Comments + advanced editing question

11/19/2005 01:32:46 AM · #1

Inspired by SDW65's recent work (in this thread), I tried it on some of my older photos. Here is the result:

Question for the SC: would something like this be allowed in advanced editing. Is the added frame a major element? If not allowed, would a thinner one be major element, too? Obviously, no frame would be OK as selections are allowed, but would not be as effective as with frames.

11/19/2005 03:12:26 AM · #2

OK, one more try. If instead of painting the frame white, I only make adjustments to e.g. brightness & contrast in layer that has the frame as a mask (like here):

Would this be legal?

Also a bump for comments.

11/19/2005 03:25:09 AM · #3

As far as the image goes, I can't say I'm crazy about it. It's OK, but it doesn't really do anything for me, it feels more gimmicky than anythign else. But some people really like this stuff, so pay me no heed, I say.

As far as the legality goes, we're certainly dealing with creating a major element here. But it's already legal to create major elements if they are borders/frames; it's done all the time. So the real question here is not, "does this fall under the major element rule?" but instead, "Is this considered a "border" if it is done this way?" If it's not considered a border, I don't see how it could be legal. And we can't just define a "border" by saying "A border is a frame drawn OUTSIDE the entire image", because we already have people bordering with inlines and they have passed muster.

I'd even consider posting up a THIRD version with NO frame, just the one section left saturated in the midst of the overall desat. THAT would be an interesting test case. Would THAT constitute creating a major element, since it's clearly not a border? We've seen examples of DQs where people got dinged for manipulating pixels in such a way as to create shapes or forms that otherwise would not have been there.

Hell, I donno. It's a good question. I wonder if SC is pondering it as we speak?

R.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 03:26:13.

11/19/2005 03:50:51 AM · #4

Thanks, Robert.
Here is the version with just a desat, no borders.

It could be valuable tool (I did this particular image just 'cause it was the first one I opened to do it on) There is a possibility that other images might benefit some more from it. I've seen many a selectively desaturated image, and only a few were appealing.

SC?

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/19/2005 03:59:32 AM · #5

Originally posted by bear_music:

we're certainly dealing with creating a major element here. But it's already legal to create major elements if they are borders/frames; it's done all the time. So the real question here is not, "does this fall under the major element rule?" but instead, "Is this considered a "border" if it is done this way?"

Ever since the infamous BradP border incident, I've never understood why a major element that is a border isn't concidered a major element. You are one of the few individuals here that believe like I do that a border CAN be a major element. I should shut up now. Will explain why later! ;-)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/19/2005 04:11:03 AM · #6

Originally posted by TooCool:

Ever since the infamous BradP border incident, I've never understood why a major element that is a border isn't considered a major element. You are one of the few individuals here that believe like I do that a border CAN be a major element. I should shut up now. Will explain why later! ;-)

I remember a few other challenges, where elements were added to the photo by applying legal techniques such as dodge, burn, clone etc. where it also wasn't vodet out. There were other instances where DQs were issued. I guess it is up to the SC and their view of the image as a group. Some SC members may consider it major, and yet some may not.

In the end, I guess it depends on the majority view on an individual photo. I don't have anything coming down the line that would use this 'digital art', but I wanted to know, just in case it presents itself as a good solution to background clutter.

Thanks for your opinion. All of the SC are asleep now, so good night y'all, I'm off to bed too.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

11/19/2005 09:36:12 AM · #7

There was a clarification of the 'major elements' rule that was discussed in these forums some time ago. As I recall, there was talk of classing a major element as a feature of the photograph that a viewer would use to describe it (or something like that). By this criterion, I would have to say that the original shot would not be legitimate. I looked in the challenge rules and could see no mention of this clarification. I believe that it would be good to incorporate it, as it makes the interpretation of this particular rule a little more straight forward.

mfairbanks

Sony DSC-F828

11/19/2005 10:35:10 AM · #8

Greetings,
I find it interesting that in over 8hrs since the original post, no SC has weighed in on this question....

Mike
//www.mikefairbanks.com

Apple iPhone 5

11/19/2005 10:55:10 AM · #9

I've just been playing with the idea in PS, used properly it can be quite effective.

You'd never know, 'shot-within-a-shot' could be the next big thing after grunge...

And we'll all be sick of seeing it in a couple of months time! :-)

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/19/2005 12:30:22 PM · #10

One more attempt to get something from SC:

which one of these (if any) would fly in the advanced rules challenge (with respect to the major element rule, the photo hasn't been touched otherwise - obviously:-)

- with no border, only desat of selection

- with border-like mask, but no painting.

