| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2012 03:02:52 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by MattO:
I'm trying to find a recent image where people in the background were cloned out and it was considered major elements, even though they weren't the focal point of the image either. They did change the perception of the image, just as the people at the base of the arch does IMHO. |
I submitted an edit of this image for SC review as a potential submission for "Vintage." I had removed the people, and was told that in most cases removal of people, even though they might be small and inconsequential to the composition, was usually not allowed. |
I found the ticket where you asked us this, and saw your edit had ALL the people removed. Clearly a different scenario than what we are debating here. |
Were not all the people removed the the image we are discussing? |
You are being purposely obtuse. The people in the image in question were in one tiny little group, barely noticeable. Kirbic's example had him cloning out ALL the people, including the man standing in front of the plane. He was a much larger part of the composition by 10x than the people in the currently example. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:06:24 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Were not all the people removed the the image we are discussing? |
In terms of a minor imperfection, tiny people with 'Where's Waldo' levels of visibility are not the same as a person plainly standing front and center in a neon cap. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:09:37 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by MattO:
I'm trying to find a recent image where people in the background were cloned out and it was considered major elements, even though they weren't the focal point of the image either. They did change the perception of the image, just as the people at the base of the arch does IMHO. |
I submitted an edit of this image for SC review as a potential submission for "Vintage." I had removed the people, and was told that in most cases removal of people, even though they might be small and inconsequential to the composition, was usually not allowed. |
I found the ticket where you asked us this, and saw your edit had ALL the people removed. Clearly a different scenario than what we are debating here. |
Were not all the people removed the the image we are discussing? |
You are being purposely obtuse. The people in the image in question were in one tiny little group, barely noticeable. Kirbic's example had him cloning out ALL the people, including the man standing in front of the plane. He was a much larger part of the composition by 10x than the people in the currently example. |
No I'm not, I don't take lightly asking the SC about validation on an image. Unless I am really sure the image is breaking a rule I will not send in a ticket on it. I was/am 100% sure based on the discussions had in the past in the forums and the rules that are posted that this image could not possibly pass validation.
This discussion is here because I do not understand the differences and how one ruling can go one way, and in the same sentence another image go another way. You say all the people were removed in one image so it DQ'es, but in another image all the people were removed and it's OK. So what you are saying(or what I am getting from what you are saying) is that it's totally subjective and up to the SC as to what is Major Elements and what isn't. And what is allowed on one image won't fly on another.
If the combination of images was for dynamic range and that nothing can change, which is the discussion that was had when the rule was allowed, when things do change you have to remove what changed and then it's OK, but if you leave them in it's a DQ? To me this is all very unclear. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:11:45 PM · #29 |
certian people in pictures aren't as important as others???
discrimination. so sad.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:22:09 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by MattO:
I was/am 100% sure based on the discussions had in the past in the forums and the rules that are posted that this image could not possibly pass validation. |
Since it obviously did, and unanimously, you are/were mistaken. There has to be a little leeway or we'd be robotically DQing people for a leaf that moved in the breeze or a fly that wandered across the scene. "The intent of allowing multiple captures is to enable such techniques as high dynamic range (HDR), noise reduction, increased DOF, etc., but not to permit a subject from one scene to be inserted into a different scene, nor is it intended to allow a subject to appear in multiple places within a scene. You may not create new features during post-processing or obscure significant parts of your original capture(s)." The use in this case was for HDR exposure control. Nothing was inserted into a different scene or appeared in multiple places, and those people hidden in the shadows cannot reasonably be considered a significant part of the original capture. If the same people were cloned out of a single capture it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 15:23:13. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:22:57 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by MattO:
This discussion is here because I do not understand the differences and how one ruling can go one way, and in the same sentence another image go another way. You say all the people were removed in one image so it DQ'es, but in another image all the people were removed and it's OK. So what you are saying(or what I am getting from what you are saying) is that it's totally subjective and up to the SC as to what is Major Elements and what isn't. And what is allowed on one image won't fly on another. |
This *IS* confusing.
On one hand, I can see the point of percentage of the image relevance taken up by distracting elements, but when it's specifically stated that you cannot remove all the people from an image, well.....
