"Nude III" Results Recalculated - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/04/2005 01:45:43 AM · #51

Originally posted by ursula:

Dan, I don't know if the voting has been made public before, so I am not going to do that now.

For myself, I don't think DrJOnes' image should have been DQed. I understand the arguments in favour of DQ, but, to my thinking, there are also valid arguments in favour of no DQ. I don't think for one minute that Martin would have wanted a final image with the softbox included. I don't believe that Martin's editing compromises the picture. I am having a hard time explaining why though.

I agree that the image should not have been DQ'd. I feel that the past helps to dictate what is allowed in the future. I have, in past challenges, checked other entries effects to see if a certain effect that I was using would be allowed. Here is an example. In December, 2003 Crabapple3 won a blue ribbon for this entry

The bird was in a cage and he cloned out the cage. This was not DQ'd when it might be considered that the cage was a major element. I followed this example with my entry in the "Unusual Viewpoint" challenge on 5/13/2004.

I intentionally cloned out the hooks and lines holding up the subjects. Under the most recent DQ ruling on DrJones's image it appears that these images would be DQ'd under this "new" policy. It appears that this is a grey area that needs to be clearly defined to avoid embarrassment in the future.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/04/2005 01:51:29 AM · #52

Inede,

Was the image ever challenged?

I've seen the original of Crabby's bird and the cage wire was a comparatively minor part of the composition IMO.

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/04/2005 01:54:50 AM · #53

Originally posted by bear_music:

Inede,

Was the image ever challenged?

I've seen the original of Crabby's bird and the cage wire was a comparatively minor part of the composition IMO.

R.

No, never challenged. My technique was described in the details section.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/04/2005 01:58:29 AM · #54

I thought it was, and I'm sure it sparked some rather heated disagreements : )

Note that the composition of the SC changes, and like that other (rather more important) SC, the new panel ocassionally over-rules previous precendent -- the doctrine of stare decisis is not immutable.
==========

Main Entry: staÂ·re deÂ·ciÂ·sis
Pronunciation: 'ster-E-di-'sI-sis, 'stÃ¤r-E-; 'stÃ¤-rA-dA-'kE-sEs
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, to stand by things that have been settled
: the doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice with departure from precedent permitted for compelling reasons (as to prevent the perpetuation of injustice)

Message edited by author 2005-09-04 01:59:06.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/04/2005 02:00:33 AM · #55

Originally posted by lnede:

Originally posted by bear_music:
Inede,

Was the image ever challenged?

I've seen the original of Crabby's bird and the cage wire was a comparatively minor part of the composition IMO.

R.

No, never challenged. My technique was described in the details section.

Then for all we know they WOULD have DQ'd it, eh? Depends how noticeable the props were I guess, I donno. I admit it's all fairly confusing. The simplest solution, certainly, would be to allow removal of ANY distracting elements the shooter doesn't like. But of course there's no consensus that this is desirable. I'm certainly not advocating it; it would just be simpler...

R.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/04/2005 02:02:18 AM · #56

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I thought it was, and I'm sure it sparked some rather heated disagreements : )

I was referring to the Cicada shot, not Crabby's, in case that wasn't clear...

R.

09/04/2005 02:08:26 AM · #57

This is a problem with no easy solution. If you overrule than is it fair to allow past images to remain?

This is why I repeat that a DQ should always receive the full vote of the council, excepting obvious offenses, because it may set a precedent and to overrule that precedent may render past images liable for a DQ.

09/04/2005 02:10:15 AM · #58

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I thought it was, and I'm sure it sparked some rather heated disagreements : )

I was referring to the Cicada shot, not Crabby's, in case that wasn't clear...

R.

Here is the original untouched picture. Would it be DQ'd under these new guidelines? It would be nice to know for the future.

09/04/2005 02:16:18 AM · #59

Originally posted by lnede:

I followed this example with my entry in the "Unusual Viewpoint" challenge on 5/13/2004.

