| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/07/2007 03:38:00 AM · #1 |
I was disqualified on one of the current contests, and this is the reason, I got, why; You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.
I was not thinking I was breaking any rules (advanced editing) when I did the editing to my submission; I thought I was playing with the colors, unifying a whole range of colors by changing them into one color in one stroke.
The ruling was made by the SC; fine, it's not the end of the world, this is only a game and it should be fun; however, one phrase in the rules strike me as vague and ambiguous to be part of rules "change a typical viewer's description of the photograph"!!
I think this opens the door for all kinds of interpretations where people can greatly differ; while I accept the passed ruling, I do strongly believe that my editing did not "change a typical viewer's description of the photograph" and I stand behind my changes.
The ruling is done; but I need to have this phrase, in the rules, cleared and defined and made clear to all, it is an open thing that can be used in every which way.
oh... is it ok to post the photo before voting is over, now, that it has been disqualified
Message edited by author 2007-04-07 05:07:40. |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 05:05:21 AM · #2 |
Can you suggest something better?
Don't forget that you do have the option to send your entry and its original to SC ahead of time for an opinion any time you are not sure.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 05:07:06 AM · #3 |
| I dont edit any of my images due to fear of DQ |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 06:10:44 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Can you suggest something better?
Don't forget that you do have the option to send your entry and its original to SC ahead of time for an opinion any time you are not sure.
~Terry |
"Viewer's description"
"Viewer" is unidentified; "Description" does not have an outline or a guide.
So, it's a viewer and a description; where a hundred people (viewers) can have a hundred different opinions (descriptions).
My suggestion:
A viewer : Is anyone that is a member of DPC or a committee of five of the SC's
Description: Is a definition that needs to be worked out; and clearly stated somewhere on the site, for everyone to know and work with; and understand what they are up against.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 07:42:25 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by TIHadi:
...Description: Is a definition that needs to be worked out; and clearly stated somewhere on the site, for everyone to know and work with; and understand what they are up against. |
You see, there lies the problem. This topic has been discussed at great length countless times (searching the forums should yield many threads), and unfortunately, no one has ever been able to come up with the 'magic' wording that clears it all up. It just is simply a subjective, case by case thing. I don't mean at all to be facetious, and I'm sure Club Juggle was not either, but if you can come up with any wording for the rule that would clear it up, and allow everyone to understand it, I would accept it with glee, as I'm sure thousands of our fellow dpc'ers would. It really is just not anywhere near as easy as it sounds. Search and read through some of the threads on the subject and I think you'll see.
It sucks to be dq'd man, I feel for you, no one likes seeing shots dq'd due to misunderstandings, but they happen sometimes. I know it doesn't help now, but in the future, if there is ever any doubt in your mind about the legality of your editing, send a ticket to SC and get their opinion. I've done it before, they have always been extremely helpful.
taterbug :-)
Message edited by author 2007-04-07 07:43:37. |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 08:00:01 AM · #6 |
The problem here if the rules were sufficiently detailed to cover every situation perfectly clearly they would be the size of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. At some point a doubtful case must emerge and then the judges must have a element of dicretion - ie the ability to make a decision.
Back in the day when I used to teach law, students would feel the same way about the concept of reasonableness and related concepts such as the reasonable man or woman, reasonable force, reasonable suspicion. These phrases can seem to suggest very 'subjective' concepts - for example the amount of force I think is reasonable may be different to what you think is reasonable.
Law regards these as objective tests however - (English law that is) - because they do not depend on the subjective view of the actors involved. For example if the question arises as to whether you used reasonable force in defending yourself, it does not matter whether or not you thought the force was reasonable, what metters is whether or not the court thinks it was reasonable.
In this rule set the typical viewer phrase functions in much the same way. It does not matter what you or I think the typical viewer might say. It is an objective test and requires only that the judges make an honest and fair assessment of what they think a typical viewer would say.
Of course lawyers have reams of reported cases where they can check previous judgements as a guide, and also precedents which are binding, but here we do have all the dq'd pictures from past challenges shown so that we can look and see what might or might not be dq's.
So I don't see how either the phrase 'typical viewer' could be usuefully explained in any more detail. It allows the judges to take account of a range of factots, including amongst others the position, size, and significance of the feature in question. To draft a set of rules for this would take pages of text.
Changing the 'would' to 'might' and the ahe addition of the phrase 'in the opinion of the judges' might IMHO make the position clearer ie 'which might, in the opinion of the judges, cause a typical viewer ...'. It might also be useful to have a apecial gallery of all the previous dq's, at least the ones where a rule with an element of discretion like this has been applied, complete with a more detailed explanation of which particular element has been held to constitute an infringement of the rules.
