the typical viewer's description :)

06/11/2007 11:44:09 PM · #1

the Advanced Editing rule states, "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."

now if a portrait of a model who has facial imperfections, such as (but not limited to) acne, dull skin, wrinkles, is later edited to remove those imperfections, would you agree, or disagree that the photographer had changed the typical viewer's description of the photograph/model?

what if the model's removed imperfections (in the photo) would have made a difference between "beautiful" to "oh, not pretty" ?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

06/11/2007 11:53:23 PM · #2

I typically don't get that detailed about it.

In a dpc scenario, it might go something like this --

Picture is submitted for validation.

Before said picture "loads" (or while it is loading), I may read to see *why* someone requested it. If it is something like "what happened to the background" or "has something been cloned out on the right," I would look at the picture and get a description of it in my head.

In this case, let's say that it (the finished picture) was a beautiful girl sitting in a field of lovely purple clover, hills rolling in the background, rich green grass and a blue sky with perfect white fluffy clouds, and a large, but gentle roan horse standing behind her, looking curiously at her to see if she has a treat for him.

My description (for the purpose at hand) may be something like "a girl in a field with a horse." (A Note -- obviously the first description is more verbose, but I'm just trying to get across what the picture looked like)

Then, I go to look at the original (which can be a pain 'cuz sometimes they take close to an hour to load). When I look at the original, I notice that she has a big ole' ugly wart on her nose and a scar running across her forehead. The field is still clover, and the horse is still standing there. Now, my description would be something like, "a girl in a field with a horse."

If I looked at the original and saw 2 horses, my description would change. If the original had white clover and the finished had purple, my description wouldn't have. Does that make sense?

So, at least for me, what the subject looks like (acne, dull skin, wrinkles, etc.) would not change my description of the picture.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

06/11/2007 11:55:15 PM · #3

Karmat I know your on dialup but an hour for a 3 meg picture? Then again an 11 meg raw would take an hour. I feel your pain when im at my grandparents house lol.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/11/2007 11:55:53 PM · #4

Thanks :) but what if...

Originally posted by crayon:

what if the model's removed imperfections (in the photo) would have made a difference between "beautiful" to "oh, not pretty" ?

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

06/11/2007 11:58:47 PM · #5

Originally posted by karmat:

I typically don't get that detailed about it.

Likewise. The description is in general terms- the major features of the capture. Little details like acne are just that: details. Now, if the shot consisted entirely of an extreme macro of the tip of someone's nose and there was a large wart and a scar, then you've got a different description.

06/11/2007 11:59:10 PM · #6

Like I said, what she looks like wouldn't have made difference. If she was beautiful in the finished, but terribly disfigured (with things that can be corrected in post processing) in the original, it is still a girl in a field with a horse.

If it was just a headshot, my description would be "a picture of a girl," what she looks like is irrelevant. Now, if the photographer has cloned out that third eye, we may have an issue, because that is somewhat odd and may find it's way into my description.

(and RMS -- yeah, some of these originals are HUGE. Glad I don't have to download them to my 'puter)

fotomann_forever

06/12/2007 12:04:41 AM · #7

There is a video on youtube where the PSer morphs a rather large lady in a swimsuit on a white background into a rather (perhaps unnaturally) skinny woman, still in a swimsuit on a white background. How rule you?

06/12/2007 12:05:32 AM · #8

thanks for the explanation. thanks for not being over-strict about this rule.

my profile photo is actually master yoda with the skin tone changed to flesh, and wrinkles removed ;)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/12/2007 12:06:04 AM · #9

videos aren't allowed in the challenges.

Don't know. Probably swimsuit woman on white background. If it is garrish enough, we like for the voters to decide.

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/12/2007 12:06:36 AM · #10

Originally posted by crayon:

thanks for the explanation. thanks for not being over-strict about this rule.

my profile photo is actually master yoda with the skin tone changed to flesh, and wrinkles removed ;)

he sure was cute when he was younger then:) super cute!

06/12/2007 12:06:40 AM · #11

Originally posted by crayon:

my profile photo is actually master yoda with the skin tone changed to flesh, and wrinkles removed ;)

yeah . . . .

06/12/2007 12:07:06 AM · #12

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

this should be DQ for changing the typical viewer's description.
i would have changed my description from, "Leroy, check out this hot chick!" to a less exciting, "Leroy, it's a hot mama with big behinds" lol