| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2009 01:40:18 PM · #76 |
Really? Take the Domino's pizza logo off of the sign, and tell me it is not a major element? It is the same thing.
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by kenskid:
"if Irene had cloned out the reflection...then this issue would never have been raised"...NO that does NOT tell me that what she cloned out IS NOT a major element !
The protractor is a major part of this picture...in fact it IS the main subject. A big BLOB of a logo was cloned completly off the main subject. There is NO WAY this is legal. Nothing against Irene personally but it really should be a DQ.
Originally posted by Judi:
If Irene had cloned out the reflection, this issue would never have been raised. Doesn't that tell you that what she cloned IS NOT a major element...sheez!
Yanko...I am with you! |
|
I totally disagree. She DID NOT remove a major element. |
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:41:28 PM · #77 |
It probably will, since I am bringing to light an infraction by a site fav.
Originally posted by pedrobop:
I have a feeling that this thread will be closed soon. |
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:41:34 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
If you can't understand the rules, then you need to not submit to a challenge, or ask someone. That is no excuse. That would compare to saying I thought it was ok to rob a bank, because the law is hard to understand. Please, let's get real. We are adults, not children.
Originally posted by ttreit:
I found the rules to be a bit hard to understand myself.
In my image for the Heida challenge I cloned out a small sign in the corner that I considered to be equivalent to removing power lines. But I struggled as I read and re-read the rules trying to make sure I was adhering to the letter and spirit of the law. If the sign had been a lot more prominent I think it would have been a violation.
If I were editing the picture in question I would think a logo on the ruler should not be cloned out because the ruler is a major element and the thing you are cloning out is part of that element. Sometimes you can't get an angle that allows you to shoot the picture without powerlines (or the sign I mentioned above) and I figured that's the sort of thing that is acceptable to clone out. Or like smudges or dings on the subject.
I don't know - the logo that allegedly was cloned out here was part of ruler and that seems to be taking the rule too far in my opinion.
Personally I don't really care if the picture is DQ'd but it'd be nice to get a better understanding of the intent of the rule. |
|
I would be less inclined to think you were just stirring things up if you didn't insult those that were also on your side. :/ |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:43:25 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I actually took that statement by scalvert very differently. I took from his comment that she is a person who has been around long enough that she probably has a good grasp of the rules and a couple of doubters shouldn't shake her confidence in her knowledge. |
Exactly. Irene's had over 70 entries go through mandatory validation with top 5 finishes (probably more than anyone else on the site), so she certainly has a pretty good idea of what's legal by now. Any suggestion that we play favorites (on EITHER side of a DQ) is simply idiotic since anyone who bothered to look would see that IreneM, myself and most other SC, and all but 3 members on the site favorites list have been DQ'd at least once. Mistakes happen, but we do NOT play favorites. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:45:31 PM · #80 |
The difference between this photo and IreneM's is on Irene you can see something was cloned out in the finished product. On the other, you don't see anything cloned out unless you can see the original side by side. It doesn't make it right, but harder to spot.
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by vawendy:
When I first started in January, I saw a picture that I absolutely loved. Unfortunately, I didn't fav it :(
I believe it was a man working on a piece of machinery, like a lathe or something... Anyway, it got dq'd and I didn't understand why. It was beautifully done with a very dark background. Does anyone remember the photo? I'm wondering if that was a similar situation. |
 |
that's it! What was cloned out? |
From what I recall, the entire background was cloned out/ blacked out. |
ah, that makes more sense. I had asked someone back then, and they thought it was a part of the machine, but it seemed like there wasn't anything important missing. Losing an entire background is not good. |
An entire background is a major element. A brand name is not when it is only a small part of the image. |
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:46:23 PM · #81 |
If you take a picture of a person, and decide to clone out thier tattoos, is that acceptable in advanced? Or even more extreme, say I decided to clone out a finger or 2 of thier hand, still legal?
