| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2005 11:26:47 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by muckpond:
the radial blur is a large part of the shot and it was not there in the original at all. therefore, a major element was created.
|
Sam with this image right just zoom blur and not radial blur?
 |
Nope; on this shot the blur is accentuating stuff that was already there, not obliterating it. That's where the "fine line" comes in. The original was posted way back when...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:29:11 AM · #52 |
Regardless something was created that wasn't there in the original. Against the rules right?
Am I alone in this?
Let me state that I am not trying to be mean by pointing at certain photos. I just want to make sure I don't cross that FINE and CONFUSING Line.
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 11:31:10. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:32:06 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by rex:
I just want to make sure I don't cross that FINE and CONFUSING Line. |
We're working on that line right now with our crayons and magic markers to make it less fine and less confusing. Patience please. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:34:19 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by rex:
I just want to make sure I don't cross that FINE and CONFUSING Line. |
We're working on that line right now with our crayons and magic markers to make it less fine and less confusing. Patience please. |
Chalk, you forgot the chalk! And the watercolor paints! ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:35:14 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by rex:
Regardless something was created that wasn't there in the original. Against the rules right?
Am I alone in this?
Let me state that I am not trying to be mean by pointing at certain photos. I just want to make sure I don't cross that FINE and CONFUSING Line. |
No. Something that was already there was accentuated and emphasized with the blur. Philosophically no different than some serious dodge 'n burn.
This is an almost impossible area to deal with conceptually. The only way to avoid ambiguity is to take all the artistic tools out of the entrants' hands by forbidding any and all photoshop manipulation.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:36:11 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We're working on that line right now with our crayons and magic markers to make it less fine and less confusing. Patience please. |
But are the crayons from the big, 64 color box with the sharpener in the back, or just the 8 pack? Washable or not? Glitter or no glitter? Fat or skinny? And the markers...fine tip, broad tip, washable, magic ink, or neon colors??? Details, man...we need details! No clarifying fuzzy rules without specific tools! ;)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:41:05 AM · #57 |
Ok I asked this:
Got this as a reply:
Originally posted by muckpond:
the radial blur is a large part of the shot and it was not there in the original at all. therefore, a major element was created. |
Asked this:
Originally posted by rex:
Same with this image right just zoom blur and not radial
blur?
|
Got this:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Nope; on this shot the blur is accentuating stuff that was already there, not obliterating it. That's where the "fine line" comes in.
Robt. |
I never said anything about getting rid of anything. It was creating elements. In my mind and I could be wrong. If one is DQ'ed for creating a radial blur then the other should be dq'ed for creating a zoom blur.
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 11:42:21. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:41:46 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by scalvert:
We're working on that line right now with our crayons and magic markers to make it less fine and less confusing. Patience please. |
But are the crayons from the big, 64 color box with the sharpener in the back, or just the 8 pack? Washable or not? Glitter or no glitter? Fat or skinny? And the markers...fine tip, broad tip, washable, magic ink, or neon colors??? Details, man...we need details! No clarifying fuzzy rules without specific tools! ;) |
Scalvert's got the 64, but all I've got is an 8-pack of the fat crayons. Somebody snatched the glitter ones when we weren't looking. I've got a fat yellow highlighter, and I stuck muckpond with a fine-tip sharpie. GeneralE won't stay in the lines. Frisca & karmat are fighting over a glitter pen. It's chaos!
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:42:08 AM · #59 |
i guess its down to interpretation - but for me, the disqualification was just.
the image has no blur in the original, and that is what makes the image so good - the radial blur applied.
applying a blur isnt an issue - using it to massively change the impact/look IS - this image would look like an everyday shot in a tube tunnel/walkway (wherever it is) without it.
thus the radial/zoom blur that has been applied to this DRASTICALLY changes the image and its impact.
advanced editing for me, should allow the use of layer effects and so on - but should AVOID allowing photographs to become digital artwork instead.
there's always DeviantART for that!
*EDIT*
and with that I also change my view on the image of the face - its too heavily post processed for me - and rex is right, the radial blur does give the image impact - the more you look at this, the more you realise how flat the image would be without it. i still like the heavy contrast etc, but without the blur the screaming that you feel coming towards you, is lost.
