DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Is it legal to extend the canvas in Advanced?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 38, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/25/2009 11:16:53 PM · #1
I have a shot that's against a pure white background, and would be made a bit better by extending the canvas a little to make more negative white space. Is it legal to do that in advanced? or would that fall under the "new image area" clause?

Thanks!
 03/25/2009 11:22:08 PM · #2
Not legal. People have been disqualified for exactly that. Here's what you CAN do: make a 1-pixel black border, then add a wide white border beyond that: the black line "starts" the border, and the wide white becomes border, not image area, but the image may benefit even with the black inline defining its limits.

R.
 03/25/2009 11:22:33 PM · #3
Haha, nice loophole. I'll look into it :D
 03/25/2009 11:32:21 PM · #4
You still should be careful -- if the determination is made that the purpose of extending the canvas is to add negative space, I'm not sure a 1-pixel line will be substantial enough to save you ...
 03/25/2009 11:33:29 PM · #5
Interesting...It's probably not worth the loss of image size, anyway...
 03/25/2009 11:39:26 PM · #6
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You still should be careful -- if the determination is made that the purpose of extending the canvas is to add negative space, I'm not sure a 1-pixel line will be substantial enough to save you ...


Oh, I'd *love" to see the posts debating *that* DQ, you party-pooper, you :-) The very idea that SC might DQ an image because they are interpreting the shooter's *intentions* is enough to make me cackle in anticipation, LOL.

R.


03/26/2009 12:04:32 AM · #7
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You still should be careful -- if the determination is made that the purpose of extending the canvas is to add negative space, I'm not sure a 1-pixel line will be substantial enough to save you ...


Oh, I'd *love" to see the posts debating *that* DQ, you party-pooper, you :-) The very idea that SC might DQ an image because they are interpreting the shooter's *intentions* is enough to make me cackle in anticipation, LOL.

R.


They already do. Why would that decision be any different. There are a lot of DQ's that are made based on their interpretation of the photographers intention.

Matt
 03/26/2009 12:11:01 AM · #8
Originally posted by MattO:
There are a lot of DQ's that are made based on their interpretation of the photographers intention.

Matt


Examples?

R.
 03/26/2009 12:32:58 AM · #9
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MattO:
There are a lot of DQ's that are made based on their interpretation of the photographers intention.

Matt


Examples?

R.


Just go find one of any number of DQ's that were given this reasoning

Use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s 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.

They already interpret your intentions AND the viewers description anytime this rule is applied to a photo.

Matt
 03/26/2009 12:54:27 AM · #10
Yeah i got a DQ on this one even though if I hadn't cropped the image but rather left the space on top and then JUST added a border to the bottom (instead of both top & bottom) that would have been legal.

So I guess the general rule is you can't add a border unless something appears 'cut-off' by it.
 03/26/2009 01:02:34 AM · #11
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MattO:
There are a lot of DQ's that are made based on their interpretation of the photographers intention.

Matt


Examples?

R.

03/26/2009 02:51:09 AM · #12
GeneralE:

Here's one from "illuminative subject" that clearly uses a border to add negative space to a crowded composition. Unless they added a really heavy inline instead to an uncropped photo, which I doubt. I also doubt that this has even been submitted for validation (maybe it has, I donno) but that's the kind of thing we're talking about.

If you're gonna tell me this one's ok because the red inline is REALLY heavy, whilst my hypothetical wouldn't be because the inline is just 1 pixel, well I have problems with that. And if you're gonna tell me you can somehow determine that in THIS case you don't *think* the photographer was *really* trying to add negative space with his heavy borders left and right, then I'd have a problem with that too, based on what you said about the hypothetical black keyline/white border scenario...



As far as *I'm* concerned, as long as it's clearly a border then so WHAT if it's used to add space to an image? We've had LOTS of borders used for that very reason for years, and it's a perfectly valid way of presenting an image IMO.
 03/26/2009 06:30:12 AM · #13
Originally posted by AP:
Yeah i got a DQ on this one even though if I hadn't cropped the image but rather left the space on top and then JUST added a border to the bottom (instead of both top & bottom) that would have been legal.

So I guess the general rule is you can't add a border unless something appears 'cut-off' by it.

Whoa....

I'm usually okay with SC's decisions, and though I can see how they arrived at this DQ, I certainly think it's a little tight.
 03/26/2009 03:17:22 PM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
GeneralE:

Here's one from "illuminative subject" that clearly uses a border to add negative space to a crowded composition. Unless they added a really heavy inline instead to an uncropped photo, which I doubt. I also doubt that this has even been submitted for validation (maybe it has, I donno) but that's the kind of thing we're talking about.

If you're gonna tell me this one's ok because the red inline is REALLY heavy, whilst my hypothetical wouldn't be because the inline is just 1 pixel, well I have problems with that. And if you're gonna tell me you can somehow determine that in THIS case you don't *think* the photographer was *really* trying to add negative space with his heavy borders left and right, then I'd have a problem with that too, based on what you said about the hypothetical black keyline/white border scenario...



As far as *I'm* concerned, as long as it's clearly a border then so WHAT if it's used to add space to an image? We've had LOTS of borders used for that very reason for years, and it's a perfectly valid way of presenting an image IMO.

I'm not stating my opinion either way about whether something like that either is or should be legal -- I'm just saying that decesions under Advanced editing are "results-based" and thus based on the subjective opinion of the majority of SC members who vote on that validation (there are some guidelines about minimum votes and margins), and that I would not expect a unanimous vote either way.

