it is a great pic too...reminds me of the black hole sun vido by soundgarden |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 06:50:32 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Jinjit is correct, there have been shots with BG removed that have been validated. The key is, was the BG a major component in the impact of the image? If it was not, then there is a chance it was not DQ'd. Also, with reference to GeneralE's post, the line has moved somewhat as we have tried to refine the idea of what constitutes moving or creating a major element.
In this case, certainly it cannot be argued that major elements were reshaped and significantly resized. There was pretty much unanimous agreement that this went over the editing line. |
I know this is asking a lot, but with reference to the above - is it not possible somehow to have rules set in stone, so that we as a group know what we can and can't do.
With this photo there were trees all along the horizon, and I only wanted the middle one so I removed the others. Yet it was verified and checked as OK.
 |
I find it hard to believe (and I don't mean that as a challenge) that this was validated when there were originally trees all along the horizon. Exactly why would that be anything other than digital art at that point?
The image makes for wonderful art after the editing, it really is terrific - but I am surprised that it would be considered 'valid' for a photo contest at that point after removing a whole treeline in lieu of one tree.
The humor photo may be a little more cut-and-dry in going over the line but why would either one be vaild under any editing scheme in a photography challenge?
Message edited by author 2004-11-30 18:50:52. |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:04:04 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
However - other than clever loopholes in the rules, what is the difference between shooting the martini glass infront of a monitor showing a gradient, and shooting the martini glass infront of a green screen, selecting it in photoshop and replacing the selection with a gradient ?
If you want a gradient filled background, or coloured smoke, how you actually achieve it is honestly mostly irrelevant - clever tricks or ingenious rule loopholes aside. |
What is the difference?
--It's a martini glass. Try it with an elephant and I'll have issues!
|
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:23:54 PM · #57 |
Out of, well, prurience really, Jon; what was it scoring? A lot of folks here seem to have liked it a lot ...
E |
|
|
|
11/30/2004 07:31:10 PM · #58 |
I was going to enter this in the Oct monthly challenge. I was unsure if the edit I did was legal or not, so asked for a decision pre challenge.
The SC were split on the legality here, and it ended up being deemed illegal. Although disappointed, I agree with their decision.
Slightly different to the other ones here .....
Something was added, but it was onlt a small part of the photo. In the original it ends JUST before the end of the exhaust. The final curve, and just that, were hand drawn in, and the sky behind it obviously cloned in.
No major element added, which is probably why there was a decent SC debate on it (I was told).
I knew it might be DQ'd, so had I entered it and it had been I don't think I could have really complained. I thought the best way to be sure, as indeed this can be a grey area, was to check first.
At the end of the day, if the rules are warped, I am all for DQ's because otherwise is would disadvantage people who go strictly by the rules, which to me is wrong.
With Jon's photo ... I absolutely love it, it is hillarious, and gave it an 8.... but am not at all surprised to find it then got DQ'd. I don;t know with Jinjit's as I am not exactly sure what was done to the original ... could you post the original?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 01:25:53 AM · #59 |
Many times a work around is done to achieve within the rules what can be done better quicker / more easily other ways. We here pretty much have to use USM to sharpen, as blending modes otehr than normal are not permitted. The goal is the same - a sharpened picture. Similar issues exist with masking.
I think it would be simpler for all involved if the Basic rules were "if not specifically stated, then not allowed" and Advanced rules were "if not specifically prohibited, then it is allowed".
How many members are there here? 30,000? The biggest challenge had some 643 entries, or 2.1% of the members. Even fewer are active in teh forums. Why so few members and so few active ones? Perhaps there would be more interest in more freedom in editing?
