Suggested "Advanced Editing" Rule Clarification

10/08/2005 07:08:53 PM · #1

I think that the "Advanced Editing" rules are pretty clear for the most part. However, there is one thing that's always bothered me a little bit. The rules state that "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."

Here's the problem I have: it doesn't explicitly state in the rules that it is not permitted to remove major elements of your photograph. You could argue that "removing" is the same as "moving", but I think it would be much better to simply change the rules to add the word "remove", as follows:

"...using any editing tools to duplicate, create, move, or remove major elements of your photograph is not permitted."

hblake

Nikon Coolpix 5700

10/08/2005 07:22:40 PM · #2

Agreed.

However, the word major is open to interpretation. It would also be nice to define the line that separates major from minor.

Message edited by author 2005-10-08 19:24:24.

10/08/2005 07:51:52 PM · #3

Originally posted by hblake:

...the word major is open to interpretation. It would also be nice to define the line that separates major from minor.

I agree in principle, but realisticly how could the rules define a major element? I'd love to see some suggestions, but I have a feeling that ultimately it's not possible to nail down exactly what a major element is. I think that it will necessarily always come down to a case by case judgement call by the Site Council. I'd love to be proved wrong, though...

Here's a good analogy: Juries get together and decide whether a defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Has anyone in the history of the U.S. judicial system ever defined what "a reasonable doubt" is?

Message edited by author 2005-10-08 19:53:20.

fixedintime

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

10/08/2005 08:01:12 PM · #4

Drawing a line on what is and what is not major is not an easy undertaking. And likely whatever the written rule states the line is there will be disagreements on what it means.

What may be just is useful is a set of examples - 12 or more may be needed - that show the before and after for both acceptable changes and for those that violate the rule.

Clarification I agree would be useful - as long a people wonder if what they do will end up with a DQ then they will feel constrained about what they can do, and creativity will suffer.

Let me offer a couple of images that might start the discussion. The before image contains a pole that was cropped out. But editing deleted a second telephone pole, a number of wires and a street sign. Some more minor items edited out include a piece of grass and a mark on the road. So I open it for discussion - would this cross the line?

Note: the image was never used in any challenge - it was taken with contrasting colors in mind - but with basic editing it would have violated the rules. But when I got done I wondered where it would come out under the advanced editing rules.

SJCarter

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/08/2005 08:18:24 PM · #5

I think that your edited version would probably be allowed under advanced editing (at least that would be my vote). I'm sure it would be a close call, but I'm not on SC! :-)

Stagolee

Kodak Easyshare C180

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

10/08/2005 08:21:33 PM · #6

Originally posted by fixedintime:

I think this is a perfect example of what is allowed but that is just me. You must remember any disputed image goes before the SC for a ruling and I'm happy with the system in place.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

10/08/2005 09:15:55 PM · #7

fwiw, we are discussing some "official" definition of the major elements rule now. however, we have been discussing it for a while. it's a difficult concept to nail down, so we are being quite picky with the language.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/08/2005 09:44:42 PM · #8

The discussion was way back HERE.

10/08/2005 09:51:45 PM · #9

Originally posted by scalvert:

The discussion was way back HERE.

OK, referring back to the Original Post of this thread, I see that the inclusion of the word "remove" in the rules is already being considered.

Wow, that was way back in June. Still no change in the rules?? Or were the rules changed, but the word "remove" not added?

fixedintime

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

10/08/2005 10:34:29 PM · #10

Please don't think I'm unhappy with the system in place or that rewording of the rule might be a good thing. My real point is that without examples those entering images really have a hard time being sure just where the line is. That problem will still exist reguardless of the wording withtout some real examples of how the rule is interpreted by the SC.

My own feeling is to work on and decide to reword or not to reword - but whatever is done please include multiple examples so as to increase the comfort level of those who enter their images.

As it is now even when an image is DQed we usually don't see the offending action, just a description. Putting up both images is at the discression of the submitter. That does not bother me and is why I offered the two images here.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/08/2005 11:17:10 PM · #11

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Wow, that was way back in June. Still no change in the rules??

Actually, that's just the public discussion. It goes back further than that and, no... they haven't been updated yet. Big changes require a lot of discussion and happen VERRRRRY slowly. I agree that examples are needed, and we'd probably have something similar to the Literal Artwork tutorial for reference.

fixedintime

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

10/09/2005 09:18:06 AM · #12

Sounds like the SC is headed in the right direction. I look forward to the results. Plus I agree that these things take time and thought to get it right. Tnx to all on the SC for their hard work