| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2007 03:14:41 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scalvert:
You could even make it yellow... as long as you can still see it. If you can't see something in a photo, then it's been removed. |
Polar bear in a snow storm. Is the polar bear still in the photo ? |
If a tree falls down on a mime in the forest when no one is there, will anyone care? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:19:06 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by elemess:
Even though this thread isn't for me (I've never been DQ'd at all), I'll just agree with  hopper on this one - the wording is fine as is. This issue has been and will continue to be subjective and impossible to pin down to a razor thin, black-or-white line those so terribly aggrieved by this heinous, fascist whim of the SC wish it could be.
Look, there are just some things that have to be left to a gray area, and we have the Site Council to help sort those things out. Since we're lucky enough not to have a bunch of automatons or bureaucrats or computers running things around here, there are going to be times when a large (or at least vocal) chunk of the DPC populace doesn't like the decision. Fortunately, it doesn't happen very often, and when it does the SC is good about letting folks vent their frustrations and even attempt to "rectify" the situation, even for rules that ain't broke in the first place. Thus, this thread and the many more that have come before it.
I'm for stopping beating on this dead horse. Next time you aren't sure of a rule, ask first. |
I do not agree with this one bit. The wording does need to be changed and we are on the right tracks here. No one it picking on SC at all. And if SC could help along as they are doing that makes it much eaiser to come to a conclusion. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:24:55 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
as long as you can still see it. If you can't see something in a photo, then it's been removed. |
We couldn't see the doors in the background and yet his passed the validation so what you're saying isn't exactly true.
Still with my point, there was a line crossed and we need to make it know what and where that line is.
Bear had a good idea with the simplicity of be allowed to remove the background of a photo. ONLY USING THE PROPER AND CORRECT TOOLS. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:32:38 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
So you're saying that Danny's photo isn't legal, because the background information (garages etc) have been removed ... had he made them yellow, then it would have been legal, but because they can't be seen anymore then it isn't legal ...
edit to say that I realize this is probably in the wrong thread, but I felt the need to make the point ... I agree that the wording needs to be clarified in the basic ruleset to avoid this debate in the future ...
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yes, you can make it any color you want, but you can't use ANY tool to make it go away. You could even make it yellow... as long as you can still see it. If you can't see something in a photo, then it's been removed. |
|
No, actually he's saying "If it is significant enough that we won't let you remove it, then any adjustment you make that effectively removes it is not legal." As opposed to the decision on Danny's shot, which was that it was OK to remove it, meaning they don't much care HOW it was removed, as long as the process was otherwise legal.
It's basically down to this subjective decision that the parking lot/building in Danny's shot was insignificant enough as to allow its removal, and the cubicle wall in dirt's shot was too prominent an element to be removed.
The "new" information, if you want to call it that, is that even though color-shifting is a legal process, if the color shifting results in making the too-prominent object disappear then that's not OK. Presumably meaning (I'm pretty sure I'm right on this) that if Dirt had selected the wall and faded it to a very pale shade of gray, but it was still visible in the image if you looked for it, that would have been OK.
It's kind of like this:
"In picture 'A' the unwanted elements are not a significant part of the composition, so you can do whatever you like with them. In picture 'B' the unwanted element is a strong component of the composition, so we'll let you mess around with it to minimize its visual presence as long as we can still tell it is there, but we won't let you remove it."
Now, I completely understand the reasoning they are using, and I'm not "blaming" anybody for these rulings, but from where I sit this is hair-splitting of a very high degree. The hair-splitting is built into the rule, see? It's not that SC is WANTING to split hairs, but that the rule is REQUIRING them to.
And I'm pretty sure SC would all agree, as would all of us posting to this thread, that if we could come up with a rule that was more precise than that, this would be an Excellent Thing. Indeed, SC has explicitly ASKED us to submit our suggestions for an alternative or reworded rule.
So this thread is all good as far as I'm concerned. I see no dead-horse beating here at all, just people wandering around looking for an answer to a problem that crops up time and time again.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:38:42 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So this thread is all good as far as I'm concerned. I see no dead-horse beating here at all, just people wandering around looking for an answer to a problem that crops up time and time again.