As for 'digital art'...umm, we have to use a digital camera, edit via digital means, and display the art on a digital computer...if that is not defacto digital art, then what is?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 01:34:31 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
.....As for 'digital art'...umm, we have to use a digital camera, edit via digital means, and display the art on a digital computer...if that is not defacto digital art, then what is? |
Digital art and digital photography are not the same thing. Digital photography can be digital art, but Digital art is not photography, it is completely made up, and does not represent an actual physical element. This is a Digital PHOTOGRAPHY site not a Digital Drawing/Painting?CGI site...plenty of those around.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 02:24:52 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
With this photo there were trees all along the horizon, and I only wanted the middle one so I removed the others. Yet it was verified and checked as OK.
|
Just for the record, I'm not sure WHERE this got varified, but it wasn't through the SC process. This photo did NOT recieve an official verification from us. Honestly, I would have voted it DQed. I LOVE the image...I really do, but it does violate the "remove major elements" for me. I'm not confident that this photo would have not been DQed if it had gone through the process. |
|
|
|
12/01/2004 03:58:02 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Just for the record, I'm not sure WHERE this got varified, but it wasn't through the SC process. This photo did NOT recieve an official verification from us. Honestly, I would have voted it DQed. I LOVE the image...I really do, but it does violate the "remove major elements" for me. I'm not confident that this photo would have not been DQed if it had gone through the process. |
I posted it before I submitted it as I was going away. (I think) And I was told that it was OK becasue it was removing distracting elements (let me stress the trees were smaller and less defined than the middle one, it wasn't several trees of the same stature)
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 04:14:04 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by bestagents:
.....As for 'digital art'...umm, we have to use a digital camera, edit via digital means, and display the art on a digital computer...if that is not defacto digital art, then what is? |
Digital art and digital photography are not the same thing. Digital photography can be digital art, but Digital art is not photography, it is completely made up, and does not represent an actual physical element. This is a Digital PHOTOGRAPHY site not a Digital Drawing/Painting?CGI site...plenty of those around. |
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on which way you look at it, this IS a digital art site. I assume the majority of people edit their images digitally and thus the results are digital art.
I think the key factor here is more the end result rather than what method we are using to achieve it.
Things that we know we can do and that have been verified include being able to:
>> Change the background color completely
>> Selectively change the color of background elements
>> Change the texture of human skin
>> Change the color of human skin
>> Add depth of field
>> Reduce depth of field
>> Darken selective parts of an image
>> Brighten selective parts of an image
>> Remove parts of an image (EG: Zoo bars, Dirt, Stones, trees, telegraph poles, people, warts)
>> Change the color of selective parts of the image
>> Use photoshop to create a false background
>> Use someone Else's photograph as a background
So in fact we are able to do quite a lot of editing with our images, but it seems to come down to the end result IMO.
As I have mentioned previously - a lot of my images, and others, have been edited far more, and by using many more tools in photoshop.
I can't see that 'enlarging and eye' can really be deemed illegal when you take into account the legality of all the above items - but I think because my image is obviously edited, it causes problems.
I do not think (Or rather I know) that it is no more digital art than this: in the editing taken, but because the end photo isn't realistic it looks like digital art rather than a photo.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 04:27:23 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I know this is asking a lot, but with reference to the above - is it not possible somehow to have rules set in stone, so that we as a group know what we can and can't do.
With this photo there were trees all along the horizon, and I only wanted the middle one so I removed the others. Yet it was verified and checked as OK.
|
Sure. Give us a wording with no grey areas and we'll use it.
As to the image above, no user even requested a DQ or validation on it, so it never went through the validation process. Site Council never requested nor received an original for this entry.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 04:38:05 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
Many times a work around is done to achieve within the rules what can be done better quicker / more easily other ways. We here pretty much have to use USM to sharpen, as blending modes otehr than normal are not permitted. The goal is the same - a sharpened picture. Similar issues exist with masking.
I think it would be simpler for all involved if the Basic rules were "if not specifically stated, then not allowed" and Advanced rules were "if not specifically prohibited, then it is allowed". |
This ignores a fundamental difference between the Basic and Advanced rules. The Basic rules are tool-centric and define what tools may or may not be used. The Advanced rules barely address tools at all and are instead focused on the end result. A tool that is legal in one situation may be illegal in another (this is true under the Basic rules as well, but to a lesser extent)
Originally posted by bestagents:
How many members are there here? 30,000? The biggest challenge had some 643 entries, or 2.1% of the members. Even fewer are active in teh forums. Why so few members and so few active ones? Perhaps there would be more interest in more freedom in editing? |
As Site Council we can see the time a user is last logged in. I have noticed there are many users who log onto the site regularly, but do not post to the forums or enter challenges. They either vote only or are here to look around and be inspired.
