advanced editing rules question...

12/20/2006 10:59:42 AM · #26

Originally posted by Gordon:

...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.

We agree on this.

Originally posted by Gordon:

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.

So, if I get your assertion correctly, you're saying that anything at all that is "moved" will change the description significantly? If so, I'm still considering whether I agree with you...

12/20/2006 11:01:13 AM · #27

Originally posted by scalvert:

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."

Yup, I can see that moving the moon would violate the old rule - as it would be moving a major element.

However, the new rule just says that it would cause someone's description to change, which I don't see how it would.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/20/2006 11:02:34 AM · #28

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by scalvert:
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."

Yup, I can see that moving the moon would violate the old rule - as it would be moving a major element.

However, the new rule just says that it would cause someone's description to change, which I don't see how it would.

Right. Unless there was a side-by-side comparison...

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/20/2006 11:04:20 AM · #29

Let me clarify... Gordon, I do think we're on the same page. When I stated "two images to compare" I didn't mean overlaying them, or flashing back and forth. What I meant was more like "does moving that rock 1cm left really have a noticable impact on composition?"
If I have both images to look at, it's definitely a more severe test than if I have only one; in the second case, in order to produce differing descriptions, the change must be really major. In the first case, if position shifts enough to make the composition noticably better, it's a problem.
Again, we're talking about selective shifts, not corrections such as barrel/pincushion correction or perspective correction, both of which are legal in Advanced, and both of which might change object positional relationships.

12/20/2006 11:04:23 AM · #30

Originally posted by KaDi:

So, if I get your assertion correctly, you're saying that anything at all that is "moved" will change the description significantly? If so, I'm still considering whether I agree with you...

Actually, I'm trying to show that the idea that you can't hold images to a 'change a viewers description in a side by side comparison' sort of test, because almost anything would become noticeable. You'd have people remark on the differences.

The moon case above is exactly an example of that. The typical viewers description of the before and after shots wouldn't change. 'Sunrise, over the ocean, with the moon in the sky'

But they would notice the difference if you asked them to be compared - they'd say 'oh, the moon moved'

But the same would be true if you took a picture of a woman and then removed the wrinkles, crow's feet, blemishes, spots etc.

Both would be described as a 'portrait of a woman' but in comparison, the removal of all those objects (wrinkles, lines etc) would be remarked upon.

So that's why I'm asking how that test is supposed to be defined. The previous rule said you couldn't move around major elements, which is different to what the new rule is (or at least says)

12/20/2006 11:06:54 AM · #31

Originally posted by kirbic:

Let me clarify... Gordon, I do think we're on the same page. When I stated "two images to compare" I didn't mean overlaying them, or flashing back and forth.

Okay, so that's why I'm still going on about this as there seems to be some confusion :

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)

Originally posted by scalvert:

Good question. In my opinion it's the former, since validation and editing rules have always been about deviation from the capture.

12/20/2006 11:07:03 AM · #32

What Kirbic said.

12/20/2006 11:09:17 AM · #33

Gordon, I'm in absolute agreement with you. My point is that the person editing an image has to understand how this rule is going to be applied. The way the rule is written I wouldn't expect the moon/sunset picture to be DQ'd because, unless there is a side-by-side comparison, the typical viewer's description would not change. We agree on this, I think.

What we do not seem to agree on is what should change--the rule or the application of it.

12/20/2006 11:10:06 AM · #34

Originally posted by kirbic:

I think this answers the question of modifying the size of an object as well.

Okay, I think that's clarified things a bit. Though I don't see which bit of making something larger, in the same place, is 'move, remove or duplicate' ? Maybe 'scale' should be in that list too - as I see this technique used a lot.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/20/2006 11:11:38 AM · #35

Originally posted by KaDi:

I'd just like to know, either way. I'm not pushing for or against either side, just an understanding of what I can or can't do. Curious to know how the neat image and cloning out wrinkles and other facial features gets through though.

Does this also apply to the enlargement of eyes, which again is a fairly common technique in retouching ?

