Please help define a "major element"?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/05/2005 11:24:18 AM · #26

Originally posted by mk:

it's okay to fill an area of solid color with another solid color.

Really? So for a challenge called "Yellow" I can take a photo of a grey or brown plane/barn/elephant and simply replace the color with yellow?

soup

Canon EOS-30D

04/05/2005 11:25:54 AM · #27

i used a gradient fill here - but entered the BW version - for fear of being criminal. GeneralE thought the fill technique to be alright, but added it was a judgment call. i added a layer in Overlay mode, 75% opacity, and used a gradient fill on it.

04/05/2005 11:29:10 AM · #28

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by skiprow:

so you would consider any type of 'fill' to be 'artwork'? is that how the sc would interpret it?

I believe the precedent for this has been, and other SC may correct me if I'm wrong, that it's okay to fill an area of solid color with another solid color. It is not okay to fill an area with detail, say a sky with clouds, with a solid color. And I believe it's not okay to use gradients either.

I'd disagree with that strongly: note the following example, derived from Skip's original, where the integrity of the original has been maintained by applying a color-to-transparent gradient in the sky only and fading it to enhance but not obliterate the original sky. Note that the wires etc ARE STILL VISIBLE and the effect is entirely a natural one.

I'd be AMAZED if this were not allowed in advanced editing; the use of gradient overlays is fundamental to many PS techniques.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 11:32:52.

04/05/2005 11:29:33 AM · #29

Originally posted by skiprow:

which of these would be legal
1) you use clone tool to replace darker areas with lighter areas
2) you use an overlay layer filled with 50% gray and paint in the eyes
3) you select the eyes and make a layer that you adjust
4) you use the dodge tool

The important thing is mostly the change from original to final, not the methods you use to achieve it. Any of these methods would be legal (with the possible exception of #2, since you're "painting in"). Any of them could also be illegal if you arrive at something that simply wasn't in the original. For example, adding detail to this catchlight, doubling its size, or moving it to the bottom of the iris might elicit a DQ...

04/05/2005 11:33:48 AM · #30

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by mk:
it's okay to fill an area of solid color with another solid color.

Really? So for a challenge called "Yellow" I can take a photo of a grey or brown plane/barn/elephant and simply replace the color with yellow?

That's correct. This entry for the Pink challenge wouldn't be DQ'd, but it DID get hammered by the voters because everybody knows it wasn't pink.

04/05/2005 11:35:57 AM · #31

Originally posted by scalvert:

Any of them could also be illegal if you arrive at something that simply wasn't in the original.

that brings us to the second question, how can you as a viewer tell what was done?

i can see some of this being caught by the sc after a challenge, when they get their requested originals, but that still leaves this very open ended...

edit: nice work, bear. kinda scary what you can do with a 50kb file...

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 11:37:16.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/05/2005 11:37:11 AM · #32

Shannon, thanks for the example with the Kiwi.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/05/2005 11:37:24 AM · #33

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by hopper:
in the first example, i think it is a major element - but i also understand that it's a judgement call (that's why there are several SC's to vote) - but I would vote major.

Can you identify why you think the garbage can is a "major element", please?

The idea here is to help us clarify in our own minds what a "major element" is and perhaps spare someone an unpleasant discovery by having their ribbon winning entry DQed.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 11:44:07.

04/05/2005 11:40:10 AM · #34

Originally posted by skiprow:

how can you as a viewer tell what was done? ...that still leaves this very open ended...

You can't, and it does. If you nabbed 4th place for that train image [shudder], you would have to submit the original for validation. If the original showed a guy standing in front of a locomotive, you would be DQ'd, but there's no way the voters could have known that beforehand.

04/05/2005 11:41:24 AM · #35

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by skiprow:
which of these would be legal
1) you use clone tool to replace darker areas with lighter areas
2) you use an overlay layer filled with 50% gray and paint in the eyes
3) you select the eyes and make a layer that you adjust
4) you use the dodge tool

The important thing is mostly the change from original to final, not the methods you use to achieve it. Any of these methods would be legal (with the possible exception of #2, since you're "painting in"). Any of them could also be illegal if you arrive at something that simply wasn't in the original. For example, adding detail to this catchlight, doubling its size, or moving it to the bottom of the iris might elicit a DQ...

That image could actually raises several questions about troublesome gray areas in "legal" post-processing, IMO. For example, was the iris REALLY that free of red veins? If red veins were brushed out, how "major" were they considering that the eye itself is the subject of the composition? For another example, clearly entire areas of face have been simply eliminated, apparently in much the same manner as the disputed KDO hi-key image from the "Pink" challenge. Finally, was the ctachlight really that "perfect" in the original? It may well have been, but speakign hypothetically, if it were NOT and if it had been altered to smooth it, would that have been "legal"? In this image, the ctachlight itself is clearly a major element, which is in itself an unusual situation...

