Introducing the New Rules - DPChallenge Forums

11/07/2006 11:05:11 AM · #177

Originally posted by scalvert:

Like Muckpond, I don't like the "deception" either, but it's legal. If it was one plume of smoke divided into colors, then you might have a case, but it's NOT.

Well it is given the way it was done. I suppose he could have edited it more carefully so that the single plumes don't change colour, but he didn't.

I'm not hopping. But enough on this. It is clear that it's still a murky area of the rules. Perhaps a 'Here be Dragons' comment in the rules would do.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 11:13:50.

11/07/2006 11:14:35 AM · #178

What object or feature has been added to RGB Smoke? It can't be color alone because that would DQ the examples Muckpond posted. It can't be the three clouds of smoke either because those were already present (some time ago, I asked my four year old son how many clouds of smoke there were on the original and even HE said three). So what exactly would make this illegal?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/07/2006 11:21:58 AM · #179

Originally posted by scalvert:

What object or feature has been added to RGB Smoke?

The 'RGB' feature was added. Prior to that it would be just 'smoke'

Each plume of smoke isn't coloured individually. That's pretty obvious from even a quick look at it.

You assume the others shouldn't be DQ'ed for similar reasons, or at least start from that assumption. I'm not entirely sure that isn't flawed either. Again the impact or fitness of those images for the challenge doesn't have much to do with what was captured but what was done to them later. Removal of colour is perhaps a separate issue.

Though that gets back to that worn out saw of what is the intent of the rules. If it's to let people manipulate an image so that it meets the challenge, then it is fair enough as it stands (even if several people have said they don't like it, who authored it) John's 'pink' example is another one that shouldn't really be allowed, given that it breaks just about entirely the spirit of the contest.

I can't offer up anything better, having tried and failed to help write the previous 2 revisions. I just don't see that anything has changed this time around. But then even the supreme court can't define some things but makes decisions based on what they feel is right.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 11:25:28.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

11/07/2006 11:27:30 AM · #180

Just for the record, I'm one of the most anal retentive -- if not the King of Anal Rententiveness -- on Site Council when it comes to preservation of image integrity. And even I wasn't bothered by the legality of the RGB shot.

I may have been a little disappointed to find that the smoke wasn't that color in the original, but I see nothing that would be a violation of the rules, old or new.

11/07/2006 11:32:35 AM · #181

Originally posted by alanfreed:

It certainly didn't break the advanced editing rules II at the time. That isn't the issue.

I'm asking if, with the new rules, are you actively looking to allow shots like that. Given that I keep hearing 'we don't like it, but we can't think of a way to stop it' it seems like the re-write didn't go so well ? Or is it just the vocal people discussing in this thread that don't like it and the rest of the SC are happy with those sorts of images ?

11/07/2006 11:43:55 AM · #182

Originally posted by alanfreed:

'Advanced Editing allows more freedom to correct flaws and make the most of your captured image. Selections, layers and selective editing tools are allowed for touch-up and enhancement only. You may not create new features or obscure significant parts of your original capture.'

Given that the overview clearly states this and the colours are certainly a significant feature of that shot (I think it would be hard to claim otherwise?), doesn't it give you pause to then throw in a loophole later ?

use distortions to create new effects or radically alter objects. distorting the colours and truth seem to create a new effect as well.

or use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture.

Given that 'feature' is defined as A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic it's weird to keep using 'feature' but then occasionally allow 'color' to not be considered a distinctive aspect/quality or characteristic.

Just seems to be a lot of contradictions in the phrasing. I suspect the SC are going to be busier than before.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 11:46:01.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

11/07/2006 11:51:49 AM · #183

while i know this arguement is getting old (like years old), i just want to say that I agree with Gordon. RGB Smoke seems to me to break the spirit of the old rules and the new rules. The individually colored smoke is the very thing that made that image score high ... and that individual coloring did not exist (not even a little bit) in the original - it was added later, and that should be against the rules.

... but i'm not sure it's possible to have concrete rules, so i just accept them as they are

11/07/2006 11:54:59 AM · #184

Originally posted by Gordon:

I'm asking if, with the new rules, are you actively looking to allow shots like that.

Of course not. We just couldn't find a way to eliminate such color shifts that wouldn't also make selective desaturation or duotones illegal. It was simpler to continue the policy that color shifts are allowed. Not meeting the challenge is not grounds for DQ, of course, but future color challenges could have special rules that make it illegal to add the color in post processing. Note however that RGB Smoke was for the Smoke challenge, and would have met that challenge with or without the color. The fact that much of the impact comes from color is also true of super-saturated sunset entries and good selective desaturation.

To that point... there are certain images (this one, my own Nightbulb, and Joey Lawrence's Middle Earth entry) that bother some people for the "deceptive' way they achieve their impact, but when you really stop to think about the actual editing, it's usually stuff that we readily accept on other entries. Photography is very often a matter of visual deception. Optical illusions, multiple exposures, clever juxtapositions, creative perspective, and specialized filters all work to fool the eye, but sometimes we still get annoyed when we've been "had."

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

11/07/2006 12:05:16 PM · #185

Originally posted by Gordon:

Given that 'feature' is defined as A prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic it's weird to keep using 'feature' but then occasionally allow 'color' to not be considered a distinctive aspect/quality or characteristic.

