| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2006 12:28:17 AM · #326 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
Having said that, I am even more disappointed now with the responses (or lack of responses) from the SC members, specially the ones who supported the DQ.
After all the responses that disagreed with this DQ, all the logical reasons provided, and even the similar examples which were treated different, the fact that this thread received very few responses from the SC to support or to logically explain the DQ (except from Shannon) means that you guys have not much to say, you could’ve just admitted that you were wrong and move on â€Â¦
but anyway, too many people spent too much time on this â€Â¦ So â€Â¦ I guess there is no more DPC for me for now .. Until I get over this, or until I find another photography web site that is hopefully more mature.
Regards and thank you all for the awesome experience .. |
Or maybe, just maybe we didn't feel the need to say something already said.
That said, since you want SC input, here is another voice from SC. For each of the three pictures, I looked at two things. What was the original? What was the end result?
In one of them, I felt the background had been obscured significantly by the use of a filter. When I say significantly, I mean by large degrees, lots of *stuff* gone, lots of details etc. I felt the photographer had used the filter to "create" rather than enhance a major portion of the photograph -- the background. I was in the minority on this shot.
On the other one, I felt it was borderline, but the background was significantly *less* obscured. Some details were still visible that were visible in the original.
I did not vote on yours. Had I voted, though, it would have been to dq (making the decision not as close). Why? Because to me, there is a lot of *details*, *stuff* in the original that is obscured by the use of the filter. It is an awesome shot, originally, that is altered significantly in post-processing, which I do not feel follows the *spirit* of the rules.
So, I've added nothing new to the debate, but you wanted to hear SC's voice, so there's another one.
Now, back to wading through rule revisions . . ..
|
|
|
|
02/03/2006 09:25:00 PM · #327 |
I'm not trying to pick on any one photo or photographer here, but I came across this example while browsing the recent ribbons;
It's that kind of thing that confuses me. Obscuring the background in the seagulls shot got a DQ, but the above post-processing was fine. This is a gray area indeed... :) |
|
|
|
02/03/2006 09:36:13 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
I'm not trying to pick on any one photo or photographer here, but I came across this example while browsing the recent ribbons;
It's that kind of thing that confuses me. Obscuring the background in the seagulls shot got a DQ, but the above post-processing was fine. This is a gray area indeed... :) |
Agreed. I brought this up for review and haven't heard a thing. |
|
|
|
02/03/2006 09:39:27 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by jhonan:
I'm not trying to pick on any one photo or photographer here, but I came across this example while browsing the recent ribbons;
It's that kind of thing that confuses me. Obscuring the background in the seagulls shot got a DQ, but the above post-processing was fine. This is a gray area indeed... :) |
Agreed. I brought this up for review and haven't heard a thing. |
It's still under review by the SC, thank you. |
|
|
|
02/03/2006 11:19:53 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by jhonan:
I'm not trying to pick on any one photo or photographer here, but I came across this example while browsing the recent ribbons;
It's that kind of thing that confuses me. Obscuring the background in the seagulls shot got a DQ, but the above post-processing was fine. This is a gray area indeed... :) |
Agreed. I brought this up for review and haven't heard a thing. |
It's still under review by the SC, thank you. |
What's to discuss? It either broke the rules or it didn't. If you're saying that changing the background (setting a precedence with the image that started this thread) is off limits then it gets a DQ. SO should the other examples posted. IMO. Personally, I think it's silly to DQ this one and any of the others.
Message edited by author 2006-02-03 23:20:24.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 01:35:47 AM · #331 |
I need to jump in and drop my useless two cents. This is an unfair DQ because of the other images that have not only employed it but got ribbons.
Personally, I would like these filters out of the domain completely because there are some s/c members that feel that they are alright while others feel they are not acceptable. This means, it depends on who review the images.
My desire is to elimitate all these filters and be done with it. I feel very uncomfortable when all of the s/c members are not on the same page. The argument that every image requires careful consideration means that those that subscribe to these effects will vote them in and those that don't will vote for the DQ. This is why I started my other thread which has placed me in the dog house. It is a subject which does not lend itself to discussion because it brings out the ire of both sides.
