| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2006 12:02:37 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How is the significance determined? |
by a group vote. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 12:06:58 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How is the significance determined? |
Common sense and subjective opinion. Distracting elements would be things like sensor dust, wires, stray hairs or twigs, an object mostly cut off along the edge of the frame, bugs, a small bird or other inconsequential object in the background... things like that. Objects that are more substantial or have a significant impact on the composition or content of the image are major. The distinction is usually (but not always) obvious. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 12:12:19 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by stare_at_the_sun:
Most of the blurring of that was done in PS. And it did pretty good... |
Actually..you can acheive the same thing in Neat Image or Noise Ninja. You simply go heavy on the noise reduction but chosse to skip certain key areas you do not want blurred. I think this might be illegal (selective editing) but you can acheive another of the same effect by duplicating a layer, blurring and then choosing to allow certain details to bleed through in the blending mode.
You also have lensbabies that can achieve interesting blurring effects that look like photoshop. Also, I have a tilt/shift lens that can do selective blurring that is out of the norm.
Most of my photoshop examples seem against the intent of the general rules forbiding selective edits but my point, a skilled photoshop person can make it look like normal camera activity.
Message edited by author 2006-01-16 12:13:56. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 12:46:24 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Most of my photoshop examples seem against the intent of the general rules forbiding selective edits ... |
Selective editing is allowed (within the previously-stated subjective limits) under the Advanced Rules set, but not under Basic Rules. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 12:58:59 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If two images are considered and one has a distracting element in the BG and the other does not. If the Post processing of both involves using the same blur on the BG, would one be eligible for DQ and the other not, simply because a distracting BG object was obscured and in the other it was not? |
If the obscured object was a significant thing in the original, then it will be DQ'd. If it was just a minor distraction (a small lens flare or telephone wire, for example), then that's OK. |
How is the significance determined? |
From my previous post:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The rule of thumb that we use is to imagine a typical person (not a photographer) describing each photo (as if they had never seen the other, not in comparison) to someone who has never seen it. If the edit changes the description significantly, a major element was probably added or removed. If the description doesn't change, then it probably wasn't. |
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 01:04:42 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If two images are considered and one has a distracting element in the BG and the other does not. If the Post processing of both involves using the same blur on the BG, would one be eligible for DQ and the other not, simply because a distracting BG object was obscured and in the other it was not? |
If the obscured object was a significant thing in the original, then it will be DQ'd. If it was just a minor distraction (a small lens flare or telephone wire, for example), then that's OK. |
How is the significance determined? |
From my previous post:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The rule of thumb that we use is to imagine a typical person (not a photographer) describing each photo (as if they had never seen the other, not in comparison) to someone who has never seen it. If the edit changes the description significantly, a major element was probably added or removed. If the description doesn't change, then it probably wasn't. |
~Terry |
Seems pretty subjective to me.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 01:06:43 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by hokie:
Most of my photoshop examples seem against the intent of the general rules forbiding selective edits ... |
Selective editing is allowed (within the previously-stated subjective limits) under the Advanced Rules set, but not under Basic Rules. |
Right! I knew there was a reason you were SC...it''s them sharp beady eyes! It's amazing I haven't been DQ'ed yet as poorly as I know the rules :-D
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 01:07:18 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Seems pretty subjective to me. |
Right -- but it has to be, by its nature, unless you use some arbirtrary but artistically irrelevant measure like pixel-count. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 01:09:03 PM · #59 |
| Beady? Maybe. Sharp? Markedly less-so in the last ten years : ( |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 01:18:50 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Seems pretty subjective to me. |
Right -- but it has to be, by its nature, unless you use some arbirtrary but artistically irrelevant measure like pixel-count. |
Yes, but what is, for lack of a better term, the "burden of proof"? If SC is determining significance of a change to an image, how is that done? Simple majority vote? Unanimous vote? Rock, Paper, Scissors? Naked mud-wresting tournament?
