| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2006 08:54:58 AM · #1 |
In advanced editing I know it's legal to clone, make selections, remove distracting (minor) elements, etc...
Recently I noticed this remark in the comments section of a challenge entry; "moved to improve balance and better frame the..."
Is it legal to actually "move" an item within the photo?
I bring this up for conversation/clarification, not to try and get anyone in trouble, etc...
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:00:34 AM · #2 |
I was under the impression that you weren't allowed to actually select an object and move it, assuming that it is a major element...or really any element.
But I am my no means an authority on this. Although I am curious what the official answer is, as well.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:02:07 AM · #3 |
| Hmmmm. An honest photographer's comment. I would think this would be very likely a violation of the rules (though probably allowed in the new "expert" set). I'm curious to see the pic... |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:02:20 AM · #4 |
"You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), "
Altering the composition would certainly qualify. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:07:19 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), "
Altering the composition would certainly qualify. |
I get the impression that by moving the item it wouldn't have changed the "viewer's description", but probably enhanced the balance of the composition a little. So then, it would be legal if an object was moved/repositioned slightly? |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:13:42 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by scalvert:
"You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), "
Altering the composition would certainly qualify. |
I get the impression that by moving the item it wouldn't have changed the "viewer's description", but probably enhanced the balance of the composition a little. So then, it would be legal if an object was moved/repositioned slightly? |
That's an interesting "read" on the rule... We know from discussion that's not what they intended, but as written it certainly seems that way; select the moon, say, and move it a little bit away from the edge of the frame to improve the composition slightly...
The problem is semantic; we know they don't want us to MOVE things around, but they want to allow us to REMOVE small things. Unfortunately no distinction is made to this effect in the wording.
Unless I'm wrong and it's now OK to move stuff as long as it's just incremental moves?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:14:43 AM · #7 |
Hard to say for sure without seeing the photograph and its original.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 09:50:14 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's an interesting "read" on the rule... We know from discussion that's not what they intended, but as written it certainly seems that way; select the moon, say, and move it a little bit away from the edge of the frame to improve the composition slightly...
The problem is semantic; we know they don't want us to MOVE things around, but they want to allow us to REMOVE small things. Unfortunately no distinction is made to this effect in the wording.
Unless I'm wrong and it's now OK to move stuff as long as it's just incremental moves?
R. |
Well, this HAS been an eye opener. You're right Robert, based on the way the rule is written, and Scalvert's follow-up with the general rule of thumb pertaining to the "viewer's description", I guess it would be ok for a minor adjustment (moving an element). Hmmm...
It's not something I've ever considered because personally I think it would be ethically wrong, from a photography purist point, to move something after the photo is taken. But that's just me. :D |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:06:17 AM · #9 |
Hypothetically, like this:
 original  "improved" version
When I shot this one, I was frustrated that I got there just a few minutes too late for oprimal moon position. I'd love to have been able to move it down and in a tad. I doubt that your average viwer would change his description of this photo based on this change. So is this legal? I'd contend that it is, as the rule is written. Should it be legal? I don't think so, not in this advanced ruleset.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:15:08 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Should it be legal? I don't think so, not in this advanced ruleset. |
I don't think so either. If you could move the moon like that, then there would be nothing stopping you from moving it to the right side or down near the horizon. However, given that the edit is readily apparent even in the thumbnail, I submit that a typical viewer probably WOULD mention the change. IMO, the rules as written may very well allow for a slight nudge, but any obvious move would be asking for trouble. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:20:23 AM · #11 |
Here's another hypothetical (well not really) wrinkle. Suppose I don't move an object, just make it bigger - is that okay ?
E.g., suppose in this picture the cactus was actually half that size and I scaled it up to be a more dominant, significant part of the composition. I didn't in this case, but I've certainly seen it done in a lot of landscape photography.
This is just what large format photographers like David Muench do with camera shifts/tilts (in fact, he pretty much made a career out of doing that sort of forced perspective)
I haven't really changed the composition, or even what someone would describe the image as containing - is that allowed ?
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:20:51.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:24:53 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
However, given that the edit is readily apparent even in the thumbnail, I submit that a typical viewer probably WOULD mention the change. |
The difference is readily apparent, and a typical viewer WOULD mention it if looking at them side by side.
But - if I was asked to describe both images, independently of each other, I would describe them both in the same way.
Something like 'a Sunrise shot over the ocean with low cloud and a large expanse of blue sky, with the moon'
It wouldn't change, because of the edit.
So is the rule supposed to be that a typical viewer would comment on the change if shown them side by side and asked to spot the differences, or if the description of the final image would change ? (which are very different things)
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:25:24.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:26:15 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... I submit that a typical viewer probably WOULD mention the change. ... |
Wait! The way I read it (rules snippet: "You may not...use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph..."), means that the example Robert posted would pass ok.