I intentionally cloned out the hooks and lines holding up the subjects.

You should have been DQd for cruelty alone.

09/04/2005 02:22:30 AM · #60

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by lnede:
I followed this example with my entry in the "Unusual Viewpoint" challenge on 5/13/2004.

I intentionally cloned out the hooks and lines holding up the subjects.

You should have been DQd for cruelty alone.

Don't worry, they were anesthetized and eaten afterwards!

09/04/2005 02:24:42 AM · #61

Funny: according to this thread you may hear that the fingers are too much a part of this image and as such it deserves a dq because you should have left the fingers out even before the crop. From the sarcastic you will hear, what is the matter with you? Why would you leave the fingers in, is that not sloppy? From the know it all, you will be told to reshoot the image because if you don't want strings then don't put them in.

Yet, according to precedent, the main object has nothing to do with the thread like the light has nothing to do with the model. But someone will take a ruler and tell you that the fingers occupy x amount of space and how can that be ignored. I would agree with them, but then we would have to go back and address the past. Or is the General suggesting change the precedent and let the past slide?

Nope, I think it is too late to change the rules: the archives tell the true story.

Message edited by author 2005-09-04 02:27:19.

09/04/2005 02:29:52 AM · #62

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Funny: according to this thread you may hear that the fingers are too much a part of this image and as such it deserves a dq because you should have tighten on the crop to leave the fingers out. From the sarcastic you will hear, what is the matter with you? Why would you leave the fingers in, is that not sloppy? From the know it all, you will be told to reshoot the image because if you don't want the fingers then don't put them in.

Yet, according to precedent, the main object has nothing to do with the fingers like the light has nothing to do with the model. But someone will take a ruler and tell you that the fingers occupy x amount of space and how can that be ignored. I would agree with them, but then we would have to go back and address the past. Or is the General suggesting change the precedent and let the past slide?

Nope, I think it is too late to change the rules: the archives tell the true story.

09/04/2005 02:34:24 AM · #63

Originally posted by nsbca7:

[quote=graphicfunk] Funny: according to this thread you may hear that the fingers are too much a part of this image and as such it deserves a dq because you should have tighten on the crop to leave the fingers out. From the sarcastic you will hear, what is the matter with you? Why would you leave the fingers in, is that not sloppy? From the know it all, you will be told to reshoot the image because if you don't want the fingers then don't put them in.

Yet, according to precedent, the main object has nothing to do with the fingers like the light has nothing to do with the model. But someone will take a ruler and tell you that the fingers occupy x amount of space and how can that be ignored. I would agree with them, but then we would have to go back and address the past. Or is the General suggesting change the precedent and let the past slide?

Nope, I think it is too late to change the rules: the archives tell the true story.

No, don't even start that. If DrJones had cropped out the lamp this would not even be an issue. Inede didn't clone out the fingers, he cropped them. That has never been against any rule for any challenge that I can remember. [/quote+++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Very sorry: I edited my post. You replied to the unchanged one. But let us suppose that he cropped out the softbox, would he have been allowed to clone out the light stand?

09/04/2005 02:36:59 AM · #64

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

But let us suppose that he cropped out the softbox, would he have been allowed to clone out the light stand?

I think that was addressed earlier and the answer was yes.

09/04/2005 02:47:30 AM · #65

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

But let us suppose that he cropped out the softbox, would he have been allowed to clone out the light stand?

I think that was addressed earlier and the answer was yes.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Okay: but you see that what we are arguing is not about cloning out but what some people consider too much. Now, why would the light stand be allowed? I would not allow it, because the reply is that it is not really important to the image. So the question then depends on what you consider important. If they allowed crapapple to remove the cage bars, could some not argue that the bar constitite a major element.