R. |
Perfectly said
That is my EXACT GOAL here. So can the DPC crown come together and try to work together as one group to thicken that line. In the end it would make it SO much eaiser to everyone and SC wouldn't have to do as much work as they are doing now. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:57:35 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now, I completely understand the reasoning they are using, and I'm not "blaming" anybody for these rulings, but from where I sit this is hair-splitting of a very high degree. The hair-splitting is built into the rule, see? It's not that SC is WANTING to split hairs, but that the rule is REQUIRING them to. |
Very well said. And I have yet to hear a justification for the rules except that "them's the rules." Which is a good justification for enforcement currently, but is not a good reason not to change them.
I can see why, under the current rules, this shot was DQ'd:
And as the rules stand, I think the decision was the right one.
What I can't see is why a rule that requires that shot to be DQ'd is a good one. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:07:00 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And I'm pretty sure SC would all agree, as would all of us posting to this thread, that if we could come up with a rule that was more precise than that, this would be an Excellent Thing. Indeed, SC has explicitly ASKED us to submit our suggestions for an alternative or reworded rule. |
I'm not suggesting a rule should be written to be purposefully ambiguous, which is what it seems like y'all think the current rule was written to be, but in this case it should be written to allow some wriggle room. What I'm hearing from those pounding the drums in this thread is that no wriggle room should be allowed at all. And I don't think that's even possible here.
If memory serves, this rule (or maybe an earlier version of it) came about in the aftermath a DrJOnes shot where he removed giant studio lights from his shot. A vocal group of folks thought it should be perfectly legal to do so; a majority did not. And now y'all are trying to eliminate that gray area again. It simply can't happen. This is art, not math. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:16:42 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now, I completely understand the reasoning they are using, and I'm not "blaming" anybody for these rulings, but from where I sit this is hair-splitting of a very high degree. The hair-splitting is built into the rule, see? It's not that SC is WANTING to split hairs, but that the rule is REQUIRING them to.
And I'm pretty sure SC would all agree, as would all of us posting to this thread, that if we could come up with a rule that was more precise than that, this would be an Excellent Thing. Indeed, SC has explicitly ASKED us to submit our suggestions for an alternative or reworded rule. |
This is beautiful.
Originally posted by eamurdock:
What I can't see is why a rule that requires that shot to be DQ'd is a good one. |
The picture you posted as an example shows a candid, intimate moment. Serene, peaceful... and not the brightly lit Chinese restaurant the photographer actually captured. Should it matter that the impact was created in Photoshop? You'll probably get very divided opinions on that. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:17:54 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So this thread is all good as far as I'm concerned. I see no dead-horse beating here at all, just people wandering around looking for an answer to a problem that crops up time and time again.
R. |
Perfectly said
That is my EXACT GOAL here. So can the DPC crown come together and try to work together as one group to thicken that line. In the end it would make it SO much eaiser to everyone and SC wouldn't have to do as much work as they are doing now. |
"...time and time again."
"...SC wouldn't have to do as much work as they are doing now."
?????????
It's not like we're seeing multiple DQ's every week because of this particular part of the editing ruleset. The DQ's are actually not very frequent at all anymore since the rules were revised in the last year.
Most people figure it out and stay within the rules. It's really NOT that complicated. If you start taking "things" out of your composition via photoshop; well, you better think about it a little bit more before submitting it to the challenge.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:37:57 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Most people figure it out and stay within the rules. It's really NOT that complicated. If you start taking "things" out of your composition via photoshop; well, you better think about it a little bit more before submitting it to the challenge. |
I'm sorry, but it apparently IS that complicated, because two heavily photoshopped renditions of mustang automobiles were entered in the last challenge, and one of them was DQ'd and the other was not. They both used roughly the same approach to their editing, but an anomaly cropped up: the one that UTTERLY ERASED the context was validated, and the one that only erased SOME of the context was DQ'd.
There's NO consensus among respondents to the thread discussing it that the SC decision was the right one: some believe both should be DQ, some believe neither should be DQ, some believe the DQ/validation should be reversed, and some believe the SC made the correct call.
And all these people are reading the same rule. That's confusing. It would be nice if we could figure out a way to make it more consistent, so that pretty much everyone agreed with rules interpretations in this area when they are explained.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:00:27 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So this thread is all good as far as I'm concerned. I see no dead-horse beating here at all, just people wandering around looking for an answer to a problem that crops up time and time again.
R. |
Perfectly said
That is my EXACT GOAL here. So can the DPC crown come together and try to work together as one group to thicken that line. In the end it would make it SO much eaiser to everyone and SC wouldn't have to do as much work as they are doing now. |
"...time and time again."
