DQ for a border? - DPChallenge Forums

08/12/2009 07:45:54 AM · #76

let me state just again for those who haven't seen the whole thread, I'm NOT contesting the DQ.

The issue here is at what point does a legal border become illegal.

Statements like "This isn't super hard to determine. If the border is ambiguous it's a probable DQ" are about as vague as they get lol
I'm not having a go Derek but it seems to illustrate the problem.

I fully accept that the border was a bit on the big side and did indeed fool people, all be that not my intention.
However I really need to know, in a quantitative statement just how far I can go with a border.

How would we feel if the law regarding speeding simply said if you are going too fast then you will get a ticket, where too is not quantitatively defined.

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

08/12/2009 07:52:41 AM · #77

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

But the fact of the matter is that even in your speeding example there is lee way and it depends upon how the officer wants to enforce things.
If you're looking for a pixel value, that's absurd.
It's not a matter of size. Think of it like the concept of "reasonable doubt." Can you quantitate reasonable? No, but you don't need to.

yakatme

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/12/2009 07:54:23 AM · #78

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

This is subjective though and surely rules by which people are potentially to be DQd need to be objective

Then write an objective rule that concisely and definitively covers the intent of the rule in all possible cases.

While you're at it, do the same for all of the other past questionable DQ's that have resulted from the obviously vague rules.

Then, anticipate all of the possibilities that might result in scrutiny and criticism of SC's subjective interpretation of the vague rules and rewrite them to avoid future discontent with their decisions. Oh, and make it concise and reasonably easy to interpret and apply for those of us who are not lawyers.

Seriously though...the rules were written to the best of the SC's abilities to be as fair and comprehensive as possible while being concise and to the point. As in our public laws, there will always be some subjective interpretation necessary in cases in which the measure of the violation can't be compared exactly to the stated rule or law as can be done, say, with a speed limit infraction.

Our justice systems can't even cover every eventuality. Why would we expect perfection from the rule makers on this site?

edit to add: The speeding example was a complete coicidence since I commented after reading only halfway through the thread. It is a good example of what is measureable and contrasts with what is not so easy to measure and define.

Message edited by author 2009-08-12 07:58:23.

ineedauniquename

Nikon D90

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

08/12/2009 08:10:50 AM · #79

This wouldn't be an issue if the rule was simply no borders at all... period.

yakatme

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/12/2009 08:13:15 AM · #80

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:

This wouldn't be an issue if the rule was simply no borders at all... period.

Speeding wouldn't be an issue if we eliminated cars, but we shouldn't have to go the extremes that deny people these options because defining the rules is not always objective.

08/12/2009 08:17:24 AM · #81

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Think of it like the concept of "reasonable doubt." Can you quantitate reasonable? No, but you don't need to.

In a court of law "Reasonable Doubt" constitues not guilty

08/12/2009 08:20:25 AM · #82

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:

This wouldn't be an issue if the rule was simply no borders at all... period.

This is very true.

Or we could simply say a border may be black or white and no more then 20 pixels in width.
In that way even if it were to add to the image area it would not be significant

08/12/2009 08:22:19 AM · #83

Originally posted by yakatme:

Originally posted by ineedauniquename:
This wouldn't be an issue if the rule was simply no borders at all... period.

Speeding wouldn't be an issue if we eliminated cars, but we shouldn't have to go the extremes that deny people these options because defining the rules is not always objective.

The speeding point was based around the idea of how would you feel if the police didn't need to measure your speed in order to prosecute you they just needed to say well in this case I reckon you were going a bit too fast so here is your ticket

Message edited by author 2009-08-12 08:23:47.

08/12/2009 08:27:44 AM · #84

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Think of it like the concept of "reasonable doubt." Can you quantitate reasonable? No, but you don't need to.

In a court of law "Reasonable Doubt" constitues not guilty

It doesn't matter if it's for proving innocence or guilt, it was simply proof of concept for a functional subjective approach. As

yakatme pointed out, it isn't feasible to quantitate the rule in the first place.

08/12/2009 08:31:25 AM · #85

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Think of it like the concept of "reasonable doubt." Can you quantitate reasonable? No, but you don't need to.

In a court of law "Reasonable Doubt" constitues not guilty

It doesn't matter if it's for proving innocence or guilt, it was simply proof of concept for a functional subjective approach. As yakatme pointed out, it isn't feasible to quantitate the rule in the first place.

It is very possible.... black or white and no more than 20pixels in width, job done.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

08/12/2009 08:31:32 AM · #86

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by eyewave:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by eyewave:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by eyewave:
why don't you just post the UNCROPPED original?

Here we are

So what you did had the same effect as removing everything around the blue border - removing major elements.

No I simply took a picture and cropped the bit I wanted. Is this illegal?

Please note that I wrote "the same effect as"

I'm not sure what you're getting at though, yes I cropped around the part of the pic and yes I disguarded the part I didn't want

Too bad you didn't use a white bg to start with instead of the blue, then you'd had no problem at all. As it is now, it seems that you replaced one bg for another.

Clever idea BTW. :-)

08/12/2009 08:37:20 AM · #87

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by eyewave:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by eyewave:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by eyewave:
why don't you just post the UNCROPPED original?

Here we are

So what you did had the same effect as removing everything around the blue border - removing major elements.

No I simply took a picture and cropped the bit I wanted. Is this illegal?