Or if a car has a small crack down the windshield, can I clone that out?
Is a small part of a major element a separate thing, or one total thing? |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:47:26 PM · #82 |
Until you know me, do not assume someone is my 'friend'> I do not know anyone on this site personally, only through posting on this site do I know OF people here. No offense to whoever it is you are referring to as my friend.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
This points to why a DQ (if it happens) would take time on this particular image. Participants in this thread are divided in their opinion as to whether there should be a DQ or not. Site council are likely to have varying opinions too, and will have to vote on the issue before a decision is made. It is not as straight-forward as was the case with the original 2nd place image, where all the necessary information was there for an easy decision. |
Generally speaking, obvious DQs (date violations, added text, composites, etc.) get priority. Split decisions take longer due to discussion, but perfectly legal entries can also take a while simply because it's not urgent.
Originally posted by SandyP:
Pooooor Irene! ...she really doesn't deserve the hanging. |
There's really only one person and his friend questioning the edit (not exactly a public hanging). It's extremely unlikely that Irene's entry would be DQ'd for cloning out a small detail in Advanced. |
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:48:27 PM · #83 |
Powerlines are not LOGOS! Big difference. Comparing apples to oranges.
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
This points to why a DQ (if it happens) would take time on this particular image. Participants in this thread are divided in their opinion as to whether there should be a DQ or not. Site council are likely to have varying opinions too, and will have to vote on the issue before a decision is made. It is not as straight-forward as was the case with the original 2nd place image, where all the necessary information was there for an easy decision. |
Generally speaking, obvious DQs (date violations, added text, composites, etc.) get priority. Split decisions take longer due to discussion, but perfectly legal entries can also take a while simply because it's not urgent.
Originally posted by SandyP:
Pooooor Irene! ...she really doesn't deserve the hanging. |
There's really only one person and his friend questioning the edit (not exactly a public hanging). It's extremely unlikely that Irene's entry would be DQ'd for cloning out a small detail in Advanced. |
One person and his friend questioning the edit? So what? And now you, an SC person says that it is unlikely that it will be a DQ...for cloning out a small detail ! Small detail? A big ugly blob of a logo positioned on the main subject of the photo is a small detail? Let Irene post the uncloned version. I have a feeling that that logo would have surely messed up this photo's final status. The "pristine" clean aspect of this photo would have been ruined by the black logo. That logo would have dragged your eyeballs directly to it. As the photo is now, your eye flows throughout the scene landing back on the protractor. That blob would have been a big giant black stop sign for your eye and made this photo a stagnant mucky pond. IMO of course. |
Same with power lines running thorugh a photo, right? And those are explicitly allowed to be removed under advanced.
If I was a betting man, I'd bet the entry in question passes the "major element" standard. |
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:49:29 PM · #84 |
God bless that southern charm.
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Until you know me, do not assume someone is my 'friend'> I do not know anyone on this site personally, only through posting on this site do I know OF people here. No offense to whoever it is you are referring to as my friend.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
This points to why a DQ (if it happens) would take time on this particular image. Participants in this thread are divided in their opinion as to whether there should be a DQ or not. Site council are likely to have varying opinions too, and will have to vote on the issue before a decision is made. It is not as straight-forward as was the case with the original 2nd place image, where all the necessary information was there for an easy decision. |
Generally speaking, obvious DQs (date violations, added text, composites, etc.) get priority. Split decisions take longer due to discussion, but perfectly legal entries can also take a while simply because it's not urgent.
Originally posted by SandyP:
Pooooor Irene! ...she really doesn't deserve the hanging. |
There's really only one person and his friend questioning the edit (not exactly a public hanging). It's extremely unlikely that Irene's entry would be DQ'd for cloning out a small detail in Advanced. |
|
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:50:52 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
It probably will, since I am bringing to light an infraction by a site fav.