"...SC wouldn't have to do as much work as they are doing now."
?????????
It's not like we're seeing multiple DQ's every week because of this particular part of the editing ruleset. The DQ's are actually not very frequent at all anymore since the rules were revised in the last year.
Most people figure it out and stay within the rules. It's really NOT that complicated. If you start taking "things" out of your composition via photoshop; well, you better think about it a little bit more before submitting it to the challenge. |
I think you have the wrong idea here. I'm not asking SC to remove the rule all together. I and many others know that the rules need to be there for us to follow them but like Robert is saying in the post above mine, we are trying to thicken the line that has been drawn. That is all.
And you said "Most people figure it out and stay within the rules. It's really NOT that complicated. If you start taking "things" out of your composition via Photoshop; well, you better think about it a little bit more before submitting it to the challenge." Here's the problem with that... First off you said "MOST" Well my new rule would make the word "MOST" into "ALL" and secondly I knew the rules before, during and after the challenge and I knew that we couldn't take out MAJOR elements of a photograph and Strongly, oh so VERY STRONGLY believe that what I edited was not major enough to get me DQ'd so I edited away. The reason I didn't know I was breaking the rules was because that line I crossed was not clearly stated what I can and can not remove from a photograph. That my friend is what I am trying to do here.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:21:22 PM · #37 |
I think the rules can be left as vague as they are and enforced as haphazardly as they are.
However all DQ'd images should be posted in an area of the site along with the text of the offending rule and clearly explained reason behind why the rule was deemed to have been broken. Clearly explained reason being more than a cut/paste of the rules as is the current practice.
Stupid errors like datestamps, lost originals, etc could be left out.
This would serve as a reference point both for contestants and for those who no doubt mean to apply the rules the same way in each and every case.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 18:22:00. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:35:36 PM · #38 |
I think that the DQ'd image should go on trial with the public as "the typical viewer"
After the suggested photo has to be validated the SC leave it in play so that voting can continue. Once the challenge is over the suggested DQ'd image goes on trial and others vote on it. The results at the end of 99 votes will set the placement of the photo. Again not the obvious DQ'd just those that are hard to decide like mine and Danny's |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:37:02 PM · #39 |
I just saw this thread for the first time. I may be "the other" that was not disqualified for changing the background. I was asked to submit an original for validation after the challenge was over, and the entry didn't even place very well. Hmmmm?
In my case my image was validated. The original background was a plain colored wall. I changed the color of the wall and added a gradient map to bring out the slight shadows. I felt that I had followed the rules, as I hadn't removed or added anything, and I had changed a color, which is explicitly allowed.
I do feel that "changing a typical viewers description" leaves this rule open to subjective interpretation, and I'd like to see that tightened up to the point where it could be interpreted objectively. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:42:35 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
...I knew the rules before, during and after the challenge... |
Apparently not.
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
and I knew that we couldn't take out MAJOR elements of a photograph and Strongly, oh so VERY STRONGLY believe that what I edited was not major enough to get me DQ'd so I edited away. |
The MAJOR clause hasn't been in the rules since Feb 2007.
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
The reason I didn't know I was breaking the rules was because that line I crossed was not clearly stated what I can and can not remove from a photograph. |
If you're not sure, ask. It's been mentioned in various threads that it's perfectly acceptable to ask, and or submit, your image to SC beforehand for feedback on whether your edits are legal or not.
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
That my friend is what I am trying to do here. |
Ok. Good luck! :-)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:42:45 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I think that the DQ'd image should go on trial with the public as "the typical viewer"
After the suggested photo has to be validated the SC leave it in play so that voting can continue. Once the challenge is over the suggested DQ'd image goes on trial and others vote on it. The results at the end of 99 votes will set the placement of the photo. Again not the obvious DQ'd just those that are hard to decide like mine and Danny's |
I don't like this vote idea, because the voters are already taking things like DNMC and image quality into consideration on the first go round. If they liked it the first time (and didn't mind the offending change) then they will like it the second go round. However, mine, which wasn't very well received on the first go round, would probably be DQed just because it wasn't well liked by the majority of the voters. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:44:13 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
... However all DQ'd images should be posted in an area of the site along with the text of the offending rule and clearly explained reason behind why the rule was deemed to have been broken. ...
|
I think that's a great idea and it HAS been floated before...wish it would be implemented.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:44:33 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I think that the DQ'd image should go on trial with the public as "the typical viewer" |
I'm not for a popularity contest to interpret rules. If anything there are about 15 people too many involved as it is, hence the inconsistencies in rulings. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 06:48:57 PM · #44 |
It's a lost cause... any rule that is written that the majority of the prevailing SC members can agree on, does not mean that the same rule will be treated the same way when there is enough of a change in SC personel that feel different about a given rule to vote different when they have to decide if it's legal or not. It's all a matter of interpretation by a group of people that have their own likes, dislikes and feeling of what's fair and right. Even an unbiased person is biased by being unbiased.
