Reconsidering a DQ - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

01/10/2006 12:16:29 AM · #126

Originally posted by scalvert:

It wouldn't make an iota of difference if the line in your shot was a telephone wire or a string you intentionally used to make the umpire's jacket flare out. It's hard enough to judge borderline cases of signifigance without the additional subjectivity of assumed intent.

You see, that is where we differ. I do see a difference in adding a string to hold the umpires jacket out and THEN removing it..you don't.

I think this is one of those times we are just not going to agree. I know I am right..you know you are right and now we are just trying to out debate each other. It happens.

Ultimately time will tell which way the site goes I guess but I suspect it won't stay in this middle ground.

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 00:17:23.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

01/10/2006 12:24:52 AM · #127

Originally posted by hokie:

Ultimately time will tell which way the site goes I guess but I suspect it won't stay in this middle ground.

I suspect that it will. There are obvious differences in the definiont of 'major element' still and they will be handled on a one-by-one basis.

nomad469

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

01/10/2006 12:25:12 AM · #128

Originally posted by scalvert:

THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S INTENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! A giant softbox is a visually significant object. Barely visible strings are not.

I know ... and I was just telling my wife that I actually like the original with the light box more ... but I digress ;)

BUT...
I think intent has everything to do with it ....it is a CONTROLLED environment... it is not like a compositional error of having a tree comming out of someones ear ...

so the standard is "visually significant object" right??? ... ok I can deal with that ... even if that visually significant object is a device used the achieve the image...

If so...again the rule needs to be ammended to reflect that ... or posted to the community to make sure that everyone is on the same page... and if those powerlines are a visually significant object then they cant be removed.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/10/2006 12:31:24 AM · #129

Originally posted by hokie:

I do see a difference in adding a string to hold the umpires jacket out and THEN removing it..you don't.

Believe what you want, but you can't base the rules on assumed intent. If you did put the string on the umpire, then you could just claim it was a powerline and thus legal. JoeyLawrence could just claim that someone held the ladder and ran out of frame while he balanced for a split second, and the visible line was just a telephone wire in the background. DrJOnes may have intended to leave the light in the shot all along to give the model context, but changed his mind and cloned it out at the last minute. If he then said THAT was his intention, who are we to argue? Likewise, could the photographer clone out an elephant if he first spray painted "Not intended for final" on its side?

I'm just telling you that's not how it works. We compare the before and after images and judge simply on the basis of what WAS there vs. what IS there.

DjFenzl

01/10/2006 12:34:59 AM · #130

Originally posted by scalvert:

...Likewise, could the photographer clone out an elephant if he first spray painted "Not intended for final" on its side?...

{snicker} :)
Just found that visual image funny... carry on... ;)

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

01/10/2006 12:37:51 AM · #131

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by hokie:

Ultimately time will tell which way the site goes I guess but I suspect it won't stay in this middle ground.

I suspect that it will. There are obvious differences in the definiont of 'major element' still and they will be handled on a one-by-one basis.

I didn't say it would happen in a day :-D

But as more of these circumstances pop up where roofers ropes holding up people are allowed to be digitally removed while lights are not then more threads like this will come up.

Don't get me wrong..that supermom photo was great and I voted it I think an 8. I do not spend time thinking about the legality of a photo..I just go with the artistic rendering in front of me. But graphicfunk and you John have swayed me to believe that advanced editing really should allow maximum flexibility in editing.

There really needs to be some changes in the editing rules I think...and I am a person that normally does not need a lot of flexibility in editing rules but this time I see the need.

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 00:41:30.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

01/10/2006 12:38:54 AM · #132

I would tackle all this by simply removing all degrees. No argument is left.

By including degrees what one calls a distracting element may be construed as a major by another. Certainly, Dr. Jones can argue that the light is a distracting element cause I am sure someone will say while in a challenge, "nice pic but the distracting light should have been left out!"

If we eliminate all degrees then there will be a better understanding.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/10/2006 12:46:33 AM · #133

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

If we eliminate all degrees then there will be a better understanding.

...and even less happiness. You appear to be suggesting either no cloning (thus sensor dust and power lines must stay) or unlimited cloning (in which case I may not even need a camera). I can't imagine either solution being very popular.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

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

01/10/2006 01:07:50 AM · #134

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
If we eliminate all degrees then there will be a better understanding.

...and even less happiness. You appear to be suggesting either no cloning (thus sensor dust and power lines must stay) or unlimited cloning (in which case I may not even need a camera). I can't imagine either solution being very popular.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, my suggestion is no cloning except artifacts and spots. You see, I recall shooting a house for basic editing. There were five powerlines and I could not avoid them. To me they represnted not a distraction but a major object. Now, if it had been a.e. then the image before and after would be different because those powerlines would be absent.

Don't get me wrong. I like the degrees because they help me make a better image but degrees have a serious problem: they mean different things to different people and can lead to a dq. No degrees, no dq.

01/10/2006 01:13:55 AM · #135

Why not leave the current state of affairs with the open no edit challenges and the member challenges.

Eliminate one of the open challenges and add a no holds barred, anything goes, let the people decide challenge.

I guess my point..I used to say "If you don't like the rules here go to the many other sites on the net" but..I was wrong I think.