Wouldn't a "typical viewer's" description of the photo be something like "a sunset (or sunrise) with the moon in the sky"? That wouldn't change in either the "original" or the "modified" versions as I see it. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:33:07 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
is the rule supposed to be that a typical viewer would comment on the change if shown them side by side and asked to spot the differences, or if the description of the final image would change ? (which are very different things) |
Good question. In my opinion it's the former, since validation and editing rules have always been about deviation from the capture. Without the original for comparison, NO viewer's description would ever "change" since that would be the baseline. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:41:05 AM · #15 |
| Gordon is correct that it does make a difference in the test if you have the two images to compare, vs. having only one. We always have both images to compare, and that is the standard we have used to judge. It is the stricter of the two standards, to be sure. We have allowed nudging, or changing shape slightly (e.g. using liquify) but if the change is notable upon comparison, for exampe changes composition significantly, it will get DQd. I think this answers the question of modifying the size of an object as well. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:45:55 AM · #16 |
| Perhaps the rule needs to be more explicit...."would change the typical viewer's description in a side-by-side comparaison" for example. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:46:22 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Perhaps the rule needs to be more explicit.... |
Indeed, although without a side-by-side comparison, what would a viewer's description change FROM?
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:47:16. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:48:03 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
NO viewer's description would ever "change" since that would be the baseline. |
No, that isn't really true. What I mean is, if asked to describe both images independently, I would describe them in the same way. But, for example, suppose the moon was removed - then my description would change, given both the start and finish images and asked to describe them both in isolation.
However, given both of them and asked to describe the differences, I'd say they were the same, but the moon has moved. See what I mean ?
Almost no entry would stand up to a 'change the typical viewer's description in a side by side comparision' test. They almost all change and I don't actually think the rule is applied in that way.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:49:08.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:50:49 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Perhaps the rule needs to be more explicit.... |
Indeed, although without a side-by-side comparison, what would a viewer's description change FROM? |
As in Robert's example, it would change FROM nothing were it not for the side-by-side comparison.... The way it's stated now a person editing their image probably understands that you can't move Aunt Agatha from in front of the car to behind it...but would not necessarily understand that moving the moon 5 degrees lower in the sky is a no-no. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:51:18 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Gordon is correct that it does make a difference in the test if you have the two images to compare, vs. having only one. |
To be clear. That is completely not what I said ( or at least meant to say)
The distinction is this.
Two images, before and after editing.
Describe the first image.
Describe the second image.
The description should be the same.
or, a 'side by side' comparison test would be
Two images, before and after editing.
Describe the first image.
Describe the differences in the second image.
There should be no changes described.
Almost no images can stand up to that second test, but it seems like you are saying that's what you apply ? My opinion, in the moon case, is that it would easily pass the first test, but fail the second. Same with resizing an object within the scene, unless taking to an extreme, it would pass the first but fail the second.
If version two is what is in effect, you should be DQing all the obviously neat imaged to plastic skinned portraits as violating this one too - wrinkles are objects too :)
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:53:49.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:53:36 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Almost no images can stand up to that second test, but it seems like you are saying that's what you apply ? My opinion, in the moon case, is that it would easily pass the first test, but fail the second. Same with resizing an object within the scene, unless taking to an extreme, it would pass the first but fail the second. |
But remember what's being discussed here is the moving of objects...not other factors such as cropping, hue shifting, etc.
edit: wrinkles are objects?
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:54:13. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:55:35 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Almost no images can stand up to that second test, but it seems like you are saying that's what you apply ? My opinion, in the moon case, is that it would easily pass the first test, but fail the second. Same with resizing an object within the scene, unless taking to an extreme, it would pass the first but fail the second. |
But remember what's being discussed here is the moving of objects...not other factors such as cropping, hue shifting, etc. |
I very carefully avoided any mention of hue shifting or cropping.
But in both cases the moon is up in the sky. You wouldn't describe either images differently, if you were to describe each individually ? It is only when you describe the difference from one to the other.
Is it thus the same if you take a spot of someone's nose, or clean up acne, or remove wrinkles ? Those are very obvious in a side by side comparison and would likely be commented upon, but if done right are noticeable when describing either image.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:57:38 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
edit: wrinkles are objects? |
What else would they be ? They exist in an image, they can be removed, moved around, made more obvious, less obvious. I don't know what else I'd call them.
Suppose you edited them out of the image below. Would it change a typical viewers description of the image ?
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:59:13.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:58:02 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Perhaps the rule needs to be more explicit.... |
Indeed, although without a side-by-side comparison, what would a viewer's description change FROM? |
As in Robert's example, it would change FROM nothing were it not for the side-by-side comparison.... |
Even using a side-by-side comparison the description really wouldn't change using Robert's example. The moon is in the sky.
Now if it was moved all the way down to (or near) the horizon the description might change then.
edit - I'm WAY too slow today...Gordon has it covered pretty well. :D
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 10:59:07. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:59:05 AM · #25 |
This isn't really a change from past rules. If you think about it, "You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate [MAJOR ELEMENTS] (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."
Obviously, you CAN make some changes, like cloning out a twig or background power line. The wording was intended to emphasize that those changes can only be made to minor distractions. |
|