I mean, look at the terms that are thrown about. Some s/c members consider a radical color shift: the addition of an element. This is not so. The added element is applied to other things that have nothing to do with the addition of another element. I think they really mean that the element has been altered...but tell me what filter can you apply that will not alter an element? You can say with a blur nothing important was obscured, yet some will argue that all clutter in the background which is now absent in the finished is indeed removal of major elements. Not because they are really major but simply because the image looks different because it is absent the clutter and now enjoys an even tonal background.
Just the name radial: how can you apply this filter if not to radial blur. I do not see where this DQ image has over applied it. Being that some s/c members are against it, why not dump all of these filters.
Bear in mind that my earlier thread on this subject was in anticipation of future DQ's. And when they happen to you, then it becomes an issue.
Again, personally I do not see why these filters are even allowed. It creates an unnatural effect and why even have them.
The s/c will argue that it allows more creative freedom but should they not also say that since there is no qualitive formula to resolve their applications that some images will be DQ because not all s/c members are on the same page.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:20:00 AM · #332 |
i burned the background, then cropped, is dodging and burning not allowed?
[i feel sorry for heida]
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 02:58:05. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:26:35 AM · #333 |
Originally posted by goodman:
i burned the background, then cropped, is dodging and burning not allowed?
[i feel sorry for heida] |
...seems to be some silly issues with removing elements in the background.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:30:14 AM · #334 |
well i burned the higlights too.
i'd say 1/2 the ribbon winners would be dq'd then.
if d&b is not allowed and this photo is dq'd, im outta here. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:36:17 AM · #335 |
Originally posted by goodman:
well i burned the higlights too.
i'd say 1/2 the ribbon winners would be dq'd then.
if d&b is not allowed and this photo is dq'd, im outta here. |
No! you can't leave I still have alot to learn! |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:38:52 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by goodman:
well i burned the higlights too.
i'd say 1/2 the ribbon winners would be dq'd then.
if d&b is not allowed and this photo is dq'd, im outta here. |
It's not about D&B, it's about removing background detail which a few on the SC seem to think is a DQ.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 02:42:23 AM · #337 |
Originally posted by goodman:
well i burned the higlights too.
i'd say 1/2 the ribbon winners would be dq'd then.
if d&b is not allowed and this photo is dq'd, im outta here. |
You goin' nowhere, cuz. (At least not alone).
It was a bad example to quote your shot ... not germane at all.
Nevertheless the SC decision on the gull does look pretty poor.
Edit to add: Finally read the whole thread. I don't think any of the three radial blur shots in the OP should be DQ'd.
All three are legitimate digital photographs, and all comply with the DPC rules.
I voted Sam's seagull a 3. Didn't vote on the other two, but I'd have given them 3 or less as well.
All three are obviously contrived and instantly forgettable (well, they were up until now).
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 08:19:48. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 04:57:20 AM · #338 |
| You would think once just once that SC would say "hey maybe we need to review that decision and put to vote of the full SC members" in every legal or committee hearing there is an appeal process or at least a review. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 05:43:37 AM · #339 |
I agree with Sam and Graphic on this one.
It is good to get rid of these sorts of major distortion filters for photographs in a photography contest such as this one and I'm very glad that the rules are being worked on, but it is absolutely inappropriate to be voting on DQ'ing photographs based on rules which only the SC know about. This photograph (the seagulls) should be re-instated with the vote that it had received when it was DQ'd. Or perhaps at the very least a note on it by the SC on the situation with the photograph.
The bottom line is that the rules WILL be changed, but when the photograph was taken, the rules did not include enough grounds to DQ.
Since when does an object have to be identifiable to be part of a picture? Since when does the viewer have to recognize every single item in a photograph?
The 'removing major elements' thing has been discussed at great length and I feel quite strongly that if this is the basis of a decision then it should at least have been REMOVED from the picture.
In this case, the lake has been distorted so it is difficult to discern that there is a lake in the picture. So what? Clearly it is still VISIBLE and PRESENT in the picture. If you can't recognize it as a lake, that's somewhat immaterial. If I changed the color of a peice of apple peel photgraphed as an abstract, I doubt you could identify it as a peice of apple. Changing the color is legal in basic.
