| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/11/2007 11:18:19 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by pineapple:
Sigh. IMO it is a bloody stupid rule. |
ayup. and nothing to do with photography. I'd like SC to explain what's not photographic about jjbeguin's photo. |
Let's take first things first.
1.) Yes, sometimes application of this rule can seem "stupid." The rule is intended to prohibit removal of significant elements that would change the typical viewer's description of the contents of the shot. Backgrounds can be significant. The rule is there for good reason.
2.) No one ever said that jj's shot was "not photographic." Where did that come from??
3.) The bottom line is that we have to equitably apply the rules. We can't selectively say that, just because we loved the result, we'll let it stand. This was a close call, it was not a unanimous decision. Fact is, the majority felt the removal was significant. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:20:20 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
2.) No one ever said that jj's shot was "not photographic." Where did that come from?? |
Isn't that the purpose of the ruleset? To keep the entries "photographic in nature"? |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:21:20 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
3.) The bottom line is that we have to equitably apply the rules. We can't selectively say that, just because we loved the result, we'll let it stand. |
Then you're damned if ya do, damned if ya don't by the masses?
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:27:21 AM · #29 |
Oh, that wonderful photo was disqualified? :-(
It never occurred to me until now that blacking out (burning) a busy background could result in a DQ. I wrongly assumed the rule was about cloning. What if the photographer had darkened all of the background elements so they were just barely visible? Generally speaking, would that be allowed? |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:28:10 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by kirbic:
3.) The bottom line is that we have to equitably apply the rules. We can't selectively say that, just because we loved the result, we'll let it stand. |
Then you're damned if ya do, damned if ya don't by the masses? |
I don't understand how anyone is damned here. Again, we haven't seen JJs original, SC has. What if there were 3 other people in the image and he removed them? Without knowing WHAT was removed, this argument is basically useless.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 11:29:22 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by kirbic:
2.) No one ever said that jj's shot was "not photographic." Where did that come from?? |
Isn't that the purpose of the ruleset? To keep the entries "photographic in nature"? |
So what you're saying then is because the rules are, in part, meant to "keep entries photographic in nature," then if we DQ one, for any reason, the entry must not have been photographic? That is some seriously flawed logic.
Whether or not an entry is "photographic in nature" has very little to do with whether the processing breaks a specific rule. One can, even in Basic Editing, produce a result that is quite abstract and non-photographic, yet perfectly legal. It's easy to do this, even with a single curves adjustment. Conversely, it's easy to break an editing rule and still wind up with a perfectly "photographic" result.
The rules attempt to steer editing in a general direction, but to do so with minimal restriction of artistic intent. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 12:01:21 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I don't understand how anyone is damned here. |
I was speaking about SC. No matter what decision they make, someone is going to think it was unjust or stupid or...
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 12:16:05 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
So what you're saying then is because the rules are, in part, meant to "keep entries photographic in nature," then if we DQ one, for any reason, the entry must not have been photographic? That is some seriously flawed logic. |
Check out my original intent for this thread. I am asking for a change in the rules. JJ is an example of why this particular rule does not actually protect entries from being "unphotographic."
Originally posted by kirbic:
Whether or not an entry is "photographic in nature" has very little to do with whether the processing breaks a specific rule. |
But isn't it useful to look at the purpose of a rule when you are questioning that rule? I could also argue that when judges enforce laws they examine the spirit of those laws as well as the letter, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
Originally posted by kirbic:
One can, even in Basic Editing, produce a result that is quite abstract and non-photographic, yet perfectly legal. |
except when it's not legal. sometimes you decide these changes create a feature and you dq. sometimes you don't. but again, that's out of scope.
Originally posted by kirbic:
The rules attempt to steer editing in a general direction, but to do so with minimal restriction of artistic intent. |
And that "direction" is toward the "photographic". If there is some other direction you're talking about, I'd like to know.
Remember, this is a website suggestion thread, and I am simply explaining and defending my suggestion for a change. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 12:24:21 PM · #34 |
I am not sure exactly what he did but from this thread I am guessing he burned out the background and if that is how it was done I would expect that to be OK, the same thing could be done with film so why not digital.