Originally posted by bestagents:
As for 'digital art'...umm, we have to use a digital camera, edit via digital means, and display the art on a digital computer...if that is not defacto digital art, then what is? |
All digital photography (artistic photography anyway) is digital art. Not all digital art is digital photography.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 04:57:47 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Sure. Give us a wording with no grey areas and we'll use it.
|
The bit about integrity? :D
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 06:09:54 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Sure. Give us a wording with no grey areas and we'll use it.
|
The bit about integrity? :D |
Have to start with defining what a photograph is before photographic integrity can be discussed intelligently -- IMO, of course. Without the basic thing the site is based around clearly defined, confusion reigns supreme.
David
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 06:28:15 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by moodville:
It didnt ribbon, it came 4th, but it was verified as legal by the SC and it has the background replaced. |
The background in this image was not replaced; but it was hueshifted.
-Terry |
I recall him saying in chat that it was replaced when we asked him because we thought it looked weird. Maybe he just meant hueshifted then. I stand corrected. |
I never said it was replaced. It was blue and HUE'd to Green.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 07:33:30 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Things that we know we can do and that have been verified include being able to:
...
>> Use photoshop to create a false background
>> Use someone Else's photograph as a background |
Please explain how you think these things have been "verified".
The only way I know that the above would be legal is if you actually photographed the above elements at the time of the exposure, which doesn't involve any "post-shot editing" at all. (i.e. created a background in Photoshop, and then displayed it behind your subject while taking the picture.) And that is even legal under Basic Editing. Otherwise, the above "suggestions" are definitley not legal.
Message edited by author 2004-12-01 07:49:53. |
|
|
|
12/01/2004 09:04:52 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Have to start with defining what a photograph is before photographic integrity can be discussed intelligently -- IMO, of course. Without the basic thing the site is based around clearly defined, confusion reigns supreme.
David |
It might well be fundamental, but it isn't easily defined. Mostly I think it is a personal boundary which is next to impossible to articulate for a group of people. The site council represent their own personal ethical boundaries on a case by case basis for what is or isn't integrity in a photograph.
Much like the supreme court judge who said he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it.
Message edited by author 2004-12-01 09:17:33. |
|
|
|
12/01/2004 09:12:35 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
As Site Council we can see the time a user is last logged in. I have noticed there are many users who log onto the site regularly, but do not post to the forums or enter challenges. They either vote only or are here to look around and be inspired. |
Over at fujimugs, where unlimited editing is allowed the number of members who have entered at least one challenge is about 1/3. What is it here? What is the ratio for Opoen vs Members challenges (of those eligble to enter). Just curious.
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
All digital photography (artistic photography anyway) is digital art. Not all digital art is digital photography.
-Terry |
I can agree with that!
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 09:39:23 AM · #72 |
my photo was put up for DQ in this challenge too.. i was amused by this. but it has since been validated. sorry about the decision on your photo, it's good.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 10:31:27 AM · #73 |
Some of this discussion brings up an interesting and I think important question. Not picking on anybody, but:
If it LATER comes to light that a photo violated the rules in effect at the time of the applicable challenge, can it still be DQ'd?
I know this has been done just after a challenge, but say, 10 months later, there is a question, and a photo that was never validated is examined and found to be in violation. Is there a statute of limitations?
(Personally, I don't think there should be, because that leaves "bad examples" for others to find and use to argue. Or if there is one, it should still be well beyond the end of a challenge, say, 1 year.)
Whatever the answer to the above, why not add a statment clarifying this in the rules?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 10:33:50 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
If it LATER comes to light that a photo violated the rules in effect at the time of the applicable challenge, can it still be DQ'd? |
The general rule of thumb is that we'd only DQ images from the last couple of weeks, and not trawl back through the archives. However, we reserve the right to do so should there be reasonable cause (eg persistant cheating by a particular user over a long period).
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 10:38:59 AM · #75 |
I loved the image (the one that was used at the start of this thread) and scored it well. I do not recommend an image for disqualification. That, I feel, is up to the site administrators, and boy don't we know that there are plenty of members at the ready to click that recommend for DQ button without me joining in.
|
|