Why? Simply because it is not actually removing it from the picture, it is just changing an attribute. However, now that you would hypothetically be unable to identify it as a peice of apple, has a major element been removed? No. See above.
The reason that the seagull pic should still be OK is that as Shannon mentioned, the lake is still there and is far from having been removed. Indeed, as others have mentioned, more has been done to remove the identifiability of the lake by changing the coloration of the pic than by the use of the radial filter. To state that an 'entire lake' has been removed is a gross overstatement.
On the other hand, the picture of the african has had the elements of the background removed.
I would be disappointed if the Seagull pic was left DQ'd but the picture of the african was allowed.
As the rules currently state, the seagull pic has not moved beyond the limits of the rules. As they will state, undoubtedly that picture will likely be outside of the rules.
However, unless the SC plans to go back and retro-actively DQ all previously submitted pictures when the new rules are updated, they should be a little more careful in using only CURRENT rule definitions to judge pictures.
Having said all that, it is a big issue for those pictures, but I don't think that even Samanwar should be worried enough to leave the site.
Sam, if you are still out there, please keep it in perspective. Your peers have judged you and you did some good work. Ribbons and placements are nice, but they don't really matter in the long run.
There's lots more that can be done! |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 05:57:03 AM · #340 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
... On the other hand, the picture of the african has had the elements of the background removed ... |
Nope, not removed; obscured, which is not the same thing at all. Other than that, I agree with all you've said in your well-reasoned post. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 06:26:09 AM · #341 |
Mistakes have been made, are made and will be made. What constitutes a mistake? Obviously not that clear in terms of anything in this world, few things are truely "black & white". But that is why we have decisionmakers and rules and final decisions basef on another phenomenen, DEMOCRACY, the value of my voice against the value of yours. Majorities, wrong or right, rule. And at DPC the same. We are a micro cosmos bound by the rules of the real world out there as much as it itself is. And a decision was made. If we have to go on a witch hunt every time our courts/governments or governing bodies 'make a mistake', we would do nothing but that. Time to call for a stop of the witch hunt(sorry cuz, by figure of speech only!)
I for one is with SC on this one... if that pic, wonderful as it is and one of my high scores, came in front of me with a visible, as is, or even beautified and enhanced original background, I would have voted it low.
Although I can not do what the people are doing in Photoshop, I admire rather than envy them. Dammit, I can not even grasp the concept or make/do/use/whatever a layer!
So, in my honest humble opinion, please consider a FFAB challenge for those who want it(Free For All Brawl), no rules, as long as the final product is still photography and within the norms of desency.
(sorree fo oll my mistaiks;-)=) |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 06:36:43 AM · #342 |
Originally posted by gibun:
Dammit, I can not even grasp the concept or make/do/use/whatever a layer!
|
don't feel bad Gibun...I'm still trying to figure it out too
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 06:50:08 AM · #343 |
Ubique - My stating that elements have been removed as opposed to obscure is based on two things. Black pixels are 0 value which are empty - hence information removed. Secondly and actually more importantly, they are no longer visible at all. In the seagulls pic, the lake is still there, still visible, just no longer recognizable. In the picture of the African (which I really should at this point state is excellent both in terms of the photograph and the post processing - although I personally prefer the pre-processed version), what could be construed as 'major elements' which would be visible in the crop and identifiable pre-post processing are not just no longer identifiable, they are completely not visible.
Personally, I think we have been seeing a good number of free study type challenges lately. I think it might at least be an interesting exercise to go with 3 free study challenges. One with Basic, one with advanced and one with FFAB as mentioned above by Gibun. Perhaps the FFAB could be used as a Masters level challenge.
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 06:53:10. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 07:33:26 AM · #344 |
Originally posted by ubique:
It was a bad example to quote your shot ... not germane at all.
Nevertheless the SC decision on the gull does look pretty poor. |
The thread touches on a number of issues; obscuring the background, removing the background, and the appropriate use of filters. But mostly it's about applying the rules fairly across all images, regardless of the placing of the shot, the votes it received, or the standing of the photographer.