Bear in mind that I think it's a FINE image and I have no problem with anything that was done to achieve it; I only raise these issues because of the varying interpretations we are seeing on what's permissible.

Robt.

04/05/2005 11:47:48 AM · #36

Originally posted by skiprow:

nice work, bear. kinda scary what you can do with a 50kb file...

What's even scarier is the whole process took me about 3 minutes from download to upload...

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 11:49:44.

04/05/2005 11:47:50 AM · #37

Originally posted by bear_music:

That image could actually raises several questions about troublesome gray areas in "legal" post-processing, IMO.

i think this is a perfect example of an image needing to be validated by the sc, either by the photographer beforehand, or by the voters. and this is another example where a before and after would be a great way to help others see what is and isn't legal.

04/05/2005 11:48:56 AM · #38

Originally posted by hopper:

...only the photographer knows exactly what the subject was supposed to be, so to say "it's a picture of mailboxes, so everything else is minor" ... is not a strong arguement (imho).

My barometer isn't so much the photographer's intent, which is un-knowable, but how I imagine the average person would describe the original. If I showed that photo to my wife or mother, they would probably say it's a picture of mailboxes in the desert. The garbage can is there, but it's not something they would focus on as the subject of the photo, nor is it an element that would affect the "real" subjects or the "story" if removed. It's not how big something is, but how relevant it is to the photo that determines whether it's major IMO. As I said in another thread, if you took a photo of a cross-eyed person staring at a fly on his nose, the fly may be tiny, but it's a major element.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/05/2005 11:52:24 AM · #39

Originally posted by scalvert:

As I said in another thread, if you took a photo of a cross-eyed person staring at a fly on his nose, the fly may be tiny, but it's a major element.

yes, but if you selected the entire 1970's panelled background that I know you have in every room of your house and changed it to some earth tone ... you'd get dq'd for removing something that had nothing to do with the subject or story.

:)

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/05/2005 11:57:25 AM · #40

Originally posted by hopper:

...if you selected the entire 1970's panelled background that I know you have in every room of your house and changed it to some earth tone ... you'd get dq'd

Yes, but that's because the original would reasonably be described by most people as "a shot of something in front of nasty, 1970's paneling," thus the paneling is a major element.

...and how did you know? ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 11:58:44.

Grigolly

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/05/2005 11:58:12 AM · #41

This is very stupid thing : restrictions to editing.

first, if you are a beginner in photography, you have to crop, remove of do some other tgings more than any professional.
second, who can tell me how i have edited my photo, what i have removed (major or minor) if they have NOT seen the original?

and one more thing: if there is a great landscape, but in the middle of this beautiful landscape there is lets say a cow. what would you do? would you "remove" it? and is it a major, or a minor element in composition.

"major" in this case means more visible, but it doesn't say to whom it is more visible. so I think, its pointless even to argue...:(

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 12:07:06.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

04/05/2005 12:06:32 PM · #42

Originally posted by skiprow:

Originally posted by bear_music:

That image could actually raises several questions about troublesome gray areas in "legal" post-processing, IMO.

i think this is a perfect example of an image needing to be validated by the sc, either by the photographer beforehand, or by the voters. and this is another example where a before and after would be a great way to help others see what is and isn't legal.

I went back and reviewed the original on this one. To address a few of the obvious questions:

- The submitted image is a crop of about 2/3 of the original shot.
- The eye was relatively free of veins, and the ones that were there were incredibly fine. A gentle touch of selective gaussian blur would have eliminated them entirely. No different from smooting skin in a portrait, IMO.
- There were two areas of (very OOF) face removed in the photo. One above and to the right (our right) of the eyebrow, and another below the eye.
- The catchlight is unmodified from the original.
- The colors are very close to the original, with just a bit of warming and added saturation in the skin tones.

Overall, the character of the original is very close to the final image.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/05/2005 12:07:57 PM · #43

Originally posted by hopper:

The garbage can could just as easily been a dog lying there, or a child ... but the intent of the photographer still may have been to capture the mailboxes - but only the photographer knows exactly what the subject was supposed to be, so to say "it's a picture of mailboxes, so everything else is minor" ... is not a strong arguement (imho).

The shot looks very different with and without the ugly blue garbage can, so how can that be called minor? Because you didn't want it to be there? Well, it was there, and it's very noticeable = major element.

my 2 cents

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by hopper:
in the first example, i think it is a major element - but i also understand that it's a judgement call (that's why there are several SC's to vote) - but I would vote major.

Can you identify why you think the garbage can is a "major element", please?

The idea here is to help us clarify in our own minds what a "major element" is and perhaps spare someone an unpleasant discovery by having their ribbon winning entry DQed.