I often look at previous dq's and can usually understand the reasoning behind them although sometimes a little clarification might help. However, so long as the rules are applied consistently and not capriciously I don't see how expanding the definitions would really help to reolve anything.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 08:45:38 AM · #7 |
How about if we leave it to the society of DPC? This may sound unfeasible to DPC, but what if the original is resized and cropped exactly like the submission, and kept online for the duration of the voting; and if anyone suspects a violation they go and check into the original; to whether the editing had changed their "description" of what that photo is all about.
Or what if SC chose 5 ( or any number) active and willing DPC members whom have not participated in that one challenge and ask them to make a ruling to whether the editing had changed their "description" of what an original is.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 09:23:29 AM · #8 |
This rule is simply bizarre in my opinion. "change a typical viewer's description"!! Huh?!? What the hell does that mean?
Can someone point me to the any of the threads where this was discussed before? I am very curious to read the original reasoning behind creating this rule.
Tarek, please post your DQ'ed entry and the original after the challenge is over. |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 09:25:18 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by TIHadi:
[snip]
Or what if SC chose 5 ( or any number) active and willing DPC members whom have not participated in that one challenge and ask them to make a ruling to whether the editing had changed their "description" of what an original is. |
i think you would find "Joe average DPCer" would be harsher for any particular rule set ...
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 09:29:16 AM · #10 |
maybe change "description" to "perception"?
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 09:32:00 AM · #11 |
Are we suggesting that the SC are A B Normal DPC members?
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 09:37:44 AM · #12 |
Ya'll are getting too complicated with it. This is quick and dirty because my 5 yo is ready to go outside snowboarding (bizarre in itself) and I gotta run
Imagine a picture of a lion's face with a fly on the nose. The lion is looking cross-eyed at the nose.
An typical viewer's description -- this is a lion looking crosseyed at a fly on its nose.
I clone out the fly.
New description -- this is a lion looking crosseyed.
The cloning was significant, but it did change the description.
I'll be back later if it needs more discussion.
As far as the OP, I don't recall off the top of my head which one it was, but if you are convinced that we were wrong, opening a ticket to discuss it would probably get you a lot more mileage. |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 09:43:55 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Jammur:
Are we suggesting that the SC are A B Normal DPC members? |
I do not want to be misunderstood here, please; I have no reason to not trusting anyone SC or any other person. If SC understand clearly what "viewer's description" means, I am sure they can put it down in writing to all, and rule accordingly; if it just means "viewer's description" then it should be given to any or all viewers on this site for them to make the ruling; because we will need 50% + to make a ruling that the editing had in fact changed his or her "description" of that specific photo. |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 09:49:48 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Ya'll are getting too complicated with it. This is quick and dirty because my 5 yo is ready to go outside snowboarding (bizarre in itself) and I gotta run
Imagine a picture of a lion's face with a fly on the nose. The lion is looking cross-eyed at the nose.
An typical viewer's description -- this is a lion looking crosseyed at a fly on its nose.
I clone out the fly.
New description -- this is a lion looking crosseyed.
The cloning was significant, but it did change the description.
I'll be back later if it needs more discussion.
As far as the OP, I don't recall off the top of my head which one it was, but if you are convinced that we were wrong, opening a ticket to discuss it would probably get you a lot more mileage. |
Is this the same fly!!because if it's, then you changed my "description" of the candy.
Message edited by author 2007-04-07 09:52:02. |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 10:12:17 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by TIHadi:
Originally posted by karmat:
Ya'll are getting too complicated with it. This is quick and dirty because my 5 yo is ready to go outside snowboarding (bizarre in itself) and I gotta run
Imagine a picture of a lion's face with a fly on the nose. The lion is looking cross-eyed at the nose.
An typical viewer's description -- this is a lion looking crosseyed at a fly on its nose.
I clone out the fly.
New description -- this is a lion looking crosseyed.
The cloning was significant, but it did change the description.
I'll be back later if it needs more discussion.
As far as the OP, I don't recall off the top of my head which one it was, but if you are convinced that we were wrong, opening a ticket to discuss it would probably get you a lot more mileage. |
Is this the same fly!!because if it's, then you changed my "description" of the candy. |
:) Anyone that knows me well enough to know that I couldn't clone a fly off a nose much less turn a lion into a piece of candy. :) |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 10:24:11 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Don't forget that you do have the option to send your entry and its original to SC ahead of time for an opinion any time you are not sure.
~Terry |
Wonder what would happen if we all started doing that?
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 10:26:51 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Don't forget that you do have the option to send your entry and its original to SC ahead of time for an opinion any time you are not sure.
~Terry |
Wonder what would happen if we all started doing that? |
That'd be a lot of pictures, and we'd try to get to all of them. Unfortunately, due to the time involved, if you didn't submit it soon enough, we might not be able to get back to you until the challenge started. :( |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 10:34:32 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The cloning was significant, but it did change the description.
|
I think you meant to write:
The cloning was insignificant but it did change the description.
