Legal? Not legal? Advanced or Basic...

12/31/2008 03:05:40 PM · #1

I had planned on entering this in the recently completed 'Shadows V' challenge, but chickened out in the end with concerns this "border" may not be legal. What do you think? Legal/Not Legal?

bvy

Sigma DP1x

12/31/2008 03:09:51 PM · #2

That's a SC question, but personally I think it goes beyond the definition of border. I wonder if SC has an unpublished rule or guidelines that suggests that no more than X% of an image's area can be used as border space.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/31/2008 03:17:42 PM · #3

Originally posted by bvy:

You sound pretty close to the reply I rec'd on a ticket I submitted inquiring about the legality of this "border" treatment. I thought about asking too late to get an answer in time for rollover so I replaced the photo (in the OP) with a safer one.

The response I rec'd read like this: "Other shots with similar borders have slipped through, but a two of the SC members that weighed in wonder if (in this case) the rotation works to materially change the composition of the shot. You'd probably pass validation based on the other shots, but there is no guarantee."

freakin_hilarious

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

12/31/2008 03:17:42 PM · #4

I think it would be legal in both.

An Advanced example:

A Basic example:

Those examples both use previous versions of the rules, but I think it's still legal.

Sigma 18-300mm f3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM

12/31/2008 03:19:57 PM · #5

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

I think it would be legal in both.

Those examples both use previous versions of the rules, but I think it's still legal.

Those didn't place high enough to require validation (unless it had been requested), but you mention the rulesets were different so probably not applicable.

jhomrighaus

Nikon D5300

12/31/2008 03:26:06 PM · #6

It almost appears you have 2 different borders, The rotated black area and then the thin line border.

freakin_hilarious

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

12/31/2008 03:27:32 PM · #7

Good points. The current rules state that you may "add a border to the outside edge of your entry. Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border." The exact same wording is used for both basic and advanced.

GeneralE's photo ran under a version of the rules that used the exact same wording as well, so I think it's a reasonable precedent. I would say it also "materially changes the composition of the shot". Of course, we still don't know if it was validated or not. I would think the fact that it's an SC member's photo would lend some weight to it's legality, however.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/31/2008 03:40:03 PM · #8

It's distinct and serves to frame the image. Nobody's going to confuse the black shapes with image area, and there's nothing in the Basic rules about changing composition, so I don't see a problem with it personally (aside from aesthetics).

Message edited by author 2008-12-31 15:40:15.

12/31/2008 03:47:23 PM · #9

Originally posted by jhomrighaus:

It almost appears you have 2 different borders, The rotated black area and then the thin line border.

Yeah, I kinda thought about that too...although many borders use multiple lines in varying thicknesses.

12/31/2008 03:50:19 PM · #10

Originally posted by scalvert:

I'm so mad at myself for not having the backbone to submit it this way! :-/ I'm sure it would have generated a lot of comments if nothing else, but I actually like what it does to the feel of the composition by making the shadows of the blinds horizontal.

Oh well...coulda, shoulda, woulda. Will never know for sure since I wimped out.

12/31/2008 04:27:12 PM · #11

Two points:

1. If I recall correctly my "SLIPped" entry WAS validated. It was quite a while ago, but I seem to recall validation was requested.

2. I can understand how some SC might feel that the unentered "Shadows" shot has moved into a different territory altogether, because in this case the "border has become a strong compositional element, indeed and overpowering one. While it's superficially very similar to GeneralE's shot, there's something about the abstract nature of it that makes the powerful "border" come across as more of an added compositional element, IMO at least.

If I were SC, I'd have a tough time making the call on this. Based on the GeneralE precedent, I'd probably have to say this is a "legal" border. But I think my real feeling is that both these examples went over the line into introducing new, unphotographed image area into the composition. I don't think the same can be said about my own shot, mostly because the "slippage" is relatively very slight.

My own personal POV is that there's nothing wrong with creating off-the-wall borders as long as they are clearly "framing" an image and not fooling people into thinking they are part of the captured image for the purpose of repairing/obscuring sloppy composition. I think the creation of interesting, compelling borders/framing is one of the skill sets that photographers ought to practice. In the real world, of course, this sort of "presentation skill" is practiced in 3 dimensions, with matting and framing, but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed, in its digital equivalency, in the challenges. I'd even go so far as to say I wouldn't have a problem, personally, with allowing elaborate "frame" treatments that, for example, look like baroque, scuplted gilt framing such as isused on Old Masters in museums. I doubt these would score very well, for the most part, but if that's how you want to use some of your limited DPC real estate I wouldn't have a problem with it, assuming the rules allowed it.