You see, this is precedent. I once partook of a thread in which I wanted all of these things eliminated and was told to go away. I prefer as close an image to the original, but like I said, I am arguing for what already has been established. For them to have accepted my argument, they would have had to go back and DQ a lot of images.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/04/2005 03:10:31 AM · #66

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

But let us suppose that he cropped out the softbox, would he have been allowed to clone out the light stand?

I think that was addressed earlier and the answer was yes.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Okay: but you see that what we are arguing is not about cloning out but what some people consider too much. Now, why would the light stand be allowed? I would not allow it, because the reply is that it is not really important to the image. So the question then depends on what you consider important. If they allowed crapapple to remove the cage bars, could some not argue that the bar constitite a major element.

You see, this is precedent. I once partook of a thread in which I wanted all of these things eliminated and was told to go away. I prefer as close an image to the original, but like I said, I am arguing for what already has been established. For them to have accepted my argument, they would have had to go back and DQ a lot of images.

I agree with you that a light stand and a bird cage bars are major elements. I don't agree in retroactive DQs.

I think, and I have asked for this before, that the rules are spelled out better. That is what we need, and then screw precedent. If the rules are written out in such a way as to leave little room for interpretation, then they do in effect override any rulings from the past.

Iâ��m not what you would call a purest. I shoot digital and use PS. But there needs to be a clear line set as far as how much editing can be done. I say the less the better. If we want to go to full out digital manipulation we can all just go hang out at deviantart.com

Message edited by author 2005-09-04 03:12:06.

darkyoda

Canon PowerShot A720IS

09/04/2005 04:00:26 AM · #67

Why the hurry to DQ ?
I mean if you give it till the end of the next challenge.
If you get 2/3 of the SC to vote one way or the other sooner then do it then. If at the end of the next challenge then it's just majority rule.

Sort of covers things there. Although clear rules and examples are always useful.

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/04/2005 05:58:55 AM · #68

Another thing that bothers me here is that I had DrJones' photo in my favourites, but now it's been taken out and I can't select it again!! Grrrrrrrr.....

Rankles

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/04/2005 07:59:18 AM · #69

I don't see why people are even discussing this. The softbox WAS a major element, even if irrelevant to the photograph. Saying it isn't would be like doing a nude in a busy street and cloning out everything but the person, seein as only the person was important, and the rest were just minor things.

Nazgul

09/04/2005 08:40:44 AM · #70

Originally posted by Rankles:

I totally agree with this!!!!

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/04/2005 10:01:21 AM · #71

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

... because it may set a precedent and to overrule that precedent may render past images liable for a DQ.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

For them to have accepted my argument, they would have had to go back and DQ a lot of images.

DQs aren't retroactive. For the most part, the window of "opportunity" is within the week the results are displayed, unless we discover someone to be some sort of heinous cheater and we remove many of their entries. Changes in policy aren't going to affect past entries.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/04/2005 11:10:28 AM · #72

Just want to touch on a few points brought up...

BearMusic was correct about a hypothetical elephant removed from the background. If it was so blurry that it amounted to nothing more than a faint fuzzy mass in the original background, then it could be removable.

Past precedent isn't always an accurate guide because old entries may not represent new rules and two different entries may not be 100% comparable. The strings on the bug shot can be removed because they're insignificant details, and the fingers were outside the final image area. CrabAppl's cloned out cage might get different validation results now because 1. The rules have since been revised and 2. There are different SC members who might have slightly different opinions on how much is too much. While we may never be able to clarify the rules so much that every decision is black and white, we can at least try to reduce the gray areas.

We got as many SC votes on DrJOnes' shot as we could. I personally called attention to it several times. If we waited for everyone to vote, we STILL wouldn't have a decision and it could be DQ'd later anyway. I think it's better to get as many votes as possible within a reasonable time frame so the new 10th place can enjoy his spot on the first page. I already noted that if Martin had cropped out the softbox, the light stand could have been removed without a DQ. The vote was already close, and the light stand is FAR less prominent than the softbox. We generally err on the lenient side, but we've DQ'd "less major" objects than that softbox before.