| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/14/2005 02:09:55 PM · #76 |
Two questions, inspired by the following excerpts from this thread.
Excerpts: Filters: You may apply filters to enhance all or part of your photo, provided the tool itself does not move or obscure major elements, or create new shapes/objects that didn't exist in the original image.
If a zoom blur or motion filter is used to the point that you can no longer recognize a roller coaster that made up the bulk of your background, then it will likely be DQ'd. The same would be true if you dodged or burned the roller coaster into obscurity.
1) The use of filters (i.e - Cokin) attached to your camera are legal no matter what - yes? Granted the voters might not like it, but it's still legal. If I use a spot filter that obliterates everything but the core subject, or a motion filter to simulate a moving vehicle - those would be considered in camera.
2) I take a picture of a horse. Next to the horse, say a bit in back and off to the side, is a sawhorse with a saddle on it. Not knowing my intent when I took the picture some might think that saddle belongs in the photo. I don't like it - it distracts - so I use gaussian blur to the point where the saddle is a blob. Legal/Not Legal? Same photo, crop the saddle and sawhorse out. Legal/Not Legal?
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:20:18 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
1) The use of filters (i.e - Cokin) attached to your camera are legal no matter what - yes? Granted the voters might not like it, but it's still legal. If I use a spot filter that obliterates everything but the core subject, or a motion filter to simulate a moving vehicle - those would be considered in camera.
|
Yes it's legal. Anything done "inside the camera" (i.e. while the photo is being shot and not in post-processing) is legal. If you camera allows you to do multiple exposures in one frame, or colored filters (like BW or Sepia), those are totally legal.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
2) I take a picture of a horse. Next to the horse, say a bit in back and off to the side, is a sawhorse with a saddle on it. Not knowing my intent when I took the picture some might think that saddle belongs in the photo. I don't like it - it distracts - so I use gaussian blur to the point where the saddle is a blob. Legal/Not Legal? Same photo, crop the saddle and sawhorse out. Legal/Not Legal? |
This is where it gets more fuzzy. It depends on the photo itself. If the sawhorse is a "minor distracting element," then its removal is perfectly fine. Depending on the composition of the photograph, it could also be a "major element" in which case its removal would be prohibited.
The major elements clause has always been and will always be subjective. This new verbage was intended to clarify it a little bit by attempting to define major element ("something that one would point out when describing the photograph" - or whatever the exact line is).
If you shoot the photo you've described, would you say "it's that photo of the horse with the saddle in the background?" If so, that's a major element. If not, its removal is OK -- in ADVANCED editing. Basic editing doesn't allow for the removal of any elements. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:25:08 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The use of filters (i.e - Cokin) attached to your camera are legal no matter what - yes? |
Yes, the rules apply to post processing with software. Whatever you can do in-camera is legal (within the limits of subject matter).
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I use gaussian blur to the point where the saddle is a blob. |
My opinion is that this would be illegal. Your intention is both unknowable and irrelevant. We look at the original and the final, and from your own description it sounds like the saddle was an obvious, significant "thing" that's no longer recognizable in the final, so that would be a DQ.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Same photo, crop the saddle and sawhorse out. |
Cropping is always OK- even in Basic. We would compare the original and final at the same crop and work from there. If the saddle wasn't visible in the cropped original (or even if there was just a little bit of it showing), then there is no major element to remove.
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 14:26:22. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:25:38 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
... I'd like to draw attention to one of David's paragraphs, however, and discuss it further:
This lack of stability is seen clearly in the enforcement of the 'major elements' clause. For example, I can't seem to recall a single disqualification for having cropped a portion of the image off, even when what was cropped dominates the image. And yet, the cropping tool is an editing that is governed by this clause the same as any other is. Sure an enforcement of this would result in the DQ of a lot of entries, but would force those that remain to learn to compose a shot in camera. That can't be all bad -- can it?
I think this is a horrible suggestion ...
