| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/09/2005 12:31:21 AM · #26 |
"Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, multiple exposures...."
"Any modification done inside the digital camera itself is considered acceptable for challenge submission."
It may be an old arguement, but I believe their are a couple of Fuji cams that can do the multiple exposure trick in-camera. While I'm sure the issue will not come up often, if at all, it may not be a bad idea to clarify or append the whole "IN-CAMERA" clause to specifically allow or deny the use of features not common to "most" cameras.
I, for one, feel that the spirit of the rules is to "level the playing field" insomuch as is possible. Given that, I see no reason to allow multiple exposures at all. In camera or not.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 12:38:01 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by mcmurma:
I, for one, feel that the spirit of the rules is to "level the playing field" insomuch as is possible. Given that, I see no reason to allow multiple exposures at all. In camera or not. |
if it can be done in camera, it's legal -- including the multiple exposure capability and other camera-specific features. there's really just too many to police (i.e. the playing field is just too large).
the goal of the rules is really not to "level the playing field" so much as to give everyone the same set of guidelines to work from.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 12:40:04 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
this line is in the existing rules:
(Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.)
it's not meant to be subjective; just a warning. we really just re-worded what was already there. |
good point........ it is not a rule and is confusing, it should be eliminated. |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 12:40:35 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
this line is in the existing rules:
(Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.)
it's not meant to be subjective; just a warning. we really just re-worded what was already there. |
Well, like I said before. I'm not opposed to to the spirit of the thing, its just that I see no reason for SC to be leading the voters in any way. And I feel this statement leads the voters to some extent. And if it must be present, I like it in parenthesis better.
I'll be honest, I have not studied the rules in a long time until tonight. On the whole I see it as quite clear and succinct. But, you asked for opinions, so... :) |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 12:45:39 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by mcmurma:
I, for one, feel that the spirit of the rules is to "level the playing field" insomuch as is possible. Given that, I see no reason to allow multiple exposures at all. In camera or not. |
if it can be done in camera, it's legal -- including the multiple exposure capability and other camera-specific features. there's really just too many to police (i.e. the playing field is just too large).
the goal of the rules is really not to "level the playing field" so much as to give everyone the same set of guidelines to work from. |
Agreed. Making allowings for every little in-camera trick would be a PIA. And a level playing field is a bit of a flight of fancy. |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 12:54:29 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
(and quote mcmurma)good point........ it is not a rule and is confusing, it should be eliminated. |
noted. thanks for the feedback. :D |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 04:55:23 AM · #32 |
As far as I can see, these revisions are only to the first section of the Advanced rules (the preamble?) and to the "Image Modification and Content Rules" section. Is it safe to assume that their are no changes or ommissions to other parts of the rules included in this revision?
And since we are going to revise, how about puting the photographic integrity rule back in?
"Members are reminded to hold photographic integrity in the highest regard when both submitting and voting." (bold and italics from the original)
Or perhaps some other wording of the principle.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 05:17:04 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by blemt:
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Nudity Nudity is an acceptable form of art on this site. |
This is perhaps a typo or maybe you stuttered because of some Freudian reason, but you have the word nudity in there twice.
Originally posted by blemt:
Nudity should be presented in a tasteful manner. |
Define "tasteful"... Somehwat rhetorical, but that is clearly a subjective area and if it is unenforcable, why put it in?
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 05:23:07 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
What was changed? This sounds pretty clear. |
As usual, this "change log" is not official but is just my own summary of the changes. I reserve the right to miss changes, document something as a change that actually wasn't, or otherwise be just plain stupid.
Preamble: Added a sentence to clarify the intent of the Advanced Editing rules. We realized that while long-standing members understand the spirit of the rules, this may not be as clear to new members. This helps add some context to the "major elements" rule as well.
Selective Editing: Language added re saturation and hue-shifting. A new (and hopefully clearer) standard by which Site Council will judge "major elements" is now formally written into the rules.
Filters: Clarified that the Major Elements rule applies to filters as well. Filters may not be used to circumvent the Major Elements rule.
Text: Clarified this also applies to signatures.
Artwork: Revised the definition.
In my personal opinion, the most important change here is the Major Elements revision. When the Advanced Editing rules were first introduced, the Major Elements clause was of marginal importance -- and it's not too long ago that this was still the case. As the collective skill of the community has improved (gives yourselves a round of applause, you deserve it), Major Elements has become more important.
Without a written standard in place, the only way to understand the Major Elements rule is to keep up on an ever-increasing body of past precedent -- a tall order considering the members generally do not have access to the unaltered originals to fully understand the basis for our decisions.
It is our hope that this written standard (subject to the revisions that come from this discussion) will replace the current "unwritten" stanard, and ultimately make things less confusing and, most importantly, more fun for everyone.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 05:25:42 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
Originally posted by blemt:
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Nudity Nudity is an acceptable form of art on this site. |
This is perhaps a typo or maybe you stuttered because of some Freudian reason, but you have the word nudity in there twice.