Message edited by author 2006-12-20 11:11:57.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/20/2006 11:13:30 AM · #36

Perhaps scaling *should* be in that list. Semantically, I think one could argue that it's covered, since if you scale an object significantly, then parts of it are surely moving in the frame, and composition changes, as would a viewer's description.
Still, I don't think it's clear that scaling an object would fall ouside of the rules.

12/20/2006 11:16:24 AM · #37

Originally posted by Gordon:

I don't see which bit of making something larger, in the same place, is 'move, remove or duplicate' ? Maybe 'scale' should be in that list too - as I see this technique used a lot.

Out of curiosity, what would prevent you from doing this in the OLD rules?

12/20/2006 11:17:04 AM · #38

Here's another example from Danny's pbase account that I helped him work on
This rock is about a third larger than it was in the scene. It hasn't moved. The major element of the rock is still in the same location and centered in the same point. It didn't move. It wasn't removed. It hasn't been duplicated. It's just bigger.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

12/20/2006 11:19:11 AM · #39

Originally posted by scalvert:

Out of curiosity, what would prevent you from doing this in the OLD rules?

I'm just asking if I can do it, or not, under the current rules. I don't see anything in either rules that say I can't do it, which is why I'm asking.

Message edited by author 2006-12-20 11:19:49.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

12/20/2006 11:19:48 AM · #40

Originally posted by Gordon:

Curious to know how the neat image and cloning out wrinkles and other facial features gets through though.

Texture and detail is treated differently than the physical objects appearing in a shot. It's always been OK to blur, soften, smooth. Just not to the point where an entire object is obscured to the point where it is completely obliterated.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Does this also apply to the enlargement of eyes, which again is a fairly common technique in retouching ?

Slight enlargement of eyes, very slight modification of body shapes, slight modification of mouth shape, yes, we've allowed all of these. The operative word is slight.

12/20/2006 11:29:48 AM · #41

Originally posted by Gordon:

I don't see anything in either rules that say I can't do it, which is why I'm asking.

Well, there's nothing in the rules that says you CAN do it either. The practical answer is as Kirbic suggested: a slight change would be fine, but significant enlargement (enough to affect composition or a viewer's description of a portrait, for example) would be trouble.

12/20/2006 11:38:20 AM · #42

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I don't see anything in either rules that say I can't do it, which is why I'm asking.

Well, there's nothing in the rules that says you CAN do it either.

I consider it a defect of my lenses that they don't all have T/S capabilities - I'm just correcting for that in software ;) But actually, the rules do say I can do it:

apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process.

If I select an object and make it bigger, I'm not creating a new shape or feature, I'm just enlarging it. That's why I asked. I don't actually see what says I can't do this. Just trying to understand the limits - because that rock case above for example, doesn't seem to change the description of the image, but is quite a significant resize.

Message edited by author 2006-12-20 11:42:50.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/20/2006 11:43:37 AM · #43

So, following along as best I can...
It's o.k. to make a child more wide-eyed and a woman's face appear slightly younger...but it's not o.k to move the moon or enlarge a rock? People improvements = o.k.
Geological and astronomical alterations = not o.k.?
;p

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

12/20/2006 11:44:08 AM · #44

Originally posted by KaDi:

Gordon, I'm in absolute agreement with you. My point is that the person editing an image has to understand how this rule is going to be applied.

Well said, and I agree.

Originally posted by KaDi:

The way the rule is written I wouldn't expect the moon/sunset picture to be DQ'd because, unless there is a side-by-side comparison, the typical viewer's description would not change. We agree on this, I think.

Add me to agreement here as well (would not expect a DQ).

Bottom line to the OP, is it legal to "move" an element in an image? Sounds like maybe, just a little?