Robt. |
Actually, would you believe I agree. :D
That paragraph was included for the sole purpose of illustrating clearly the lack of uniform implementation of the major elements clause, and the final question with a dash of sarcasm. In my attempt to keep it short I fear I may have cropped it a bit close, and perhaps should have included a bit more of the environment of my thoughts to give the subject more context. ;)
In fact,I like the way the use of the cropping tool is handled. It is the one tool that can be used as the photographer sees fit and is never qustioned. It is the one tool in which the photographer's intention always reigns supreme. And, to date, has not done the harm usually attributed to giving the photographer his lead.
My intention of this example and the text which surrounds it is the hope of increasing consideration of the photographer's intention in the decision making process -- instead of the ever increasingly complex tangle of suppositions that currently prevails.
David
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:29:56 PM · #80 |
very subjective...I would describe the image as "it's that photo of the wonderfully backlit horse". ;^)
A side nitpick here...blurring is the same as removing? If I've blurred the saddle to a blob it's still there - just a bit blurry. He-he.
Originally posted by muckpond:
...If you shoot the photo you've described, would you say "it's that photo of the horse with the saddle in the background?" If so, that's a major element. If not, its removal is OK -- in ADVANCED editing. |
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:33:00 PM · #81 |
Now there's something interesting to know. I always thought when the "original" was requested the whole image was considered - not just the cropped portion submitted for the challenge.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Same photo, crop the saddle and sawhorse out. |
Cropping is always OK- even in Basic. We would compare the original and final at the same crop and work from there. If the saddle wasn't visible in the cropped original (or even if there was just a little bit of it showing), then there is no major element to remove. |
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:41:15 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Now there's something interesting to know. I always thought when the "original" was requested the whole image was considered - not just the cropped portion submitted for the challenge.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Same photo, crop the saddle and sawhorse out. |
Cropping is always OK- even in Basic. We would compare the original and final at the same crop and work from there. If the saddle wasn't visible in the cropped original (or even if there was just a little bit of it showing), then there is no major element to remove. |
|
My gawd, that would be positively draconian, wouldn't it? To judge our work not just on the editing that was applied to the portion of the image we chose to use, but on the entire, uncropped image we originally shot. I can see it now:
"It's obvious to us on SC that the photographer darkened his background to remove that saddle over there that we see in the uncropped version, so we are DQing the image based on the fact that we are 100% certain that the photographer darkened the saddle into oblivion BEFORE he cropped it out altogether."
jejeje�
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:46:10 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... Your intention is both unknowable and irrelevant. ... |
That sentiment perhaps expresses the source of a great deal of the resentment I've seen displayed toward the SC in the past year or so I've been a member here.
1) His intention is not 'unknowable' -- you can ask.
2) The image did not create itself. It's his creation. It is the result of an application of his intention -- the very last thing his intention could possibly be is 'irrelevant'.
David
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:51:43 PM · #84 |
The reason I guess I was surprised about the cropped vs entire original goes back to an entry that was DQ'd in the Cemetery challenge. I thought part of the problem was in the way the crop was made vs the original (the crop was pretty tight I guess) and then the image was filled out with a very large white border. That's why I was surprised, but bears comment makes alot of sense. ;^)
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:51:44 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by scalvert:
... Your intention is both unknowable and irrelevant. ... |
That sentiment perhaps expresses the source of a great deal of the resentment I've seen displayed toward the SC in the past year or so I've been a member here.
1) His intention is not 'unknowable' -- you can ask.
2) The image did not create itself. It's his creation. It is the result of an application of his intention -- the very last thing his intention could possibly be is 'irrelevant'.
David |
I was arrested and tried for attempted murder. I shot at the man and missed him altogether. My defense is that I didn't intend to hit him. Should they dismiss the case?
A photographer's "intentions" ARE irrelevant in terms of the ruleset as currently written. If I shoot the hypothetical image with the intention of cloning out the damned saddle, and YOU shoot it blissfully unaware the saddle was even there, does this mean I can clone it out and you can't?
It's REALLY Hard to write an enforceable ruleset that takes into account the "intention" of the work.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:53:11 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... I always thought when the "original" was requested the whole image was considered - not just the cropped portion submitted for the challenge. |
That is how it reads, and is in agreement with the 'spirit' of the major elements clause. Fortunately that is not how it is implemented in practice.