If the criteria are subjective, I would hope the process for determining it would be well-defined and transparent.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 01:19:34 PM · #61 |
Regarding considering color to be an "element" instead of an "attribute", that's just about impossible to do without completely shutting down our freedom to manipulate color in our images. And if color is an element, then why shouldn't tonal value be an element as well? And say goodbye to burning & dodging.
It's relatively simple to say that "things" are elements (the sky is an element, a tree is an element, etc) but part of the nature of "creative" photography is to manipulate the attributes of elements within the image to emphasize or de-emphasize them and to change their emotive relationship to each other. IMO anyway :-)
R. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 01:29:38 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Yes, but what is, for lack of a better term, the "burden of proof"? If SC is determining significance of a change to an image, how is that done? ... Naked mud-wresting tournament? |
Finally, someone willing to offer a practical suggestion!
Technically, I think a DQ can occur by simple majority vote, but in practice I always argue that there be a margin greater than one to DQ -- that we should err on the side of the photographer if there's that much doubt about a subjective issue.
But, the vast majority of DQs are for things which are more obvious rules violations, and for which the vote usually is unanimous.
Also, I'm pretty sure that a pretty high percentage of photos referred to us for validation end up not being DQd, though I have no hard statistics, just a feeling about it. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 05:08:59 PM · #63 |
I just had someone leave a comment on mine. It says "you forget a tree branch". OH...LMAO...don't you just LOVE those bag headed commentors? I'll make my OWN comment to Mr/Mrs baghead after challenge! LOL...
Rose |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 11:10:14 AM · #64 |
I am bumping this up because I referred to it in another thread called "up to my eyeballs". For those that hadn't read this thread, or noticed it, now is your chance, since it isn't regarded as a thread that sways voting.
Notice this thread was started on the 16th. Notice also that is when I made my last post on this thread and one in which specified that I was already receiving comments based on "fake" DOF. I have received nearly every comment since on DOF.
Notice also where Laurielblack says the same about receiving comments on her "fake" dof and thanks the crowd for this thread (surely not a happy ty), when she didn't even USE PP for her dof. There are also very interesting other comments made on this thread.
One comment Pawdrix said here in this thread on how it would "kinda kill the spirit of the challenge" to fake your dof. Ironically enough, I had a comment that nearly mimiced that word for word using the "spirit of the challenge" wording in my comments section.
I find this thread to have been influencial on how voters reacted to photos in the Singled Out challenge on and after January 16th.
I have also offered up a proposition that such threads as this not be allowed during voting time. Before? Fine. After? Fine. But during voting times threads like this are influencial, and I am not stating that as an actual opinion, but fact, based on word for word usage by another on this thread in my own comments but by someone completely different.
In any regard, I didn't bump this thread to bring more influence to the voting process. It's too late for that anyway. I bumped it for two reasons: One - because I referred to it in a post I made today and some hadn't read it in order to reference. And Two - I want to use this as an example to propose that in the future, if a challenge is to be based on an in-camera effect, that a special rule be added in which provides explanation of PP not being able to be used to achieve that effect, OR that it be a basic editing challenge.
Thank you,
Rose
Message edited by author 2006-01-22 11:13:40. |
|
|
|
01/22/2006 08:13:08 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
But during voting times threads like this are influencial, and I am not stating that as an actual opinion, but fact, based on word for word usage by another on this thread in my own comments but by someone completely different.
Rose |
I have not read this thread and don't intend to, but I did read some of the other thread, which seems to have disappeared. Now you seem to think that threads influence people even if they don't read them.
|
|
|
|
01/22/2006 08:32:39 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Pug-H:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
But during voting times threads like this are influencial, and I am not stating that as an actual opinion, but fact, based on word for word usage by another on this thread in my own comments but by someone completely different.
Rose |
I have not read this thread and don't intend to, but I did read some of the other thread, which seems to have disappeared. Now you seem to think that threads influence people even if they don't read them. |
And you seem to think I can read minds? LOL...How the hell do I know what you read and don't?
Cheer up. The fight is OVER, big time. :)
There is a new challenge tomorrow. Let's see what that brings. Hopefully GOOD thoughts!
Rose |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/15/2025 04:10:13 PM EDT.