Please note that I wrote "the same effect as"

I'm not sure what you're getting at though, yes I cropped around the part of the pic and yes I disguarded the part I didn't want

Too bad you didn't use a white bg to start with instead of the blue, then you'd had no problem at all. As it is now, it seems that you replaced one bg for another.

Clever idea BTW. :-)

Agreed and the truth of the matter is I only ever intended to use a thin border which is why I didn't bother with the white card bg, but after playing around it looked better they way it came out.

I'm not complaining about the DQ I just think the border rule makes for an interesting debate

FireBird

08/12/2009 08:46:20 AM · #88

Originally posted by Judi:

Damn...it's like pulling teeth....I'm out of here!

Oh really? I'd expect you'd enjoy torturing Art by pulling
each of his teeth, very slowly. :)

08/12/2009 09:04:10 AM · #89

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

It is very possible.... black or white and no more than 20pixels in width, job done.

Why don't we ban all photos that do not contain flowers, children, or water drops since they encourage the photographer to consider the subject matter instead of automatically selecting the same thing over again for simplicity's sake. :\

08/12/2009 09:10:03 AM · #90

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

It is very possible.... black or white and no more than 20pixels in width, job done.

Why don't we ban all photos that do not contain flowers, children, or water drops since they encourage the photographer to consider the subject matter instead of automatically selecting the same thing over again for simplicity's sake. :\

We are all quite happy with the image size restrictions though so why not restrict the border in the same way?

08/12/2009 09:21:05 AM · #91

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

We are all quite happy with the image size restrictions though so why not restrict the border in the same way?

I would hardly characterize the DPC community as happy regarding size restrictions, but that's besides the point.
Personally, I don't think this rule needs clearing up in the first place, but we obviously disagree on this, so that's why we're having this disconnect.
I think we should all use

charliebaker's borders as a template, myself ;)

I'm just hesitant to put numbers and specific guidelines on something that is supposed to specifically enhance the portrayal or interpretation of an image, and should enable a creative approach.

Message edited by author 2009-08-12 09:21:39.

FireBird

08/12/2009 09:24:43 AM · #92

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

We are all quite happy with the image size restrictions though so why not restrict the border in the same way?

I made a quick look through the top winning images on the site in search of one with a very wide black, or white, border. I only found a couple in the top 100 or so and they were all black bars on the top and bottom of the image. None were DQ'ed as the border was obvious. Probably 2/3's had no border or frame at all. I could live with your proposed rule, but like the spatula guy I feel it would unduly stifle possible future creativity.
Who knows? The next blue may be an image with a 75 pixel border all around.

08/12/2009 09:28:32 AM · #93

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:
We are all quite happy with the image size restrictions though so why not restrict the border in the same way?

I would hardly characterize the DPC community as happy regarding size restrictions, but that's besides the point.
Personally, I don't think this rule needs clearing up in the first place, but we obviously disagree on this, so that's why we're having this disconnect.
I think we should all use charliebaker's borders as a template, myself ;)

I'm just hesitant to put numbers and specific guidelines on something that is supposed to specifically enhance the portrayal or interpretation of an image, and should enable a creative approach.

Derek in truth I don't want to change the rule, I'm just happy to have the discussion.
I accept that I pushed it a bit too far and am not challenging the DQ.
I like the freedom to put a creative border on my images as do many others on here.

Hey how about a borders challenge lol

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

08/12/2009 09:33:07 AM · #94

Ha, I guess I was sorta missing your intention for discussing the issue. I knew you weren't trying to reverse your DQ but I thought you were advocating an increase in clarity to lower the potential for a DQ in the future. My mistake there.
A borders challenge would be interesting. I have a feeling the border haters would either have a field day or ignore it, but it'd be interesting either way.

AJSullivan

08/12/2009 09:36:58 AM · #95

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Or 50 entries of signs marking the Mason Dixon line for those ultra creative out of the box thinkers.

kandykarml

Nikon D80

08/12/2009 09:52:09 AM · #96

maybe they could set a pixel or inch limit on borders.. And it would have to be evenly applied to all sides to avoid any issues... Altough, that would suck cause I like the look of different size borders on the top vs. sides.. Just for fun, I got the definition of border..

bor⋅der /ˈbɔrdər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bawr-der] Show IPA
Use border in a Sentence
â��noun 1. the part or edge of a surface or area that forms its outer boundary.
2. the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another; frontier line: You cannot cross the border without a visa.
3. the district or region that lies along the boundary line of another.
4. the frontier of civilization.
5. the border, a. the border between the U.S. and Mexico, esp. along the Rio Grande.
b. (in the British Isles) the region along the boundary between England and Scotland.

6. brink; verge.
7. an ornamental strip or design around the edge of a printed page, a drawing, etc.
8. an ornamental design or piece of ornamental trimming around the edge of a fabric, rug, garment, article of furniture, etc.
9. Horticulture. a. a long, narrow bed planted with flowers, shrubs, or trees.
b. a strip of ground in which plants are grown, enclosing an area in a garden or running along the edge of a walk or driveway.
c. the plants growing in such a strip: a border of tulips along the path.

10. Theater. a. a narrow curtain or strip of painted canvas hung above the stage, masking the flies and lighting units, and forming the top of the stage set.
b. border light.

I think what we're supposed to follow is the #7 definition...This image did not have a "strip" or "design" around the edge of the photo.. To me, it looks like full on added blank space filled in white..