David
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:54:26 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The reason I guess I was surprised about the cropped vs entire original goes back to an entry that was DQ'd in the Cemetery challenge. I thought part of the problem was in the way the crop was made vs the original (the crop was pretty tight I guess) and then the image was filled out with a very large white border. That's why I was surprised, but bears comment makes alot of sense. ;^) |
Yah, the issue there wasn't the crop per se, it was how the border was matched to the surround so as to effectively give the image a large, white background, EXACTLY as if the shooter had dodged everything but the cropped area to pure white.
R.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 02:55:44 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The reason I guess I was surprised about the cropped vs entire original goes back to an entry that was DQ'd in the Cemetery challenge. I thought part of the problem was in the way the crop was made vs the original (the crop was pretty tight I guess) and then the image was filled out with a very large white border. That's why I was surprised, but bears comment makes alot of sense. ;^) |
i believe that the reasoning there was just that the giganticness of the white border became a major element in and of itself. if the user had submitted their original image cropped down as it was, it would not have had nearly the impact. the border was an added major element and, therefore, dq-worthy.
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 14:56:58. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 03:00:45 PM · #89 |
I agree with what you say on one hand, but then I guess in the spirit of "fair play" I shouldn't be surprised about the comparison of the cropped section of the original being compared against the submitted challenge. I'd bet that if you took a poll of how many people cropped down their "Birds" challenge entry to isolate the bird, the number would be pretty high. Because some people may not have a super high-powered zoom lens it is the only way to achieve a similar result (by cropping). So I'm kinda glad to know the way this works now - changes my perspective on the DQ ruling process.
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
... I always thought when the "original" was requested the whole image was considered - not just the cropped portion submitted for the challenge. |
That is how it reads, and is in agreement with the 'spirit' of the major elements clause. Fortunately that is not how it is implemented in practice.
David |
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 03:10:21 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
A side nitpick here...blurring is the same as removing? |
"...provided the tool itself does not move or obscure major elements..." If you use the blur tool to obscure the saddle, then you've broken that rule.
As far as what's considered a major element, this is my personal understanding... We obviously can't possibly know the photographer's intent, nor does it matter. You may not have INTENDED to shoot the pink blimp occupying 1/4 of the sky in your shot, but it's still a major element. Ask yourself what the main objects are in the original capture, what features affect the composition, and what the image is "about." If removing an item affects any of those aspects, then it's probably a major feature. The feature doesn't have to be large to be major. Consider a photo of a black dog looking cross-eyed at a ladybug on its nose. The bug might be small, but it's crucial to the original scene. A small leaf behind the dog would probably be an insignificant distraction, but if the dog was standing in green grass on one side of the image with a bright red leaf on the other, then removing that leaf will have an impact on composition and it becomes major. A detailed background itself is usually considered a major element because it forms the context of the original, so you can't just replace it with a solid color or blur everything away.
While it might seem like you're left second-guessing the SC, it's more of a common sense thing. SC opinions really only come into play in borderline cases, and then we discuss them at length to [hopefully] reach a consensus. A little clearer now? |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 03:13:09 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I was arrested and tried for attempted murder. I shot at the man and missed him altogether. My defense is that I didn't intend to hit him. Should they dismiss the case? |
In a criminal trial, where you would be presumed innocent until proven guilty, your intention would play a critical role. The laws as I understand them have multiple levels, based in part on the intention of the accused. A lower level from 'attempted murder' would be 'assault', and lower still 'reckless endangerment'.
Originally posted by bear_music:
A photographer's "intentions" ARE irrelevant in terms of the ruleset as currently written. ... |
Exactly! As it currently stands, the intention of the photographer is placed bottom rung, with the opinion of the public directly above and the SC above that. I feel the creator of the image happens to also be the one most qualified to understand it.
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's REALLY Hard to write an enforceable ruleset that takes into account the "intention" of the work.
Robt. |
Harder than not considering the photographers intention -- yes. But far from impossible. The current ruleset already have the beginnings of the multi-layered approach of the legal example above, but it lacks clear definition -- resorting instead to lowering the position of the photographer in the final analysis. Although I do believe that lowering was an unintended side effect of trying to deal with multiple viewpoints.
