| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/01/2006 05:26:51 PM · #1 |
I've found some old threads about the issue, but it never seemed to be resolved. IS it legal, under advanced editing, to expand a non-descript background. I don't mean crop out major elements and then re-expand, like was suggested for Dr Jones' nude, but simply expanding the background to improve composition.
For example, i shot my shadow II submission in landscape, like so:
Had I wanted it in portrait, I could have expanded canvas 50% only upwards, with a solid colour, and cloned a little to smooth out, giving this:
Would this be considered a major element and thus against the rules?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
04/01/2006 05:49:54 PM · #2 |
I seem to recall SC addressing this specifically and saying it was a no-no. In fact, I remember an image that was DQ'd for doing pretty much exactly this, a gravestone against white snow... The sne was too busy, so shooter cropped tight then expanded with an asymmterical white border to change the composition.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-04-01 17:50:54.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2006 05:58:50 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I seem to recall SC addressing this specifically and saying it was a no-no. In fact, I remember an image that was DQ'd for doing pretty much exactly this, a gravestone against white snow... The sne was too busy, so shooter cropped tight then expanded with an asymmterical white border to change the composition.
R. |
That's just silly to have a rule like that about backgrounds.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2006 06:13:21 PM · #4 |
Robert is correct, we did rule that changing the framing of the shot significantly by adding negative space was in fact adding a major element. The basis of this decision was that the composition of a shot is extremely important to the overall impact, and changing the composition, post-hoc, is certainly making a "major" change.
Another way to view this is that the subject gets moved in the frame, and moving a major element, e.g. subject, is not allowed.
Message edited by author 2006-04-01 18:25:43.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2006 06:38:47 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
That's just silly to have a rule like that about backgrounds. |
I like that rule.
It makes even the photoshop experts think about their composition BEFORE they take the shot, instead of relying on their computer to fix it afterwards. |
|
|
|
04/01/2006 07:06:44 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Robert is correct, we did rule that changing the framing of the shot significantly by adding negative space was in fact adding a major element. The basis of this decision was that the composition of a shot is extremely important to the overall impact, and changing the composition, post-hoc, is certainly making a "major" change.
Another way to view this is that the subject gets moved in the frame, and moving a major element, e.g. subject, is not allowed. |
OK, dumb but perhaps obvious question: Why then is cropping permitted, if adding space is not *for that reason*? You're certainly changing the composition with a crop, and one could argue that you're removing a major element.
By the way, I'm not opposed to cropping or to the rule as it stands, just curious.
(edited for clarity)
Message edited by author 2006-04-01 19:08:07. |
|
|
|
04/01/2006 07:19:39 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by rachelellen:
OK, dumb but perhaps obvious question: Why then is cropping permitted, if adding space is not *for that reason*? You're certainly changing the composition with a crop, and one could argue that you're removing a major element.
By the way, I'm not opposed to cropping or to the rule as it stands, just curious.
(edited for clarity) |
Not a dumb question. In fact the way kirbic explained it, cropping shouldn't be allowed for the same reasons he gave. However, I was under the impression that adding to the background constitute adding pixels which weren't already in the shot hence it isn't allowed. Cropping is allowed because no pixels are introduced into the image that weren't already there.
Message edited by author 2006-04-01 19:20:54. |
|
|
|
04/01/2006 08:04:16 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Robert is correct, we did rule that changing the framing of the shot significantly by adding negative space was in fact adding a major element. The basis of this decision was that the composition of a shot is extremely important to the overall impact, and changing the composition, post-hoc, is certainly making a "major" change.
Another way to view this is that the subject gets moved in the frame, and moving a major element, e.g. subject, is not allowed. |
It's just reverse cropping, no different at all. Your not changing the composition any different than if you crop down the photos instead of cropping them up.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2006 08:30:39 PM · #9 |
But there's a "legitimate" reason for cropping; the shot, let's say, calls for a 300mm lens and my longest is 200mm, so I shoot planning to crop. Or the shot, let's say, calls for a square "print" so I shoot planning to crop left and right to 1:1 ratio.
In the example, the shootr decides after the fact that a portrait orientation would be preferable and adds a photoshopped BG, effectively, to "complete" the shot. Since DPC rules prohibit the use of photoshop to create elements, there's a clear conflict here, within this ruleset.
Some may call it "silly", but it's necessary to prohibit it in order to clarify other issues...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2006 08:41:01 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But there's a "legitimate" reason for cropping; the shot, let's say, calls for a 300mm lens and my longest is 200mm, so I shoot planning to crop. Or the shot, let's say, calls for a square "print" so I shoot planning to crop left and right to 1:1 ratio.
In the example, the shootr decides after the fact that a portrait orientation would be preferable and adds a photoshopped BG, effectively, to "complete" the shot. Since DPC rules prohibit the use of photoshop to create elements, there's a clear conflict here, within this ruleset.
Some may call it "silly", but it's necessary to prohibit it in order to clarify other issues...
Robt. |
I could easily have a 50mm shot that I wanted a 25mm field of view. SO I had white space. Same principle.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2006 10:27:22 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I could easily have a 50mm shot that I wanted a 25mm field of view. SO I had white space. Same principle. |
No it isn't. Basic rule of DPC; you can subtract but you can't add. It's not a matter of defending it or not, it's just what it is.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2006 10:29:37 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I could easily have a 50mm shot that I wanted a 25mm field of view. SO I had white space. Same principle. |
No it isn't. Basic rule of DPC; you can subtract but you can't add. It's not a matter of defending it or not, it's just what it is.
R. |
Call it a frame them. ;o)
|
|
|
|
04/02/2006 03:40:53 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Robert is correct, we did rule that changing the framing of the shot significantly by adding negative space was in fact adding a major element. The basis of this decision was that the composition of a shot is extremely important to the overall impact, and changing the composition, post-hoc, is certainly making a "major" change.
Another way to view this is that the subject gets moved in the frame, and moving a major element, e.g. subject, is not allowed. |
So, just how much is too much (recent thread with opposite ruling)?
David
|
|
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: 08/29/2025 08:23:32 AM EDT.