It would be nice to know a little more to help make sure we can keep within the rules. I have only had on DQ, it was on an image where the day and month were set right but the year was wrong and even though the shot was legally taken it was the correct call by SC and an easy one for them to make and for me to accept but these type DQ's are hard to understand without knowing exactly what happened |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 12:34:25 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by kirbic:
So what you're saying then is because the rules are, in part, meant to "keep entries photographic in nature," then if we DQ one, for any reason, the entry must not have been photographic? That is some seriously flawed logic. |
Check out my original intent for this thread. I am asking for a change in the rules. JJ is an example of why this particular rule does not actually protect entries from being "unphotographic." |
You are correct, this rule does not protect entries from being "unphotographic." In general, the intent of the rule is to disallow major additions removals, and the moving or duplication of elements within a shot.
It's completely possible to rearrange the elements of a scene completely and have the result still look "photographic." It's also outside what we, as a site, are comfortable with. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 12:38:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
One can, even in Basic Editing, produce a result that is quite abstract and non-photographic, yet perfectly legal. |
except when it's not legal. sometimes you decide these changes create a feature and you dq. sometimes you don't. but again, that's out of scope.[/quote]
LOL. Global changes to tonality or color, no matter how bizzarre, are always legal. If we cannot replicate the results, then yes, the image will be disqualified. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 12:42:27 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
And that "direction" is toward the "photographic". If there is some other direction you're talking about, I'd like to know.
Remember, this is a website suggestion thread, and I am simply explaining and defending my suggestion for a change. |
Yes, that direction is toward "photographic" but bear in mind it does not even begin to guarantee that all legally-edited entries are photographic. If the member or registered user decides to submit something that is highly modified and "not photographic" they take their chances with the voting public. On this type of image, once we have verified that the editing is within the rules, we simply LTVD (Let The Voters Decide). |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 01:04:42 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
LOL. Global changes to tonality or color, no matter how bizzarre, are always legal. If we cannot replicate the results, then yes, the image will be disqualified. |
so I can use curves or levels to make backgrounds disappear, as long as I apply it globally? but only in basic?
there are other global changes, like sharpening and gradient, that have caused DQs because they counted towards "changing the typical viewer's description." |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 01:33:15 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by kirbic:
LOL. Global changes to tonality or color, no matter how bizzarre, are always legal. If we cannot replicate the results, then yes, the image will be disqualified. |
so I can use curves or levels to make backgrounds disappear, as long as I apply it globally? but only in basic?
there are other global changes, like sharpening and gradient, that have caused DQs because they counted towards "changing the typical viewer's description." |
Yes, you can use globally-applied levels or curves to suppress *anything*. that's true in Basic, and it is true in Advanced. AFAIK, sharpening has never been cause for DQ either, even when used at radical settings of radius and amount to create extreme "halos" we have validated them. Gradients are not global changes. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 01:36:07 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yes, you can use globally-applied levels or curves to suppress *anything*. that's true in Basic, and it is true in Advanced. |
Good! As it should be! |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 01:48:31 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yes, you can use globally-applied levels or curves to suppress *anything*. that's true in Basic, and it is true in Advanced.
|
You are saying it's ok to obliterate a background using global levels or curves? It's ok, in basic, to change the description of the photo from original to processed with respect to major elements, like things in the background, as long as you use a legal tool? Please confirm. I'd like to make sure I understand this.
Originally posted by kirbic:
AFAIK, sharpening has never been cause for DQ either, even when used at radical settings of radius and amount to create extreme "halos" we have validated them. |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Gradients are not global changes. |
But they are just 'tonal or color changes applied to the entire image' (i.e. adjustment layer in basic editing). If they are not global, why are they legal in basic editing? (eta; gradient maps) Same questions apply.
Message edited by author 2007-06-11 13:50:25. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 01:57:49 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by kirbic:
AFAIK, sharpening has never been cause for DQ either, even when used at radical settings of radius and amount to create extreme "halos" we have validated them. |
|
Note that even in the supplied "preview" of the photographer's USM settings, there is an obvious halo on the secondary pole extending off the top. That part of the halo does not appear in the entry. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 02:14:30 PM · #43 |
| I suspect that subsequent application of curves reduced the second halo, and frankly find it hard to imagine someone going to these lengths to deceive while making it easy to check. But that's another question. This is the first time that someone has attempted to answer this particular conundrum, despite it being brought up in the past. Maybe a note should be put on this photo that explains, "We don't believe him" in order to be upfront and clear about the reasons for the DQ, for posterity. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 04:14:46 PM · #44 |
For those who think the rule should be waivered/changed think about what the SC is doing here in terms of equality in applying the rule. Even now it is a subjective decision - think about how you might say "that is carefully done and looks good/photographic and thus should stay" and "that looks bad/non-photographic and thus should be DQ'd" - it simply would not work and would make it very difficult to maintain equality.