We're gonna have to DQ you karmat. LOL ;)
Of course in your description it would depend on how big the Loin was in the frame. The average viewer might miss the fly in the original. ;) I'll trust the SC with this problem.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 10:38:06 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by karmat:
The cloning was significant, but it did change the description.
|
I think you meant to write:
The cloning was insignificant but it did change the description.
We're gonna have to DQ you karmat. LOL ;)
Of course in your description it would depend on how big the Loin was in the frame. The average viewer might miss the fly in the original. ;) I'll trust the SC with this problem. |
Now, if it is loins in the picture, entirely different rules may apply.
In my head, the lion's face filled the frame. Sorry, I've got all incoming telepathy blocked this morning. :P |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 10:51:07 AM · #20 |
I think that you should go ahead and post your pictures here (before and After editing) and tell us all what you did to get your final picture and let us decide. Unless you have submitted a form to SC to have it reviewed again.
Other than that I would say that go ahead and post it. It's already DQ'd, not like they are going to RE-DQ you.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 11:03:20 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Lowcivicman99:
I think that you should go ahead and post your pictures here (before and After editing) and tell us all what you did to get your final picture and let us decide. Unless you have submitted a form to SC to have it reviewed again.
Other than that I would say that go ahead and post it. It's already DQ'd, not like they are going to RE-DQ you. |
I think out of courtesy and respect to the people who though it was a good photo and left nice comments I will wait; also I said I accepted the ruling, not that I agree with it, think it's right or like it; but to me it's still voting period.
Thanks anyway.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2007 11:09:09 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Karmat:
Ya'll are getting too complicated with it. This is quick and dirty because my 5 yo is ready to go outside snowboarding (bizarre in itself) and I gotta run
Imagine a picture of a lion's face with a fly on the nose. The lion is looking cross-eyed at the nose.
An typical viewer's description -- this is a lion looking crosseyed at a fly on its nose.
I clone out the fly.
New description -- this is a lion looking crosseyed.
The cloning was significant, but it did change the description.
I'll be back later if it needs more discussion.
As far as the OP, I don't recall off the top of my head which one it was, but if you are convinced that we were wrong, opening a ticket to discuss it would probably get you a lot more mileage. |
Hi Karma, so back to your example, why should it matter? Does it make someone less of a photographer to capture a shot of a lion with a fly on his nose if the fly is cloned out?
If someone use an editing tool/technique that is allowed, and it causes the "typical viewer description" to be altered, why should that be prohibited? I mean conceptually.
Message edited by author 2007-04-07 11:10:25. |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 12:20:36 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
Hi Karma, so back to your example, why should it matter? Does it make someone less of a photographer to capture a shot of a lion with a fly on his nose if the fly is cloned out? |
It doesn't make anyone less of a photographer, but it changes the meaning and emotional feel of the photo. A photo of the lion looking at a fly would be odd-looking but logical. To come across a lion that just sits there cross-eyed would be rather bizzare, and inspire quite different thoughts in the viewer.
To me, it's not so much the degree to which the physical description of the picture changes which matters, as it's how much does the underlying message or meaning change. If an editing change alters the story conveyed by the photo, then it's a significant change to me. |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 05:26:15 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by samanwar:
Hi Karma, so back to your example, why should it matter? Does it make someone less of a photographer to capture a shot of a lion with a fly on his nose if the fly is cloned out? |
It doesn't make anyone less of a photographer, but it changes the meaning and emotional feel of the photo. A photo of the lion looking at a fly would be odd-looking but logical. To come across a lion that just sits there cross-eyed would be rather bizzare, and inspire quite different thoughts in the viewer.
To me, it's not so much the degree to which the physical description of the picture changes which matters, as it's how much does the underlying message or meaning change. If an editing change alters the story conveyed by the photo, then it's a significant change to me. |
GeneralE and karametI gather from your replies that you have not seen the photo in question, and I have a question for both of you, please. When it's said the SC has reviewed the submission, does this mean 1 SC or more than 1, and how many if more than 1. Or is the decision left to only ONE person to decide according to his or her "description"
because my submission does not have as much or little change as you have suggested.
Message edited by author 2007-04-07 17:28:33. |
|
|
|
04/07/2007 05:41:37 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by TIHadi:
... I have a question for both of you, please. When it's said the SC has reviewed the submission, does this mean 1 SC or more than 1, and how many if more than 1. Or is the decision left to only ONE person to decide according to his or her "description" |
It takes a minimum of six votes to DQ an image like this, and that's only if it's unanimous. Most DQ'd images have 8-10 votes to DQ, and if it's a close vote on a subjective decision we try to get everyone to vote. We also can "discuss" the DQ issues in a separate forum, so there is an opportunity for more than one point of view to be presented.
Ultimately, some images will always fall in a "gray area" where a resonable case can be made for either DQ or validation, and this is the best system we have for deciding those situations -- sometimes we all just have to agree to disagree about certain images. |
|