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 11:52:22. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:45:05 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by dr3amz:
and the image does not rely on the effect to make the picture work.
|
How does that image not rely on the zoom blur? Without it it is just another face screaming. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:46:55 AM · #61 |
Too bad he didn't slap a center-spot radial blur filter on the front of the camera...then we wouldn't be having any of this conversation. ;^)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:48:43 AM · #62 |
what i mean is that there are more elements going on in that image, than in the tunnel shot.
there is much more detail in the main subject than in the other image.
however - i wouldn't be happy with the 2nd shot either, because it has been heavily post processed.
im all for post processing - but i dont think photography should become merged with digital art. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:49:18 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Too bad he didn't slap a center-spot radial blur filter on the front of the camera...then we wouldn't be having any of this conversation. ;^) |
he coulda just WALKED as he took the shot :-) (or maybe ran! lol) |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 11:54:18 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by rex:
I never said anything about getting rid of anything. It was creating elements. In my mind and I could be wrong. If one is DQ'ed for creating a radial blur then the other should be dq'ed for creating a zoom blur. |
joey's anger unleashed shot had more going for it than just the zoom blur. redmoon's shot was 98% blur. that is where the difference lies.
the vote on the anger shot was as tight as it could possibly get for that exact reason. the question was whether or not the zoom blur was the dominant feature of the photo. for some, it was. for others, it wasn't.
it's not a question of HOW MUCH blur was added, but the amount of blur added when compared to the original photo is important.
zoom and radial blur are treated equally -- it's not that they are disallowed, but the amount of use is what is called into question. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:00:06 PM · #65 |
| So then the rules needs to state that you need to have more going for your shot then radial blur. If more than 95% blur is added then you will be dq'ed? |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:03:14 PM · #66 |
Lets trust the SC to make subjective judgements, rather than define random objective limits on every possible filter?
Originally posted by rex:
So then the rules needs to state that you need to have more going for your shot then radial blur. If more than 95% blur is added then you will be dq'ed? |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:08:44 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by rex:
I never said anything about getting rid of anything. It was creating elements. In my mind and I could be wrong. If one is DQ'ed for creating a radial blur then the other should be dq'ed for creating a zoom blur. |
joey's anger unleashed shot had more going for it than just the zoom blur. redmoon's shot was 98% blur. that is where the difference lies.
the vote on the anger shot was as tight as it could possibly get for that exact reason. the question was whether or not the zoom blur was the dominant feature of the photo. for some, it was. for others, it wasn't.
it's not a question of HOW MUCH blur was added, but the amount of blur added when compared to the original photo is important.
zoom and radial blur are treated equally -- it's not that they are disallowed, but the amount of use is what is called into question. |
I'm sorry, but this just confuses things even more. It seems that some people, and I have to assume this is within the site council since they make the decisions, are playing favorites.
Most of the time, we can't use depictions of drawings, computer monitor images, etc. but SOMETIMES it IS allowed. This doesn't make for fair play.
One solution might be to make an advanced challenge with a specific filter allowed, say the "radial blur" challenge..then we can get out our creative radial blur desires without getting DQ'd! |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:10:26 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by rex:
So then the rules needs to state that you need to have more going for your shot then radial blur. If more than 95% blur is added then you will be dq'ed? |
The rules state that...
using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.
This is how the use of blur (and other tools) are interpreted. We simply cannot start listing tools and all the possible ways they might be used and misused. That would be impossible to maintain, but more importantly impossible to comprehend.
The bottom line is, if the sum total of processing done to the photo results in creation, duplication, or moving (including removal) of a major element, it will be DQ'd.
What comprises a major element will be different for each shot. If you feel you are close to the line, it may be wise to run it past the SC prior to entering it.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:12:03 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by vfwlkr:
Lets trust the SC to make subjective judgements, rather than define random objective limits on every possible filter?
Originally posted by rex:
So then the rules needs to state that you need to have more going for your shot then radial blur. If more than 95% blur is added then you will be dq'ed? |
|
I concur. I don't envy the SC for their subjective burdens in deciding what pushes the envelope too far. I, However, admire and respect them for answering and defending their decisions. they answer every time they're called onto the carpet.(Perhaps I'll feel different if one of my own is DQed) Its not as easy as Black or white.....
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 12:13:31.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:12:47 PM · #70 |
| spot on - its plain english, those that disagree are merely trying to bend the rules to suit their image. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:16:38 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by dr3amz:
spot on - its plain english, those that disagree are merely trying to bend the rules to suit their image. |
?????????????????I was just asking a question and everyone was beating around the bush. I am done now I have seen it has gotten me nowhere. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:32:20 PM · #72 |
So, are you, people, saying that in-camera zoom blur is not allowed, and things like this would (or should) get disqualified?
 |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:33:16 PM · #73 |
| rex, i've tried to answer your question to the best of my abilities but it seems you just don't like the answer. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:35:13 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
So, are you, people, saying that in-camera zoom blur is not allowed, and things like this would (or should) get disqualified?
|
In the rules, it says that anything done in camera is legal. If done in camera...then the zoom blur would be in the original eh?
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 12:35:28. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:38:27 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
So, are you, people, saying that in-camera zoom blur is not allowed, and things like this would (or should) get disqualified?
|
In the rules, it says that anything done in camera is legal. If done in camera...then the zoom blur would be in the original eh? |
That's what i figure. I guess it wasn't clear from this thread what was the problem with the dq'd image. Was that not done in camera? Or is it the removal of light fixtures only that caused it? |
|