Originally posted by pedrobop:
I have a feeling that this thread will be closed soon. |
|
It probably should, but not for the reason you state: it has become a pointless argument/rant rather than a discussion. If it doesn't go your way, it MUST be a Conspiracy of the Highest Order to Protect A Favorite Member. It couldn't possibly be that the one who does not understand the advanced editing rules is you, now, could it? Even when a SC member says you could legally clone out logos in your hypothetical truck picture in certain circumstances, you ignore that fact and return to your Conspiracy Theory.
It seems that you just want to argue. So I vote this thread should be moved to Rant or just closed. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:53:08 PM · #86 |
This coming from a member of SC leads me to believe that SC will not even consider a dq because of a site fav. This is a ridiculous comment, and you basically told me my opinion doesn't matter. Is that how this site and judging works? It makes me wonder how many photos that should have been dq'd were ignored because of site favs?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by SandyP:
I was thinking she might be feeling "hanged" just by the nature of the one person (or two) calling out her photo as needing to be dq'd and accusing her of being Site Coucil's pet :( |
Irene knows the rules well enough by now that I doubt she's the least bit concerned about one or two divergent opinions. Maybe she'll print out the thread and shoot a ribbon winner for a slightly different definition of "Missed Focus." ;-) |
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:53:28 PM · #87 |
the discussion has certainly run its course and we, SC and other users, have not succeeded in assisting rugman to see why Irene's image, even if done by him or *gasp* anyone, is legal. I think this will be my last post here, and I welcome a ticket from rugman if he is still unclear why Irene's image is legal.
ETA: Rugman, you're clearly NOT reading ANY of my posts, because I've explained what shannon meant, and he confirmed that was what he meant, AND Irene is going through the same DQ process EVERYONE goes through who ribbons, AND I explained to you how even cloning a truck's logo (as in your example) would be legal, yet you persist in ignoring my logic.
Message edited by author 2009-09-17 13:55:28. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:54:49 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I actually took that statement by scalvert very differently. I took from his comment that she is a person who has been around long enough that she probably has a good grasp of the rules and a couple of doubters shouldn't shake her confidence in her knowledge.
Whether he should have said it or not..I'll leave that for him to decide for himself. I personally didn't take anything from it other than what I have described above. |
That's how I understood it as well. I think Bear is just saying it could be taken differently especially by those who are already suspicious of the SC. Earlier I said, anybody who has been here for a while should know this is a non-issue. Judi was basically saying the same thing and other multi-ribbon winners followed suit. To a rational person this should alert you that hey maybe I'm in the wrong. Maybe this isn't a new precedent being set? After all, these people disagreeing with me have gone through the validation process dozens upon dozens of times. But I guess that doesn't make them more of an expert, it just means they are part of the conspiracy!
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:56:48 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
If you take a picture of a person, and decide to clone out thier tattoos, is that acceptable in advanced? |
I know we've validated at least one of those.
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Or even more extreme, say I decided to clone out a finger or 2 of thier hand, still legal? |
Not likely. A tattoo or logo could be a minor distraction depending on context, but removing fingers would be, in essence, creating a feature.
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Or if a car has a small crack down the windshield, can I clone that out? |
Sure.
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Is a small part of a major element a separate thing, or one total thing? |
It's a matter of visual importance. Example: a couple of newlyweds looking at a diamond ring gleaming in the sun would make the ring a major element because removing it would completely change a basic description of the photo. However, if the same two people were shot eating hotdogs at a picnic, the ring might reasonably be cloned out as a minor distraction— it still leaves two people eating hotdogs. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:57:39 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by frisca:
the discussion has certainly run its course and we, SC and other users, have not succeeded in assisting rugman to see why Irene's image, even if done by him or *gasp* anyone, is legal. I think this will be my last post here, and I welcome a ticket from rugman if he is still unclear why Irene's image is legal. |
Maybe we can get one of those party hat things going on the user links again--this time Lil Tinfoil Hats to shield us all from the Grand Site Fave Protection Conspiracy of Ought Nine
Or some DPC t-shirts: PROTECT THE FAVES
Message edited by author 2009-09-17 13:58:54. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 01:59:15 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
Until you know me, do not assume someone is my 'friend'> I do not know anyone on this site personally, only through posting on this site do I know OF people here. No offense to whoever it is you are referring to as my friend. |
Would you like to challenge me on this? I don't recommend it. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:03:38 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by LadyK:
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Was it Slippy that clones out a whole tractor once?? |
i wouldnt be surprised lol |
Hey, you set off the Slippy-Filter!