Paraphrasing...

1-Is the garbage can a "major element" of the composition?
YES

2-If it is not a "major element" how do you know? If it is a "major element" then how do you know that?
It is a major element because the garbage can is "very noticeable" and the shot looks quite different without it.

In essence you agree with kirbic's original response to this thread, but just have a different interpretation as to the significance of the garbage can. You are basically saying it does change the scene in a dramatic way.

04/05/2005 12:10:49 PM · #44

Originally posted by Grigolly:

...who can tell me how i have edited my photo, what i have removed (major or minor) if they have NOT seen the original?

If you've done a good retouching job perhaps nobody will know, but if you place in the top 5 or so you'll be required to submit your original for validation. Then there will be no way to hide alterations.

I don't think you can say beginners require more editing than others. Some people are naturally good photographers to begin with (Kiwiness), while more seasoned photographers may simply use a lot of editing as part of their normal workflow. As a designer, I was aware of composition and distracting elements long before I ever picked up a camera.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 12:12:21.

04/05/2005 12:11:11 PM · #45

for you just joining us, here we are (re: the garbage can):

hopper/stdavidson: it is major because its presence impacts the image
scalvert: it is not major as is because my mom/wife probably wouldn't describe it as part of the image

edit: clarification

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 12:25:12.

04/05/2005 12:13:25 PM · #46

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by skiprow:

Originally posted by bear_music:

That image could actually raises several questions about troublesome gray areas in "legal" post-processing, IMO.

i think this is a perfect example of an image needing to be validated by the sc, either by the photographer beforehand, or by the voters. and this is another example where a before and after would be a great way to help others see what is and isn't legal.

I went back and reviewed the original on this one. To address a few of the obvious questions:

- The submitted image is a crop of about 2/3 of the original shot.
- The eye was relatively free of veins, and the ones that were there were incredibly fine. A gentle touch of selective gaussian blur would have eliminated them entirely. No different from smooting skin in a portrait, IMO.
- There were two areas of (very OOF) face removed in the photo. One above and to the right (our right) of the eyebrow, and another below the eye.
- The catchlight is unmodified from the original.
- The colors are very close to the original, with just a bit of warming and added saturation in the skin tones.

Overall, the character of the original is very close to the final image.

All that's very good to know, and I presumed as much because the image had, after all, a blue ribbon so it has been under the microscope. My point is more that someone reviewing past winners to see what's "allowable" might easily look at this and assume, as indeed many have, that complete elimination of some areas of photographs is "allowable" in and of itself. Thus, a gray area...

All of this could/will be solved if/when we had/have a gallery of "before and after" shots illustrating these principles. I'd love to see this as a priority...

Robt.

Grigolly

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/05/2005 12:17:06 PM · #47

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Advanced challenge rules states:
"Selective Editing: Adjustments can be made selectively to your photo. Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."

The terms "minor distracting element" and "major element" are not commonly defined photographic terms and are also not defined in DPC rules beyond this statement.

Below is an original and post processed image. The garbage can in the original could be considered a "minor distracting element" or a "major element" of the composition.

1-Is the garbage can a "major element" of the composition?

2-If it is not a "major element" how do you know? If it is a "major element" then how do you know that?

What do you think?

Original:

Post Processed:

i think i your case it is minor element. if you do not remove the can, and just make it B&W, the can would be hardly visible. but picture without can is better anyway:)

04/05/2005 12:18:35 PM · #48

Originally posted by skiprow:

it is not major as is because my mom/wife wouldn't notice it

Huh? I never said they wouldn't notice it. I said they wouldn't focus on it if asked to described the subject of the photo. I think some people are confusing prominence with importance. I passed a print of that photo around my office and asked what it was a picture of. Nobody said it was a picture of a mailbox and a blue trash can- they didn't even mentioned the trash can. It's a large, but inconsequential element. Just because something is large or clearly visible doesn't automatically make it a major element.

04/05/2005 12:22:33 PM · #49

Originally posted by hopper:

The concept of "major element" can be seen in two ways; one definition would be "how noticeable is it?", and the other would be "How important is it to the essence of the scene?"

For example, suppose I'm photographing Old Faithful, the geyser at Yellowstaone, in perfect late afternoon light, and just as I push the trigger some person or animal wanders partially into the scene. This becomes an intensely distracting and VERY noticeable flaw, but it's easily removeable. The geyser, however, won't be erupting in that exact same light again until tomorrow, and I'm leaving tonight.

That's an analogue to the trash can, which for all we know was NOT removeable for some reason. It's not really important, IMO, whether or not the trash can COULD have been removed; it's just that the can really has nothing to do with subject or topic of the picture, and thus it's minor, or extraneous. I feel the same way about telephoen wires.

Robt.