| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/30/2006 03:30:17 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just to narrow things down a bit, let's take a look at a CROP from the original:
Cars are gone, not a problem. Truck is gone, not a problem. All that's left is a little sliver of support for him. I cannot imagine this being DQ'd if he cloned that out in this crop. I'd be more worried about the cars showing through the bush qualifying as clonable distractions, frankly.
I have NEVER seen, anywhere, an official pronouncemnt that part of what makes an element "major" is whether it was essential to the staging of the shot. And with good reson, because it would be silly to require us to eschew the use of fishing line and such to suspend objects. And I'd submit that this little wedge of forklift is just the same thing as the fishing line, or Joey's rope.
Ask yourself this: if he'd PAINTED the forkbar in camouflage so it was LESS obvious, could he THEN clone out the barely-visible bar? I don't see how we could keep anyone from doing that with a straight face, and I don't think any ruleset that requires you to paint something to blend before you can clone it out makes any sense at all.
What if it was a plain yellow background, and he painted the forkbar yellow, and it didn't quite match? See how silly this is? Why do we worry so much about ways to KEEP people from making these extraordinarily creative shots? A great deal of thought and effort went into the making of this image...
R. |
I agree that a lot of thought and creativity went into this, but didn't a draft clarification of the rules define a major element as being one that a viewer might use to describe the (original) photo ?
|
|
|
|
04/30/2006 04:03:11 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
See how silly this is? Why do we worry so much about ways to KEEP people from making these extraordinarily creative shots? A great deal of thought and effort went into the making of this image...
R. |
Creative? Definately
Photography? Yes
Digital Art? Possibly
See where I'm coming from? Nothing wrong with creativity but if the editing creates a guy floating in mid air (impossible in reality) isn't that more digital art than photography? The major element rule istr was written to allow the removal of dust, spots, and minor distraction such a telephone wires in a landscape. Not to remove structures supporting objects to create fantasy images.
|
|
|
|
04/30/2006 04:44:25 PM · #28 |
So you're saying that he needed to put more work into making the illusion invisible for this to be considered legal under advanced editing.
If he had camoflaged the forks, would it be legal for him to clone the edges away? |
|
|
|
04/30/2006 04:49:26 PM · #29 |
I am assuming there would be a high possibility of a majority of the SC ruling that as legal, yes. However I'm just one person so I can't say for sure.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 06:08:05 PM · #30 |
| One last SC bump then I will let this thread float away! :-P |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 06:36:23 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
One last SC bump then I will let this thread float away! :-P |
I commented on your images. I told you what I was told by a council member in regards to levitating and how it can be accomplished and be legal. Just FYI, in case another council member doesn't answer you in this thread today. Good luck, and nice idea! |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 06:43:23 PM · #32 |
i think the crop really changes the application of the major elements rule to this photo. I would likely vote no DQ. My opinion is just one, however, so not much ought to turn on it, nor should much turn on the fact that two SC members differ in their opinions. If we were all the same, we wouldn't need 17 of us, would we? :)
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 06:47:11 PM · #33 |
You can do it this way and be legal in advanced editing.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2006 07:00:18 PM · #34 |
Wazz,
I'd just like to say that this photo, along with much of your recent work looks extremely impressive. You have definitely improved a great deal since you've been here. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 07:25:47 PM · #35 |
Thank you Charles that is very nice of you to say! You made my day buddy!
:-) |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 07:42:44 PM · #36 |
In my view, not legal. Per prior discussion, there was a major element removed (lift fork), but also major pixel cloned into center and upper left of the image adding significant amount of pixels that were not in the original image. Any one of these by itself might skate if I were a voting member of the SC (I'm not) but the 3 together are too much in my view to be considered legal.
Just one man's opinion.
Still, it's a nice shot.
Message edited by author 2006-05-01 20:09:07. |
|
|
|
05/01/2006 07:43:22 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I have NEVER seen, anywhere, an official pronouncemnt (sic) that part of what makes an element "major" is whether it was essential to the staging of the shot. And with good reson, because it would be silly to require us to eschew the use of fishing line and such to suspend objects. And I'd submit that this little wedge of forklift is just the same thing as the fishing line, or Joey's rope.
|
I've seen several posts from SC regarding major element, and almost all of them follow the logic that if you were describing the original shot to someone else and it the element was in the description, then the same element should be in the edited version. Whether or not it was essential to the staging is a moot point - the key is in how it would be described to someone who hadn't seen it. Here, the original shot would likely be described as a guy sitting on a forklift. The edited version would be described as a guy levitating.
It's a very creative shot, but seems risky with regard to whether or not it could get DQ'd, IMHO. |
|
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: 09/19/2025 04:50:17 AM EDT.