I did no such thing, it was  BradP, and it was use of Gothic Glow. ;-P
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:04:29 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
If you take a picture of a person, and decide to clone out thier tattoos, is that acceptable in advanced? |
I know we've validated at least one of those.
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Or even more extreme, say I decided to clone out a finger or 2 of thier hand, still legal? |
Not likely. A tattoo or logo could be a minor distraction depending on context, but removing fingers would be, in essence, creating a feature.
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Or if a car has a small crack down the windshield, can I clone that out? |
Sure.
Originally posted by ajdelaware:
Is a small part of a major element a separate thing, or one total thing? |
It's a matter of visual importance. Example: a couple of newlyweds looking at a diamond ring gleaming in the sun would make the ring a major element because removing it would completely change a basic description of the photo. However, if the same two people were shot eating hotdogs at a picnic, the ring might reasonably be cloned out as a minor distraction— it still leaves two people eating hotdogs. |
All of that seems inconsistent to me, but whatever, I don't enter challenges haha.
Although doesn't this violate the rule of "creating" something thats not there, by allowing the reflection to remain, thus misleading the viewer into thinking that the logo is part of the formula sheets around it? Just playing devils advocate cause I love a heated debate. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:05:56 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by rugman1969:
This coming from a member of SC leads me to believe that SC will not even consider a dq because of a site fav. |
So who else is on your hit list?
Site Favs:
JoeyL
IreneM
World Favs:
Annie Leibovitz
Ted Kennedy
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:06:01 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by frisca:
... the same DQ process EVERYONE goes through who ribbons... |
Even people you have a crush on??? ;-)
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:11:52 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by frisca:
I actually took that statement by scalvert very differently. I took from his comment that she is a person who has been around long enough that she probably has a good grasp of the rules and a couple of doubters shouldn't shake her confidence in her knowledge.
Whether he should have said it or not..I'll leave that for him to decide for himself. I personally didn't take anything from it other than what I have described above. |
That's how I understood it as well. I think Bear is just saying it could be taken differently especially by those who are already suspicious of the SC. |
That is correct. I have no problem with the validation of the image, I think it's within the rules. I don't believe that SC plays favorites. I don't believe that Shannon's statement re: Irene's experience constitutes evidence of playing favorites. My only point is, I think that for those who ARE inclined to look for evidence of favoritism, statements like that just fuel the flames.
I don't think it's relevant that Irene has so much experience being validated. Indeed, as Shannon pointed out, she HAS been DQ'd in the past, as indeed have many (if not most) of us multiple ribbon winners. Indeed, it's the fact that we HAVE made mistakes *despite* our knowledge of the process that ought to be underscored here: none of us are immune.
To say things like "Irene's an expert in DPC validation, it's unlikely she made a mistake here," is just going to fuel the fires of suspicion, and I think it was an ill-advised comment, coming from SC as it did.