This, of course, is just my own personal feeling. I understand the rules DON'T allow this kind of stuff, and I have no problem with that either. It's not a big deal to me.

R.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/31/2008 04:33:52 PM · #12

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Another thought:

One reason the skewed "border" works so well here is because it integrates with the now-horizontal shadows of the blinds. To a certain extent, from a legality standpoint this is a strike *against* this border treatment, as it clearly becomes an added compositional element and starts behaving like added image area, BUT...

If we follow this through to its logical conclusion, we are not allowed to submit ANY image that has been rotated in its entirety in any amount other than in 90-degree increments. Think about it: if your vision for the image was to shoot-and-rotate so the image boundaries were not true verticals/horizontals on the page, then you'd be flat out of luck as far as DPC challenges go, because there's NO way to present this image on the page *without* what amounts to a border exactly like the one you used, conceptually. I mean, it might be white instead of black, but it still would be defined as a "border" and if this image of yours WERE deemed illegal then ALL skewed images would have to be illegal, it seems to me...

R.

ETA: I see Shannon is basically agreeing with my POV (or I with his, for that matter) re: the legality of it...

Message edited by author 2008-12-31 16:35:33.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

12/31/2008 04:36:36 PM · #13

Like Bear said, I feel the border is a significant part of the composition; it almost looks like it was shot through something, making the border "not a border" (to me).

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/31/2008 04:42:48 PM · #14

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Like Bear said, I feel the border is a significant part of the composition ...

In a somewhat ironic twist, I think it would be 100% legal in Basic, but a potential DQ under Advanced Rules.

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/31/2008 04:42:52 PM · #15

Neither of these images went through the validation process; I just checked. :)

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

12/31/2008 04:46:59 PM · #16

Originally posted by L2:

Neither of these images went through the validation process; I just checked. :)

Thanks. I guess I recalled wrong :-)

R.

aliqui

Nikon D300s

12/31/2008 05:09:00 PM · #17

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If we follow this through to its logical conclusion, we are not allowed to submit ANY image that has been rotated in its entirety in any amount other than in 90-degree increments. Think about it: if your vision for the image was to shoot-and-rotate so the image boundaries were not true verticals/horizontals on the page, then you'd be flat out of luck as far as DPC challenges go, because there's NO way to present this image on the page *without* what amounts to a border exactly like the one you used, conceptually. I mean, it might be white instead of black, but it still would be defined as a "border" and if this image of yours WERE deemed illegal then ALL skewed images would have to be illegal, it seems to me...

R.

What are you talking about in regards to the 90 degree increments? That rule is only in the Minimal Editing rule set.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

12/31/2008 07:06:57 PM · #18

I do hear, from the SC, a "yes, no, maybe', on this subject.

Here are a couple more examples of borders that might or might not pass muster.

....

In both cases the border sets off the composition, right? And I think the reason for
a border IS to set off the composition.

Far more chicken than the OP, I would never dream of putting these (or this idea)
in competition. But I sure would like to!

Message edited by author 2008-12-31 19:19:38.

12/31/2008 07:43:21 PM · #19

Originally posted by nshapiro:

Like Bear said, I feel the border is a significant part of the composition; it almost looks like it was shot through something, making the border "not a border" (to me).

That was kind of my gut feeling on this also, and the main reason I hesitated in the first place. IMO, the image did change substantially when presented this way. I think it was how the new "border" enhanced the lines/angles in the photo.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

12/31/2008 07:44:34 PM · #20

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
Like Bear said, I feel the border is a significant part of the composition ...

In a somewhat ironic twist, I think it would be 100% legal in Basic, but a potential DQ under Advanced Rules.

Huh? :-)

Grrr...family movie night shaping up here. I'll have to check back later. Happy New Years everyone!

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

12/31/2008 07:53:54 PM · #21

This one didn't go through validation either, but I did enquire about the border before submitting it.

Legality aside, has anyone ever scored well using this kind for border?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/31/2008 08:05:45 PM · #22

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by nshapiro:
Like Bear said, I feel the border is a significant part of the composition ...

In a somewhat ironic twist, I think it would be 100% legal in Basic, but a potential DQ under Advanced Rules.

Huh? :-)

Basic Rules are "tool-based" -- as such, once rotation is allowed (as it is), it's allowed period, as long as it doesn't break another rule.

Advanced Rules are "results-based" -- meaning that the use of any tool (legal or not) can still create a DQ-able result, based on a subjective interpretation (as to composition, added features, etc.