I'd say just flip a coin but then people would argue about the coin, if heads or tails was legal or illegal, how high it was flipped and who flipped it.
Mike |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:03:09 PM · #45 |
The only way to make it objective (that I see, and I'm totally open to more opinion) is to do as someone suggested and assign some sort of image area % - and the next question becomes is that a % of the cropped image or the original capture? And, is that really what we need here? I'd like to see more discussion on that, if you guys are willing.
Next, let's move on to the "just plain allow complete obliteration of the background" idea. How does that idea square with the preamble of the Advanced Editing ruleset: "Advanced Editing allows more freedom to correct flaws and make the most of your captured image. Selections, layers and selective editing tools are allowed for touch-up and enhancement only. You may not create new features or obscure significant parts of your original capture."
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:06:49 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by L2:
... Next, let's move on to the "just plain allow complete obliteration of the background" idea. How does that idea square ... |
I think that kind of change in the rules should be applied to expert editing only where anything goes (or nearly anything).
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:09:44 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by L2:
The only way to make it objective (that I see, and I'm totally open to more opinion) is to do as someone suggested and assign some sort of image area % - and the next question becomes is that a % of the cropped image or the original capture? And, is that really what we need here? I'd like to see more discussion on that, if you guys are willing.
Next, let's move on to the "just plain allow complete obliteration of the background" idea. How does that idea square with the preamble of the Advanced Editing ruleset: "Advanced Editing allows more freedom to correct flaws and make the most of your captured image. Selections, layers and selective editing tools are allowed for touch-up and enhancement only. You may not create new features or obscure significant parts of your original capture." |
Well, the issue here is, WHY can't we "obscure significant parts of our original capture"? Just for the sake of argument....
I'm shooting my mother, I get a shot that absolutely captures her in every possible way, and there's some damned background that just ruins the shot. That's not how I want to remember her, but there it is. So I obliterate it, focus on what matters. Build your own scenario here. Why is it a GIVEN that whatever's in, has to stay in? I'd say this is open for discussion...
After all, SC themselves decided just this week that it was absolutely OK to take the parking lot out of a Mustang shot and leave the impression it was shot in a studio...
R.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 19:10:33.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:10:06 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by L2:
The only way to make it objective (that I see, and I'm totally open to more opinion) is to do as someone suggested and assign some sort of image area % - and the next question becomes is that a % of the cropped image or the original capture? |
The importance of an object isn't determined by image area. A glowing red nose on a reindeer might be a tiny part of the image compared to a foreground tree branch intruding on the edge of the photo. Such a rule would potentially force you to keep the branch, but allow cloning out the nose. :-/ |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:11:45 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by L2:
Next, let's move on to the "just plain allow complete obliteration of the background" idea. How does that idea square with the preamble of the Advanced Editing ruleset: "Advanced Editing allows more freedom to correct flaws and make the most of your captured image. Selections, layers and selective editing tools are allowed for touch-up and enhancement only. You may not create new features or obscure significant parts of your original capture." |
Well that's a very reasonable question, and perhaps is another approach to the question. The edits made to the non DQ'd car (I feel bad harping on this photo, as it's a nice one and none of this is meant to imply any wrongdoing on crabappl3's part) certainly went well beyond "correcting flaws" or "touch-up" I would think. Certainly reading this helps justify the rule, perhaps it could help guide it's enforcement? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:15:01 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Why is it a GIVEN that whatever's in, has to stay in? I'd say this is open for discussion... |
I take a shot of someone standing on the roof of a car. Should I be allowed to clone out the car and enter it in a "Levitation" challenge?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
After all, SC themselves decided just this week that it was absolutely OK to take the parking lot out of a Mustang shot and leave the impression it was shot in a studio... |
The SC decided it was OK to make an almost blank background completely blank, just as we've allowed many times before. |
|