Also I restate the scenario where people would opt for the cop out option of putting in a background in postwork and not be bothered about context which is part of the skill in photography - let us not forget the name of the site is Digital Photography Challenge, and not Digital Photoshop Challenge...
Maybe as a bit of a newbie to the site i am overstepping my mark - but that is how i see it. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 04:22:19 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
I suspect that subsequent application of curves reduced the second halo, and frankly find it hard to imagine someone going to these lengths to deceive while making it easy to check. But that's another question. This is the first time that someone has attempted to answer this particular conundrum, despite it being brought up in the past. Maybe a note should be put on this photo that explains, "We don't believe him" in order to be upfront and clear about the reasons for the DQ, for posterity. |
It's not that we "don't believe" someone, it's simply that we could not reproduce it using Basic-legal steps, period. No accusations of wrongdoing, but a DQ nonetheless.
In these cases, even after DQ, if the photog is able to provide additional detail that allows us to reproduce it, we will reinstate. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 04:23:02 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
For those who think the rule should be waivered/changed think about what the SC is doing here in terms of equality in applying the rule. Even now it is a subjective decision - think about how you might say "that is carefully done and looks good/photographic and thus should stay" and "that looks bad/non-photographic and thus should be DQ'd" - it simply would not work and would make it very difficult to maintain equality.
Also I restate the scenario where people would opt for the cop out option of putting in a background in postwork and not be bothered about context which is part of the skill in photography - let us not forget the name of the site is Digital Photography Challenge, and not Digital Photoshop Challenge...
Maybe as a bit of a newbie to the site i am overstepping my mark - but that is how i see it. |
You, sir, have hit the nail on the head. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 04:27:34 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
For those who think the rule should be waivered/changed think about what the SC is doing here in terms of equality in applying the rule. Even now it is a subjective decision - think about how you might say "that is carefully done and looks good/photographic and thus should stay" and "that looks bad/non-photographic and thus should be DQ'd" - it simply would not work and would make it very difficult to maintain equality. |
how would changing the rule suddenly make it more subjective? I'm suggesting changing a particular rule, not leaving it up to the SC to make decisions about what is good and photographic. Those who know me know I would *never* suggest that.
Originally posted by inshaala:
Also I restate the scenario where people would opt for the cop out option of putting in a background in postwork and not be bothered about context which is part of the skill in photography - let us not forget the name of the site is Digital Photography Challenge, and not Digital Photoshop Challenge... |
that argument is relevant, but I've already said that photography has a long tradition of burning out backgrounds and unwanted elements. In fact, the very name "Photoshop" implies an older tradition that is being continued.
I personally don't see how "changing the typical viewer's description" is in any way relevant to the concept and history of photography. Most of the rules here, in fact, seem to exist to maintain a distinction that was never valid and will soon enough be rendered completely irrelevant... unless they change the name to Digital Photojournalism Challenge.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 04:30:18 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
completely irrelevant |
hmm... that was a little harsh. How about "quaint" instead? |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 04:44:22 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's not that we "don't believe" someone, it's simply that we could not reproduce it using Basic-legal steps, period. No accusations of wrongdoing, but a DQ nonetheless.
In these cases, even after DQ, if the photog is able to provide additional detail that allows us to reproduce it, we will reinstate. |
Just for further clarification: If this halo had been accomplished with legal tools, would it be considered 'an effect', or not, under the current basic editing rules? |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 07:49:01 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I'm suggesting changing a particular rule, not leaving it up to the SC to make decisions about what is good and photographic. Those who know me know I would *never* suggest that.
|
Ok - so how would you word it so that a photo like jj's would pass the test and a photo with a badly inserted "cop out" background not? (i am assuming we are on the same wavelength in seeing that there would be a flood of bad photos abusing the rule) Because i cant think of anything which would be able to be applied equally to all in which photos in which the tradition of burning out a background (or dodging it out) would not overlap and thus allow the cop out option i mentioned.
Maybe i am being a bit conservative as i do realise that digital art and photography are merging in very significant ways, but i joined this site to improve my photography and not my postworking/photomanipulation skills - i joined another site (worth1000.com) last year for that ;) And photography for me means the set up of the shot, background and lighting included - secondary to that is postwork. |
|