I think it should be either yes or no. No is the easy way to clarify the rule. Yes leaves the door open, as has been indicated in this thread, to multiple interpretations.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/20/2006 11:46:13 AM · #45

Wow, this has mushroomed :-)

Here's what I'm trying to get at; before, we had a major elements clause and we weren't allowed to do any kind of morphing, duplicating, removing, or moving of anything that was a major element. There was always the potential gray area of how, when you cloned an object out, you obviously were duplicating the surround to "fill the hole", but it was never really an issue because since what you cloned out had to be a minor element, kind of by definition nothing that filled the hole was major... in theory, anyway.

So in the specific instance, based on:

Selective Editing: Adjustments can be made selectively to your photo. Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.

we can say my moving of the moon constitutes "moving a major element" and this was clearly not allowed.

Now the major elements clause has been replaced with this:

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), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.

It is absolutely implicit in that wording that you MAY do any or all of these things if it would NOT "change a typical viewer's description of the photograph." It has been suggested by SC that this should be interpreted as what would result, description-wise, if the viewer were to see the two images side-by-side, but that's a slippery slope. As has been pointed out, many techniques that are commonly used on DPC would, in fact, cause the image to be "described differently" in side-by-side comparisons. But I don't think that's actually the case with the moon shot; admittedly, if the two images were viewed side-by-side it would be easy to say "Oh, the moon's been moved!" but that's not a description. The relevant description would be "This image is a dawn shot from a height, with a marsh and reflections in the foreground, a band of color on the horizon, and an immense, pastel-blue sky with a crescent moon highlighted by earthshine in the upper left quadrant of the image."

IMO the only way this "typical viewer" thing can be made to work is if you show the base image to ten typical viewers and the altered image to ten typical viewers, and see if they describe it differently. The idea of basing the result on a rigorous side-by-side comparison of the images actually terrifies me :-) That's SO open to abuse in peoples' reactions, you know?

Here's a hypothetical example that's perhaps a better one: suppose I have a shot that has a flock of, say, 20 gulls wheeling against the sky. I'd really, really like to be able to clone two of those gulls and copy them over to the edge of the flock where there's a sort of a slightly empty place that bothers me. Now, NO way that would change the typical viewers description of the image; who's gonna count? And, after all, the gulls INDIVIDUALLY are tiny elements of the image; it's only when taken collectively that they "become a part of the description". And there's absolutely nothing to keep me from cloning out ONE gull from a flock of 20-30 of them if I don't like how it looks; I'm sure we can all agree on that.

So we have a bit of a contradiction here, and it could easily be resolved (if we do NOT want to allow duplicating and/or moving of elements) by making that explicit in the rules; "You may not duplicate or move elements of your image" or something like that, I haven't thought it all the way through.

But as things stand now, I think the rules DO allow me to drop that moon a tad if I want to... I'm not saying this is something I am going to do, or even WANT to do, but that's what the rules currently say IMO.

Robt.

12/20/2006 11:48:00 AM · #46

Originally posted by Gordon:

If I select an object and make it bigger, I'm not creating a new shape or feature, I'm just enlarging it.

I think we would consider that moving it (outward in every direction), but agree that scaling should probably be added to the No Fly list. I can pretty much guarantee you this would be DQ'd:

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/20/2006 11:56:37 AM · #47

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Gordon:
If I select an object and make it bigger, I'm not creating a new shape or feature, I'm just enlarging it.

I think we would consider that moving it (outward in every direction), but agree that scaling should probably be added to the No Fly list. I can pretty much guarantee you this would be DQ'd:

Yup - but would it be DQ'd if you did half that much ?
(which seems is done in 90% of beauty retouching for magazine covers)
The extremes are always easier to call - it might be simpler to clarify it and just draw the line, somewhere.

Message edited by author 2006-12-20 11:57:07.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/20/2006 11:56:52 AM · #48

Originally posted by scalvert:

Yah, but that examp0le requires no change in the wording of the rule; for SURE anyone describing this image would say "It's a girl with ridiculously big eyes!" But suppose you take the same original you used here and just expand the eyes a tad, to make them just a LITTLE more dominant than they originally were. As written, the rules allow this, but we sure as hell didn't used to be able to do it.

R.