Originally posted by blemt:
Nudity should be presented in a tasteful manner. |
Define "tasteful"... Somehwat rhetorical, but that is clearly a subjective area and if it is unenforcable, why put it in? |
The first "Nudity" is a header.
The "tasteful" clause is determined by a majority of Site Council. This is also not a revision and exists in the current ruleset as well. I'm pretty sure this rule has been unchanged since 2003 or maybe even late 2002.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 07:13:04 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I for one, would like to see somewhere on the site, a list of allowable actions, plug-ins, filters, etc. that have been checked and permitted for use in both levels of editing. Some actions do play in the layers in ways we may not see, yet are specifically not allowed when done manually.
|
If you can come up with a comprehensive list, that includes every editing program in use- more power to you. :) Mind you, that means that SC would have to test out every single Action that users could possibly find. We would have to find every plugin, every filter. Start doing the math.
Y'all aren't paying us enough. :)
On a more serious note, we are trying not to overly limit anyone. Many filters and plugins are legal in some cases and not legal in others. Let's use Gaussian blur as an example. If I've used gaussian to give a light soft focus effect- fine. If I use it to obliterate the background which was in razor sharp focus- Major elements and not fine. Actions are another example. Since any user can create an action, there is no way on God's Green Earth that we could ever hope to keep up with them. That list and database would rapidly go past the point of useful.
Advanced editing has always been about allowing more creative freedom. Hard and fast lists of what are and are not allowed run counter to that idea.
Clara |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 07:30:50 AM · #37 |
I also want to make sure that you guys see and understand the major elements clause:
--
Using ANY editing tools to duplicate, create, move or remove major elements of your photograph is not permitted. Major elements are the features that a typical person might mention if asked to describe the photo in general terms. They have a significant impact on composition and content, and are not necessarily determined by size. Since a minor distraction for one person could be a major element to another, borderline cases are judged by majority Site Council vote.
--
Under this rewording, things that may have been legal in past challenges may not be going forward. This includes challenge entries that have been recently validated.
Questions? |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 07:33:32 AM · #38 |
Random thoughts... the points about overuse of effects filters being frowned upon, isn't so much guidance to the voters, but a warning to newbies who might not know better. How about, "Bear in mind that most voters expect your photo to LOOK like a photo."
Whatever you can do in-camera is ALWAYS allowed. Imagination can overcome most camera limitations. Graphicfunk does multiple exposures all the time with a camera that doesn't have that feature.
As Blemt pointed out, we can't possibly list every allowable tool or Action because new ones are created every day, and since any legal tool can be overused to the extent that it becomes illegal, it's a moot point. If you want to use a Photoshop Action, it's up to you to look at the steps and see if it does anything illegal.
Most of these rules and clauses really just boil down to one idea: whatever's visible in your original should be visible in your final unless it's a minor detail. |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 07:42:52 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by blemt:
I also want to make sure that you guys see and understand the major elements clause:
--
Using ANY editing tools to duplicate, create, move or remove major elements of your photograph is not permitted. Major elements are the features that a typical person might mention if asked to describe the photo in general terms. They have a significant impact on composition and content, and are not necessarily determined by size. Since a minor distraction for one person could be a major element to another, borderline cases are judged by majority Site Council vote.
--
Under this rewording, things that may have been legal in past challenges may not be going forward. This includes challenge entries that have been recently validated.
Questions? |
I think this wording is just as wooly as the previous rules. In both sets of rules the wording allows for the interpretation of 'major elements' and the get out of - 'judged by majority Site Council' doesn't really help.
If I was new to the site, I really couldn't work out without reading this thread what the detailed legal and illegalmanipulations are.
Its a really tough nut to crack, and I don't have a set of words to offer, however if I am not clear then for sure newer members won't be.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 07:49:52 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Its a really tough nut to crack, and I don't have a set of words to offer, however if I am not clear then for sure newer members won't be. |
Okay- that's really important to know. :) Would it help if we used some example images? Not of every possibility, but just some of the more obvious comcepts?
Clara |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 07:59:39 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by Falc:
Its a really tough nut to crack, and I don't have a set of words to offer, however if I am not clear then for sure newer members won't be. |
Okay- that's really important to know. :) Would it help if we used some example images? Not of every possibility, but just some of the more obvious comcepts?
Clara |
Yes I think that would help a great deal, and some way of capturing the elaborations in this thread - obscuring, lens distortion, motion blur etc.
However the words/examples are put together they must reduce the scope for 'interpretation' to the minimum and allow photogs to know 'yes/no' whether something is legal.
Having said that you have to also have a catchall clause I guess.