If I wanted to do something like this, I would submit a before/after composite via a Ticket as far in advance of the submission deadline as possible to get an "informal opinion" from more than one SC member to get a better idea of the likelihood of it being validated or not. Unfortunately, I thought my photo was *so* within the rules that I gave no thought to it even being questioned -- obviously my subjective view was not held by the majority ... :-(
 03/26/2009 03:22:05 PM · #15
I had a photo that I cropped too close, and wanted to extend, but I thought it broke the rule of adding something to a picture that didn't originally exist, and, it was also not a border that was clearly recognizable as a border--it was the same color as my background. So I figured it broke 2 rules.
 03/26/2009 08:57:39 PM · #16
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You still should be careful -- if the determination is made that the purpose of extending the canvas is to add negative space, I'm not sure a 1-pixel line will be substantial enough to save you ...


I'd like to see the war that would bring about. I could see your point if they used a one pixel border
of 254 right beside perfect 255 white and then added more space. But black 000? Naw.
 03/26/2009 10:26:46 PM · #17
Originally posted by FireBird:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You still should be careful -- if the determination is made that the purpose of extending the canvas is to add negative space, I'm not sure a 1-pixel line will be substantial enough to save you ...


I'd like to see the war that would bring about. I could see your point if they used a one pixel border
of 254 right beside perfect 255 white and then added more space. But black 000? Naw.


I have to agree with FireBird on that... if it's clearly a border, it's not "image." There has been precedent for DQing a shot if the border blends in and thus it's not apparent it is there, but a clearly demarcated border? That would cause an uproar. And I'd be standing in the front row with a flaming torch.
 03/26/2009 11:01:20 PM · #18
Originally posted by kirbic:
I have to agree with FireBird on that... if it's clearly a border, it's not "image." There has been precedent for DQing a shot if the border blends in and thus it's not apparent it is there, but a clearly demarcated border? That would cause an uproar. And I'd be standing in the front row with a flaming torch.


Thanx for the support, LOL... The day we DQ a clearly demarcated border because the *outside* portion of it is *proof* that the photographer *intended* to *extend the image area* is the day I run into the sunset screaming.

R.

Message edited by author 2009-03-26 23:01:56.
 03/26/2009 11:26:24 PM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I have to agree with FireBird on that... if it's clearly a border, it's not "image." There has been precedent for DQing a shot if the border blends in and thus it's not apparent it is there, but a clearly demarcated border? That would cause an uproar. And I'd be standing in the front row with a flaming torch.


Thanx for the support, LOL... The day we DQ a clearly demarcated border because the *outside* portion of it is *proof* that the photographer *intended* to *extend the image area* is the day I run into the sunset screaming.

R.

Yeah, especially when the photographer starts a thread asking whether it's possible to get around a rule by making a minor technical adjustment to the photo ... thanks for the support for enforcing the "spirit of the rules." :-(
Originally posted by zackdezon:
I have a shot that's against a pure white background, and would be made a bit better by extending the canvas a little to make more negative white space. Is it legal to do that in advanced?

Once again, I'm not arguing for or against this technique, just stating that it's my opinion that any such shot submitted for validation would not receive a unanimous decision. No one from the SC has expressed any opinion on the legality of any particular shot, and it's the individual shot which will be judged in the long run.
 03/27/2009 09:24:19 AM · #20
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
is the day I run into the sunset screaming.

R.


I think that image would do well in a FS.
I'd title it "The Scream".
03/27/2009 09:50:36 AM · #21
What's the difference between extending the negative space using side borders and extending the negative space using a top and/or bottom ("letterbox") border? I've seen that done recently.
 03/27/2009 10:04:12 AM · #22
Not my intention of interupting this discussion, but I need to know... I usually extend the canvas to make a kind of frame, untill now I was sure most of you did that as well. Here's the question:



I extended the canvas quite a bit here. That's legal unless one or more edges of the photo is black, right? Or white on white for that matter. I'm pretty sure it is legal, but I need to know for sure.
 03/27/2009 10:30:43 AM · #23
Originally posted by BJamy:

I extended the canvas quite a bit here. That's legal unless one or more edges of the photo is black, right? Or white on white for that matter. I'm pretty sure it is legal, but I need to know for sure.


Until Paul's response in this thread, I was sure as well. A border that is clearly differentiated from the image proper has always been considered separately, because, well, it's a border. If it blends with the image in such a way to appear to be an extension of the image, then that's something entirely different. It's not a border anymore. I sure hope that does not change; they may as well just do away with borders, no one would ever be able to tell whether a border was legal or not.
 03/27/2009 10:38:57 AM · #24
Originally posted by kirbic:
A border that is clearly differentiated from the image proper has always been considered separately, because, well, it's a border. If it blends with the image in such a way to appear to be an extension of the image, then that's something entirely different.

That's my take on it, too. If it's an obvious border, with a distinct edge separating the frame from the image area, then it's OK. However, extending the image area with a solid color is NOT a border. It just more background used to change the composition of the original capture- a DQ. That's why AP's entry was disqualified. The rules state that, "Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border." If it's not, it'll get a DQ vote from me every time.
 03/27/2009 11:32:46 AM · #25
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kirbic:
A border that is clearly differentiated from the image proper has always been considered separately, because, well, it's a border. If it blends with the image in such a way to appear to be an extension of the image, then that's something entirely different.

That's my take on it, too. If it's an obvious border, with a distinct edge separating the frame from the image area, then it's OK. However, extending the image area with a solid color is NOT a border. It just more background used to change the composition of the original capture- a DQ. That's why AP's entry was disqualified. The rules state that, "Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border." If it's not, it'll get a DQ vote from me every time.


Yeah, I was bitter at the time because other photographers seemed to be getting away with it and because I didn't NEED to create the negative space b/c it was already there in the image, but I can see the need for a hard and fast rule and I should have just left the top un-cropped.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 12:17:48 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 12:17:48 PM EDT.