Is it legal to extend the canvas in Advanced?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

03/27/2009 11:42:13 AM · #26

Originally posted by AP:

I should have just left the top un-cropped.

Per Bear's workaround suggestion, a muted hairline rule probably would have avoided the DQ without affecting the entry much. With a 1 point gray line, the edge of the frame would have been distinct all around. There have undoubtedly been some instances where an entry passed even without a rule because we didn't notice the extended canvas, but for safety's sake I'd make sure the image area is within the original capture and any border is well defined.

Nikon D800

03/27/2009 11:51:44 AM · #27

But what about leaving the top of the canvas (in my image) as is but adding a distinct border to the bottom? That's what I was asking. Would it be illegal to imply an (illegal) border at the top?

My point was that in this particular case I could have achieved the same exact result without the top half of the border.

Message edited by author 2009-03-27 11:52:30.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

03/27/2009 12:01:59 PM · #28

Originally posted by AP:

But what about leaving the top of the canvas (in my image) as is but adding a distinct border to the bottom? That's what I was asking. Would it be illegal to imply an (illegal) border at the top?

Your entry was disqualified for exactly that. A canvas extension that matches the background is not considered a distinct border. It's literally indistinguishable from cloning in more background, and therefore a DQ for added image area.

Nikon D800

03/27/2009 12:14:51 PM · #29

no no, i mean if I did NOT add anything to the top, but just to the bottom. Only a canvas extension to the bottom. The top would remain border-less, but would look like a border because the photograph had the space and was completely black at the top.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/27/2009 12:19:02 PM · #30

Ah yes, in that case it would be fine because there would be no canvas extension. Not quite the same composition, though.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

03/27/2009 12:21:15 PM · #31

Shannon, thanks to you for weighing in on this.

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

03/27/2009 12:23:16 PM · #32

Yeah true, on my image it would have been a bit thinner at the top

citymars

Nikon D700

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

03/27/2009 12:35:59 PM · #33

I want to ask about another recent example, but I'm afraid I'll get an image DQ'd, so I'll keep my big linker shut. :-/

C_Steve_G

Apple iPhone 12

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 35-135mm f/3.5-4.5

03/27/2009 12:40:26 PM · #34

Does this discussion clarify the legality of extending the canvas for the sole purpose of adding the border?
I've been somewhat unclear on this.
I'm very clear on adding borders disguised as backgrounds, as SC has enforced the rule on my work.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/27/2009 12:40:52 PM · #35

how about a sort of opposite situation.

i have a shot where the top of the photo fades into pure white - but the bottom is clearly defined by elements in the photo. however - i want to balance the composition by increasing the canvas size and adding a white background to the bottom only.

i'm assuming that is legal - but you know what they say about assuming.

03/27/2009 12:56:42 PM · #36

Originally posted by C_Steve_G:

Does this discussion clarify the legality of extending the canvas for the sole purpose of adding the border?
I've been somewhat unclear on this.

It's either a border or it's image area. If there's a distinct frame with an obvious edge, then it's a border... and what happens in the border is only subject to those rules (no clip art, text, other photos, etc.). If it's image area, then it must fall within the captured image or it will be disqualified. Even if you crop or rotate and leave just a little bit to clone in, that's going to be a DQ.