I'm talking myself round in circles now ;-)
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 08:07:39 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Falc:
However the words/examples are put together they must reduce the scope for 'interpretation' to the minimum and allow photogs to know 'yes/no' whether something is legal. |
But under the advanced rules, we can't. I can't say that a 10 pixel radial blur is legal and a 15 pixel radial blur isn't. It depends. Cloning out a beer can in one shot is fine becasue it's trash, in another shot it's a key component. So I can't say that it's legal/illegal to clone.
The best we can do is come up with a reasonable person standard. When a reasonable person (or group) looks at this, is this element a focal point of the image?
Clara |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 08:08:07 AM · #43 |
So based on thes rules any type of chromakeying is not legal??? (a current intereest of mine)
Dave |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 08:20:55 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
So based on thes rules any type of chromakeying is not legal??? (a current intereest of mine) |
Combining multiple images in post-processing has never been allowed. If your original background is essentially blank (blank blue, blank green, blank white, etc.), then your final background must also be blank (though it could be a different blank color). |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 08:29:48 AM · #45 |
Ok... I was not sure... Gotta change my plans for darkness though
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 08:31:37 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by nomad469:
Gotta change my plans for darkness though |
Now that you've seen the light? |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 08:49:27 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Without a written standard in place, the only way to understand the Major Elements rule is to keep up on an ever-increasing body of past precedent -- a tall order considering the members generally do not have access to the unaltered originals to fully understand the basis for our decisions.
It is our hope that this written standard (subject to the revisions that come from this discussion) will replace the current "unwritten" stanard, and ultimately make things less confusing and, most importantly, more fun for everyone.
-Terry |
Is it possible that we can have some examples posted of good and bad shots per the ruleset? Granted, the people on this site may not wish to have their original and submitted photos posted with a caveat. But, the SC is full of creative people, all of whom own and opperate cameras, so the SC themselves could manufacture examples specifically for the purpose.
I understand that this type of example could lead to a stifling effect with some people, who take the examples to a literal extreme. For the rest of us, however, it could be a good tool. After all, this site is chock-full of people who think and learn visually, people who do not have English as a first language (and could be a bit bewildered by the rules), and those of us who just don't have good reading comprehension.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 09:34:29 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Originally posted by muckpond:
this line is in the existing rules:
(Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.)
it's not meant to be subjective; just a warning. we really just re-worded what was already there. |
good point........ it is not a rule and is confusing, it should be eliminated. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Random thoughts... the points about overuse of effects filters being frowned upon, isn't so much guidance to the voters, but a warning to newbies who might not know better. How about, "Bear in mind that most voters expect your photo to LOOK like a photo."
|
I agree that this line really doesn't seem to belong in the rules. If it is not a rule persay, but a tip for newbies, than maybe it could go somewhere else (like a tips for newbies article?). The rules are confusing and subjective enough, without having more somewhat vague and indefinite statements in them. I agree that it is the SC leading the voters, or could be interpreted that way.
I commend you guys for working so hard to make this all clearer. You are doing a great job.
Liza |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 09:54:39 AM · #49 |
Clarification on "rotation" as this does indeed shift pixels....but is actually allowed even in basic challenges.
I think a re-iteration would be good.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 10:25:59 AM · #50 |
Using ANY editing tools to duplicate, create, move or remove MAJOR ELEMENTS of your photograph is not permitted.
IMO there's a problem with the bolded area above (and always has been, it hasn't been changed); by qualifying "elements" with "major" the rules leave the distinct impression that these operations may be performed on "minor" elements with impunity. And this is generally true; we may use the clone tool to duplicate areas and paste them over minor distracting elements, for example. However, as I understand it, it is emphatically NOT true that I may MOVE an element in one of my imnages elsewhere in the image. In other words, "I really like that little gull flying by in the upper right portion of the sky, but I wish it were half an inch lower so I could crop out that ugly tree branch that I know is too major to clone away, so I'm gonna MOVE the gull down; that's allowed because the gull's not a major element, right?"
The rules could easily absorb an additional phrase to the effect that cloning of objects for the purpose of duplicating them or moving them elsewhere in the image is not acceptable.
Major elements are the features that a typical person might mention if asked to describe the photo in general terms. They have a significant impact on composition and content, and are not necessarily determined by size. Since a minor distraction for one person could be a major element to another, borderline cases are judged by majority Site Council vote.
This is an awkward line/phrase, as it begs the question "who determines a case is borderline?" and furthermore it uses the loaded term "judged" rather than a more neutral term like "evaluated" or "ruled upon".
One possible approach to rewording this:
"Since one person's idea of a "minor distraction" could be seen by another as a "major element", the line is necessarily fuzzy here. Images are evlauated on a case-by-case basis by site council, and the majority vote will determine an image's acceptability."
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-06-09 11:52:37.
|
|