David
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 03:17:05 PM · #92 |
| Regarding the cemetery image... it was cropped to remove some elements that would have been considered major, but then the photographer added pixels to extend the image area rather than merely frame the content (calling it a border doesn't make it so). Thus, he effectively "UNcropped" the image, and the whole image area would be judged against the original. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 03:21:19 PM · #93 |
Yes, and sorry if I was playing a bit of devil's advocate with that one. The distinction between blurred and blurred to the point of 'obscurring' (sp?) would be an interesting debate. Kinda glad it's you (SC) and not me...in the meantime I'll play it safe with this issue.
Thanks again.
Originally posted by scalvert:
...A little clearer now? |
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 03:24:15 PM · #94 |
I have concerns about the definition of photographic integrity. My memory tells me that the way the term is used here started when we were debating the merits and effects of introducing the Advanced rules. And the term was used to describe keeping an image edited under advanced rules true to what it would have looked like if edited under the original rules but with improvements resulting from more sophisticated tools and techniques. Now it seems that the definition of the term Photographic Integrity has somehow evolved to mean keeping an image true to a photpgrapher's intent, or as Britanica has defined it, the photographer's initial visualization. Both of these, intent and visualization, are intangible and inflict yet another subjective judgement on the SC when trying to enforce.
I think it would be closer to the original intent of the Advanced rules, and make enforcement of them more objective, to define photographic integrity, or any other term used in place of it, as keeping true to what was captued by the camera while improving it with allowed editing tools and techniques. I also think that this approach to the concept of photographic integrity will make the major elements rule less subjective and less difficult in it's enforcement.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 03:28:56 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
As it currently stands, the intention of the photographer is placed bottom rung, with the opinion of the public directly above and the SC above that. |
As illustrated before, a pink blimp occupying a good chunk of the sky in an image is a major element whether the photographer intended it to be or not. Wherever possible, I think ALL intentions and opinions should be removed from the process (you either have valid EXIF data or you don't), but some areas are necessarily subjective. To give a photographer's intentions primary importance makes the rules completely unenforceable since he or she can just claim that [whatever] was not intended to be a part of the final image. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 03:53:50 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think it would be closer to the original intent of the Advanced rules, and make enforcement of them more objective, to define photographic integrity, or any other term used in place of it, as keeping true to what was captured by the camera while improving it with allowed editing tools and techniques. |
A noble goal, but my interpretation of "improving it" might be quite different from yours and still result in an image with little resemblance to the original. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 04:30:09 PM · #97 |
Regarding blemishes or removing things in a photo major or minor...I understand that that is hard line to define but for example...
If you enter a photo of a person sitting at a table and in the foreground, there is the very top of a drinking glass blurred in front of the persons lower chest area...maybe OR maybe not annoying, can you knock that out???
Let me add that it's a Hat Challenge and the persons hat and smile are the main focus of the image.
People crop out things like that if possible but would that be considered a major element?
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 16:34:50.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 04:36:28 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
If...there is the very top of a drinking glass blurred in front of the persons lower chest area...can you knock that out??? |
Hard to say for sure from just a verbal description of it, but it sounds OK to me. If it's just the top edge of the glass, then that's more of a distracting detail than a significant object in the photo that would affect composition or content. Again, that's just based on the image in my mind's eye without actually seeing it. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 04:55:44 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A noble goal, but my interpretation of "improving it" might be quite different from yours and still result in an image with little resemblance to the original. |
Yes, your interpretation could be quite different than mine, but at least we would be trying to reach a consensus in our interpretations of something that is more concrete than intent or visualization, and we'd have the original image file to help us. Do you not see any advantage there?
Maybe it would help to clearify things if you, or the Site Council, would restate the reasons you took on this revision, and what you are looking for as the outcome of it. Several of us, including Britanica, bear_music, myself and others have made comments and suggestions and have gotten confusing responses in return. Are we wasting our time in trying to understand and/or help in this effort?
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 04:56:35 PM · #100 |
Yeah...I got it. Like anything that's not terribly huge or significant to the photo on the whole.
Like here, I removed two ugly factory buildings(to the left)...and that would not have been within the rules but if I took out a helicopter in the sky or in front of the Chrysler building ...that might be ok???? If it were small and minor in the grand scheme of things...of course?
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 16:57:23.
|
|