- with proper border

Anyone?

edit to add: the first option is not something I would ever do. It is here for illustration purpose. I know that it is valid thing to do, so please don't waste time commenting on it.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 13:36:11.

wavelength

Nikon D300

11/19/2005 12:39:01 PM · #11

have you actually tried to PM one of them? Or used the contact link on the help menu?

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 12:39:10.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

11/19/2005 12:45:20 PM · #12

Is there any real difference to your proposal and the entry by Coley in the Transparency II challenge:

Steve

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

11/19/2005 01:26:11 PM · #13

Originally posted by wavelength:

have you actually tried to PM one of them? Or used the contact link on the help menu?

No, not yet - this is not my entry, and it is something I wish to discuss in a broader forum. I might have to resort to PMing one of them...

Coley's photo had that wooden frame in the original - it was not added in post production.

wavelength

Nikon D300

11/19/2005 01:29:11 PM · #14

Originally posted by srdanz:

Originally posted by wavelength:
have you actually tried to PM one of them? Or used the contact link on the help menu?

No, not yet - this is not my entry, and it is something I wish to discuss in a broader forum. I might have to resort to PMing one of them...

Coley's photo had that wooden frame in the original - it was not added in post production.

I'd agree with the premise that you could blur/sauturate/hue shift the crap out of a frame selection, and that it would still be legal. Since the point of th rule is to keep people from trying to add in an element so as to fool the viewer, I think either should be allowed though. just IMO, I have no clue what SC has to say.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

11/19/2005 01:36:46 PM · #15

Originally posted by srdanz:

You misunderstand my point, it is not the frame, it is the manipulation of major elements. The same would apply to a high key photo etc.

Steve

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

11/19/2005 01:42:50 PM · #16

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Is there any real difference to your proposal and the entry by Coley in the Transparency II challenge:

Steve

A major difference; Coley photographed the frame and desaturated everything not contained by it. Srdanz has ADDED a frame within the image in post production. There's absolutely nothing questionable, rules-wise, about what Coley did. But there's a substantial gray area in srdanz's example, IMO.

Look at it this way: there's absolutely no question that if srdanz drew a large, white-filled rectangle in photoshop, rotated it, and positioned it within his image, it would be the illegal addition of a major element. Now, basically he has drawn such a rectangle, positioned it, and erased the center of it to show the underlying layer; so the question is, at what poiint does it stop being an added, illegal major element and become a legal border, if at all?

There are filters/tools that allow the creation of a very elaborate border, one that resembles an actual picture frame complete with drop shadows and mattes. We see these used all the time around the perimeter of images to frame them for presentation. If srdanz's simple, white border-within-the-image were allowed as a border (and an inline is already allowed, according to past results) does this mean that he could create an elaborate, trompe l'oliel frame in there instead?

Ooh, these could be murky waters...

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 13:43:03.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

11/19/2005 01:50:01 PM · #17

I am confused as to why all this discussion. The frame whether set at an angle in the middle of the image or around the edge is still a frame. I can't see how it is manipulating a major element. If it is, then all frames are manipulating them to some extent.

Why, even cropping could be classed as manipulating major elements, or desaturation/saturation or neat image or sharpening. It goes on and on. Hopefully SC will give a judgement.

Steve

11/19/2005 01:59:07 PM · #18

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Because triptych is running right now, and basically triptych is a challenge that allows multiple frames, and it has people thinking. There are numerous examples of internal framing in triptych. If the sort of internal framing srdanz has tried on his first posted example is ruled to be "legal" within the advanced DPC ruleset (it can't be legal in basic, I don't think, because it requires a rectangular selection), then in theory there's nothing to keep you from using multiple sets of internal frames, and we've opened the doors to entries that are like collages of overlapping, framed sections, like those "stacked snapshots" type images scott was playing with recently:

This is a subject of considerable interest and, if the technique is allowed, it might have a noticeable impact on the direction future DPC entries take.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 14:00:23.

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

11/19/2005 02:17:50 PM · #19

And remember... in triptych, the only relaxed rule is the one talking about multiple images. If some of these images fly by, then it either has to be explained by the specific challenge (i.e. it is OK for the triptych because that's how you do these things) or similar things are going to fly by in future challenges.

There are multiple photos in the challenge that did not use multiple images, so strictly speaking, all of these should be valid at any time advanced editing is in place.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

11/23/2005 10:56:12 PM · #20

Originally posted by srdanz:

Inspired by SDW65's recent work (in this thread), I tried it on some of my older photos. Here is the result:

Question for the SC: would something like this be allowed in advanced editing. Is the added frame a major element? If not allowed, would a thinner one be major element, too? Obviously, no frame would be OK as selections are allowed, but would not be as effective as with frames.

Speaking individually and not on behalf of SC, I believe this would be a legal border.

~Terry

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/23/2005 11:23:42 PM · #21

This one passed scrutiny for the Illusions II challenge.