From da rulez: You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop)

Colors are exempted as features (otherwise a simple B&W conversion could be a feature). If you have a magical solution for handling color shifts, send a ticket because we'd love to hear it. Otherwise, it's probably best to just move on.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 12:06:57.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/07/2006 12:09:16 PM · #186

Out of interest, are the rules open for further tweaking, or should I stop thinking about them? I don't want to waste anyone's time or my own if the SC have decided that the kind of minor sense issues or tweaks that I identified/suggested will not be revised.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/07/2006 12:12:37 PM · #187

The present rules aren't likely to change (aside from correcting obvious typos), but they could be tweaked at the end of the Novemeber test run IF we actually run into problems.

Nitin

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/07/2006 12:25:31 PM · #188

Originally posted by hopper:

RGB Smoke seems to me to break the spirit of the old rules and the new rules.

Bingo! While it may not break the letter of the rules, or the processes, it does break the spirit.

From the overview of the new rules:
Entries that violate the letter or spirit of these rules will be disqualified.

And Shannon, I think you're leading your 4 year old to the answer you want. I think most people would describe the original as 3 plumes of smoke blending together, and the result as 3 differently-colored plumes of smoke blending together (wow!). The three 'process-legal' hue shifts create an end result that does not maintain photographic integrity.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/07/2006 12:32:29 PM · #189

Originally posted by scalvert:

You just need to define an elephant test and follow through on it. Otherwise it'll just remain as the pink elephant in the rules that nobody talks about.

and that's enough elephant references for one post.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

11/07/2006 12:36:23 PM · #190

Originally posted by Gordon:

So out of curiosity, is this the only example that bothers you... or are there others you can cite? This seems like an awful lot of discussion over one image.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/07/2006 12:42:51 PM · #191

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by Gordon:
You just need to define an elephant test and follow through on it. Otherwise it'll just remain as the pink elephant in the rules that nobody talks about.

and that's enough elephant references for one post.

So out of curiosity, is this the only example that bothers you... or are there others you can cite? This seems like an awful lot of discussion over one image.

There were others in this thread. All I'm trying to work out though is if it would be okay to light seven matches and put a rainbow over it, for a future challenge entry ;)

But if this strikes you as a lot of discussion, I hope the actual rules had more put into them. Wasn't the point of the rewrite to try and clarify issues, just like this ? Otherwise what was the point ? From this thread, at least two of the people involved in the re-write say that they don't like the fact that the rules allow shots like that one. I'm just perplexed, particularly when I look at the list of 10 revisions that are were the rules are now.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 12:43:44.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

11/07/2006 12:47:57 PM · #192

My point is that there are always -- ALWAYS -- going to be some shots that are going to elicit debate. And no matter what the verdict is on those cases, not everyone is going to be pleased. And there is no such thing as a set of rules that will ever be completely without subjectivity or will have 100% clarity. It just isn't possible. We can only do the best we can, and then use our best judgment on a case by case basis.

Look at the NFL... there's an organization that's just a "little" bigger entity than DPC, and look at how subjective many of their rules are, and how often a play results in a questionable decision. The refs make the best decisions they can, and no matter what they're going to be critiqued and debated.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/07/2006 12:50:30 PM · #193

Originally posted by Gordon:

... From this thread, at least two of the people involved in the re-write say that they don't like the fact that the rules allow shots like that one. ...

Perhaps it was a general concensus? You know, a little give and take. I imagine it was a pretty challenging task to get the rules in shape where a majority of the SC was satisfied with them. Once agreement was reached I'm sure there were some SC members that didn't line up with everything 100%.

We should thank the SC members for the volunteer time and effort they put into the rules rewrite. Points can be raised here for future consideration, and the point has been made - let's move on.

11/07/2006 01:02:54 PM · #194

Originally posted by glad2badad:

We should thank the SC members for the volunteer time and effort they put into the rules rewrite. Points can be raised here for future consideration, and the point has been made - let's move on.

Well - given that this is the discussion period and the thread about discussing them - doesn't it seem like the time to raise the points for consideration - now ?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

11/07/2006 01:04:11 PM · #195

Originally posted by scalvert:

To that point... there are certain images (this one, my own Nightbulb, and Joey Lawrence's Middle Earth entry) that bother some people for the "deceptive' way they achieve their impact, but when you really stop to think about the actual editing, it's usually stuff that we readily accept on other entries. Photography is very often a matter of visual deception. Optical illusions, multiple exposures, clever juxtapositions, creative perspective, and specialized filters all work to fool the eye, but sometimes we still get annoyed when we've been "had."

Not that it will change anything, but I'll mention again that I've always been sorta bothered by the LCD screen trick. Not necessarily your Nightbulb shot or even Rikki's ubiquitous LCD backgrounds, but mainly when someone gets around a rule by photographing a photograph. You want to alter an object in a major way, and while you can't do that in post-processing, you CAN do it, print it, and then photograph it as part of a larger picture. I've never liked this.

11/07/2006 01:06:42 PM · #196

On the voting guidelines, when it says under the 'you must' category use a scale from 1 - 10 for bad to good.

Does it require you to think that there are good pictures in every set of 20% of a challenge you vote on ?

I.e., for every challenge we vote in, do we have to have some 1s and some 10s in our votes ?

It seems that way having it in the 'must' (which I'm assuming is required and will be enforced?) rather in the weaker 'should' or 'may'

Also - are 'should' rules just optional but desired ? So low scores don't require a comment, still ?

11/07/2006 01:10:06 PM · #197

Originally posted by Gordon:

It says you must use that scale. It doesn't say you must find images to fit every part of it.

Originally posted by Gordon:

So low scores don't require a comment, still?

Correct. If they did, then the low scores would simply drift up to a higher range so people wouldn't have to leave a comment.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 13:10:32.