R. |
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:13:33 PM · #97 |
I have had validation requests that have taken a few hours to come back and up to a month. It takes time
I am pretty sure that rugman would say if she got pushed to the front of the line for validation that that was favoritism, again. =\
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:18:08 PM · #98 |
To follow up again, just the fact that even one person is questioning a photo should give reason to look at it. But it seems because of who's photo it is that is being questioned, SC has already made their decision. Now that's what I call a fair and just decision. Way to exploit the favoritism! While not meant to be a public hanging, my original purpose for starting this thread has been satisfied. Attention has been brought to an infraction, and nopw, many will be able to see whether site fav's are given more leway, based on who they are and where they stand, by SC.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
This points to why a DQ (if it happens) would take time on this particular image. Participants in this thread are divided in their opinion as to whether there should be a DQ or not. Site council are likely to have varying opinions too, and will have to vote on the issue before a decision is made. It is not as straight-forward as was the case with the original 2nd place image, where all the necessary information was there for an easy decision. |
Generally speaking, obvious DQs (date violations, added text, composites, etc.) get priority. Split decisions take longer due to discussion, but perfectly legal entries can also take a while simply because it's not urgent.
Originally posted by SandyP:
Pooooor Irene! ...she really doesn't deserve the hanging. |
There's really only one person and his friend questioning the edit (not exactly a public hanging). It's extremely unlikely that Irene's entry would be DQ'd for cloning out a small detail in Advanced. |
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:22:52 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by frisca:
I actually took that statement by scalvert very differently. I took from his comment that she is a person who has been around long enough that she probably has a good grasp of the rules and a couple of doubters shouldn't shake her confidence in her knowledge.
Whether he should have said it or not..I'll leave that for him to decide for himself. I personally didn't take anything from it other than what I have described above. |
That's how I understood it as well. I think Bear is just saying it could be taken differently especially by those who are already suspicious of the SC. |
That is correct. I have no problem with the validation of the image, I think it's within the rules. I don't believe that SC plays favorites. I don't believe that Shannon's statement re: Irene's experience constitutes evidence of playing favorites. My only point is, I think that for those who ARE inclined to look for evidence of favoritism, statements like that just fuel the flames.
I don't think it's relevant that Irene has so much experience being validated. Indeed, as Shannon pointed out, she HAS been DQ'd in the past, as indeed have many (if not most) of us multiple ribbon winners. Indeed, it's the fact that we HAVE made mistakes *despite* our knowledge of the process that ought to be underscored here: none of us are immune.
To say things like "Irene's an expert in DPC validation, it's unlikely she made a mistake here," is just going to fuel the fires of suspicion, and I think it was an ill-advised comment, coming from SC as it did.
R. |
That's fair. The problem though is no matter how careful the SC are in wording their statements there will always be a fringe of people who will still believe in conspiracies. There is no pleasing these people. If the SC don't act fast enough, it's a conspiracy. If the SC keeps quiet, it's a conspiracy. Facts be damned.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2009 02:23:56 PM · #100 |
My suggestion is you bookmark the image, then use it as leverage/precedent in future challenges, and exploit it for your own benefit. Thats the joy of validations, they open up the door for additional "infractions" along the same lines.
Originally posted by rugman1969:
To follow up again, just the fact that even one person is questioning a photo should give reason to look at it. But it seems because of who's photo it is that is being questioned, SC has already made their decision. Now that's what I call a fair and just decision. Way to exploit the favoritism! While not meant to be a public hanging, my original purpose for starting this thread has been satisfied. Attention has been brought to an infraction, and nopw, many will be able to see whether site fav's are given more leway, based on who they are and where they stand, by SC.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
This points to why a DQ (if it happens) would take time on this particular image. Participants in this thread are divided in their opinion as to whether there should be a DQ or not. Site council are likely to have varying opinions too, and will have to vote on the issue before a decision is made. It is not as straight-forward as was the case with the original 2nd place image, where all the necessary information was there for an easy decision. |
Generally speaking, obvious DQs (date violations, added text, composites, etc.) get priority. Split decisions take longer due to discussion, but perfectly legal entries can also take a while simply because it's not urgent.
Originally posted by SandyP:
Pooooor Irene! ...she really doesn't deserve the hanging. |
There's really only one person and his friend questioning the edit (not exactly a public hanging). It's extremely unlikely that Irene's entry would be DQ'd for cloning out a small detail in Advanced. |
|
|
|