Why send potential members away? Give people representing all photography a place here at DP Challenge. This isn't called "DP Challenge..Except for some stuff!". It's Dgital Photography Challenge. If it's in the Digital Photogaphy universe..lets have it here.

Don;t give those other sites good members...keep em all here. :-D

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/10/2006 01:31:16 AM · #136

Originally posted by hokie:

Give people representing all photography a place here at DP Challenge. This isn't called "DP Challenge..Except for some stuff!". It's Dgital Photography Challenge.

Some place the emphasis on digital, I believe most here place it on photography...

01/10/2006 01:39:18 AM · #137

No holds barred rules isn't much of a "Challenge" Personally, I could make a turd look like a supermodel given enough flexibility.

Like many others, I am here to better my Photography skills, not my photoshop skills.

But, perhaps some Photoshop challenges are in order to silence some that want the safety net of unbridled digital editting.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/10/2006 01:47:22 AM · #138

Originally posted by TooCool:

Some place the emphasis on digital, I believe most here place it on photography...

The point that was made to me earlier tonight is about the placement, each person's photgraphic emphasis is different.

Just because 60 out of 100 say something is so ..what about the other 40 people?

Just send them on their way with a "Go to Photosite ABC..they have a Digital Photo/Art section". Why give Photosite ABC the traffic and business?

Why not have room in the tent for everyone? Does another person who has a different view of modern photography threaten anyone here?

I think we have room for the person just picking up a digicam seriously for the first time but can't afford $600 photoshop programs, intermediates who do have all the toys but are still learning to use them all or just have a stricter view of photography, and finally, the digital geeks who want to have a go at everything that the world of digital imaging has to offer.

The days of sending so many people on their merry way need to end.

We need to have room for artists like Shiizzzam..

Shiizzzams Photo Art

or room to highlight Photographers like Dax in a contest/front page format

Why not have all the talent and all the technique here at our fingertips?

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 01:51:04.

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

01/10/2006 01:50:28 AM · #139

Quite right. This will help to hold on to photographers who feel that they have 'outgrown' DPC.

01/10/2006 01:55:50 AM · #140

Where do you draw lines on "More Advanced Rules"? How far do those rules let one go? Can I submit an original that is just a black frame (as long as it has proper EXIF data) for a ribbon winner of a water droplet?

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 01:56:47.

01/10/2006 02:03:53 AM · #141

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Where do you draw lines on "More Advanced Rules"? How far do those rules let one go. Can I submit an original that is just a black frame (as long as it has proper EXIF data) for a ribbon winner of a water droplet?

My question to you..why do you care where the line is drawn as long as you have a place for your style?

If we have 3 or 4 challenges a week (which by last count we have 5 challenges in que) wouldn't it be cool if there is a place in one of those 4 challenges for you and your photography.

Challenge 1...A basic...Just like now

Challenge 2....An intermediate...just like the advanced editing

Challenge 3....An Advanced......the new challenge kid on the block that lets you go Shiizzzam or Dax free with your combo photography and art skills.

Challenge 4....Another basic, or a 24 timed challenge or whatever.

Right there you all the stuff to let people compete and ..who knows...you might like all of the opportunities and drive yourself crazy trying to enter them all!

Wow...can you imagine the things we could all learn in the forums keeping even more people here?

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 02:04:59.

01/10/2006 02:07:58 AM · #142

I can't say I disagree with you, Hokie. I'm just throwing out a hypothetical as to when the art ceases to be photography and moves into digital painting.

01/10/2006 02:24:45 AM · #143

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I can't say I disagree with you, Hokie. I'm just throwing out a hypothetical as to when the art ceases to be photography and moves into digital painting.

I can't say..that is one of those lines that you can't really describe it but you will know it when you see it.

I think the totally open challenge would obviously have a wide range of entries..ranging from photos with simple desaturations or cloning all the way to whacked out photoshop nightmares.

You know..so what. The voters ..just like on the other challenges, will decide who went too far. And you will see the forum posts!

Can you imagine the forums whining now? "I entered a clearly superior artistic rendering of "The Last Supper" and I got 102nd place while some lame feather with a metal looking texture won. Man, these DP Cahllenge voters are narrow minded n00bs!"

The thing you WON'T hear is "They used an illegal edit to get that effect!"

I will imagine that the only rule is that an original photograph taken by the photographer within the previous week must be in the entry.

Imagine entries like this Photoblink example

or this one Photoblink example #2

Or maybe even this Photoblink Example #3

Thes are extreme examples compared to the Dax and Shiizzzam example earlier but it would be interesting to watch for sure.

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 02:31:52.

01/10/2006 02:32:16 AM · #144

But it leads back to my other post. Can I have a black frame (with proper EXIF data) and edit it until I have "The Last Supper"?

01/10/2006 02:36:34 AM · #145

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

But it leads back to my other post. Can I have a black frame (with proper EXIF data) and edit it until I have "The Last Supper"?

I don't see why not, there are no rules. I can't say how it would do in the challenge...you know as well as I do that voter expectations often dictate what photographers ultimately turn in :-/

I argue that beautiful but very traditional photos with conservative edits will still be more popular than wild photoshop freak-outs.

My point....once you offer the last frontier...photographers will have to live with the fact..their talent is where they live and die..not the limits placed on them.

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 02:38:08.