I thought the shot I quoted was a good example to generate debate (since other shots, including ribbon winners, had already been quoted in the thread)
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 08:03:10 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by goodman:
well i burned the higlights too.
i'd say 1/2 the ribbon winners would be dq'd then.
if d&b is not allowed and this photo is dq'd, im outta here. |
UGGG! You can't leave, you're my idol! :-) |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 08:12:28 AM · #346 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by ubique:
It was a bad example to quote your shot ... not germane at all.
Nevertheless the SC decision on the gull does look pretty poor. |
The thread touches on a number of issues; obscuring the background, removing the background, and the appropriate use of filters. But mostly it's about applying the rules fairly across all images, regardless of the placing of the shot, the votes it received, or the standing of the photographer.
I thought the shot I quoted was a good example to generate debate (since other shots, including ribbon winners, had already been quoted in the thread) |
The truth is, John, I had hoped it was a bad example, because I hoped the issue could be jammed back into the "radial blur" bag. But you're right, as I realised when I read & later reflected on the whole thread ... the issue had come to embrace all sorts of remove/move/disguise/obscure/modify mechanisms. The example you posted was a worthy one after all; if the SC's ruling on the seagulls is applied consistently and the goodman shot was to be now DQ'd for "removing" major elements through D&B, then many high profile DPC images and photographers will inevitably have to suffer the same fate retrospectively.
The SC may have a point that certain outcomes that are arguably allowed under the present rules are both undesirable and unintended, but even if that were so, their decision to selectively, irrationally and retrospectively apply that point of view is indefensible.
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 08:22:06. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 08:27:07 AM · #347 |
GREAT DISCUSSION!!!!
the photo was awesome before the radial blur ... really awesome - the bird appears to be lined up to knowck that camera down your neck ! ...
the manually added blur ruined it for me.
i say the jet and this one should be DQ'd. As far as Dodging and burning, it should be allowed - but removing an entire background does seem DQ-able also. --
edit ...
I keep bouncing all over on this one - i think that the fact that the filter was applied so selectively to the background makes the image worse and abviously altered - meaning it would turn people (like me) off and perhaps isn't intended to look real anyway. the jet image is misleading in that it created movement where there was no movement. This should have been DQ'd - and I just think the bird edit was a bad choice for such a fine image.
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 08:33:01.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 09:28:24 AM · #348 |
I'm trying to follow along and keep up...bear with me. Using a zoom or radial blur is OK, but using a zoom or radial blur and using a color shift with it is not. Burning the background to oblivion is OK but dodging it is not. Remember the hullaballoo about the dodging of this background to oblivion and it's DQ?
I support the SC nearly 100% of the time...but there are some HUGE inconsistencies that are popping up. I'm glad that you're trying to get some clarification and some solidity in the ruleset. You have a tough job.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 10:11:37 AM · #349 |
What's there to review Karma? Isn't the whole background removed? Whether it was removed with an allowed tool or not, isn't it the way you use the tool that matter? Wasn't mine DQ'ed because of that? Are you realizing now the door you opened just because you guys did not want to admit you were wrong? Just wondering ..
Regards ..
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
Originally posted by jhonan:
I'm not trying to pick on any one photo or photographer here, but I came across this example while browsing the recent ribbons;
It's that kind of thing that confuses me. Obscuring the background in the seagulls shot got a DQ, but the above post-processing was fine. This is a gray area indeed... :) |
Agreed. I brought this up for review and haven't heard a thing. |
It's still under review by the SC, thank you. |
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 10:12:56. |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 10:41:04 AM · #350 |
I don't understand why anyone would want to use a current ribbon winner as an example in this way...in the end it seems to me that rahter than this being a defense of a position , it becomes an attack on someone else's work..I don't think that is your intent, and I really feel badly for you getting caught up in a horribly questionable ruling..clearly the rules are NOT CLEAR and far too subjective..and this needs to change..
I don't think using goodman's work at this time as your point of reference is fair to her.. |
|