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:28:29 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
when it's specifically stated that you cannot remove all the people from an image, well..... |
That's not specifically stated anywhere. Frisca made that comment in reference to Kirbic's image, where removing all the people included one that's a dominant feature of the captured image and therefore not a minor distraction even in a single capture. If "all the people" had just been obscure specks, then that would have been fine. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:30:22 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
I was/am 100% sure based on the discussions had in the past in the forums and the rules that are posted that this image could not possibly pass validation. |
Since it obviously did, and unanimously, you are/were mistaken. There has to be a little leeway or we'd be robotically DQing people for a leaf that moved in the breeze or a fly that wandered across the scene. "The intent of allowing multiple captures is to enable such techniques as high dynamic range (HDR), noise reduction, increased DOF, etc., but not to permit a subject from one scene to be inserted into a different scene, nor is it intended to allow a subject to appear in multiple places within a scene. You may not create new features during post-processing or obscure significant parts of your original capture(s)." The use in this case was for HDR exposure control. Nothing was inserted into a different scene or appeared in multiple places, and those people hidden in the shadows cannot reasonably be considered a significant part of the original capture. If the same people were cloned out of a single capture it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow. |
I understand that removing a small 3-5% of an image is not considered "Major Elements" but in the same issue if the people weren't blocking the bottom/base of the Arch I could see it. But then he had to recreate the base section they were blocking and that is a major element? Otherwise what is holding the Arch up? This is where it gets confusing. Had the people been no where near the Arch and they were shadowed small then fine it's easy to understand. But they are blocking and he had to recreate a section of the arch OR the people moved and he combined images where elements(albeit small) moved and that wasn't allowed either right? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:34:40 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by MattO:
I understand that removing a small 3-5% of an image is not considered "Major Elements"... |
If something is a minor distraction, then you can clone it out. In case anyone is unfamiliar with cloning, it does not mean you have to leave a blank spot or hole in its place. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:35:46 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
when it's specifically stated that you cannot remove all the people from an image, well..... |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's not specifically stated anywhere. |
My mistake.
I extrapolated from this.....
Originally posted by frisca:
I found the ticket where you asked us this, and saw your edit had ALL the people removed. Clearly a different scenario than what we are debating here. |
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:37:45 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
I understand that removing a small 3-5% of an image is not considered "Major Elements"... |
If something is a minor distraction, then you can clone it out. In case anyone is unfamiliar with cloning, it does not mean you have to leave a blank spot or hole in its place. |
You are really avoiding the question I have that I don't understand. I realize you have to put something there. However he ADDED the base of the Arch, which did not exist in the Image for the sky, if it did in the second, then per the earlier response you can't leave something in one image that didn't exist in all of them.
If the people moved, the base of the arch existed in one image and not in the other. If the people did not move then he added the base which did not exist in either image.
Am I not making clear what I don't understand? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:41:47 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by MattO:
So what you are saying(or what I am getting from what you are saying) is that it's totally subjective and up to the SC as to what is Major Elements and what isn't. And what is allowed on one image won't fly on another.
|
Usually rules should be well settled, and then follows a consistent application. Without the former, its tough to have the latter. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:45:38 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
I understand that removing a small 3-5% of an image is not considered "Major Elements"... |
If something is a minor distraction, then you can clone it out. In case anyone is unfamiliar with cloning, it does not mean you have to leave a blank spot or hole in its place. |
You are really avoiding the question I have that I don't understand. I realize you have to put something there. However he ADDED the base of the Arch, which did not exist in the Image for the sky, if it did in the second, then per the earlier response you can't leave something in one image that didn't exist in all of them.
If the people moved, the base of the arch existed in one image and not in the other. If the people did not move then he added the base which did not exist in either image.
Am I not making clear what I don't understand? |
They are not covering anything that can be considered anything close to significant. The base of the arch is 95% in view. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:46:23 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
when it's specifically stated that you cannot remove all the people from an image, well..... |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's not specifically stated anywhere. |
My mistake.
I extrapolated from this.....
Originally posted by frisca:
I found the ticket where you asked us this, and saw your edit had ALL the people removed. Clearly a different scenario than what we are debating here. |
|
I meant it just as scalvert explained it. In kirbic's example, he had a prominent person in the forground as well as a small group to the left of the image, more in the background, and I simply meant to say that kirbic removed them all, and given the prominence of the removal, it was deemed illegal. I never meant to say, and no one should interpret my words to mean that removal of "all persons" in an image is automatically illegal or that simply removing one of many people is by extension, permissible. Neither iteration is true or accurate. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:46:51 PM · #40 |
| that being said... I would be afraid to clone them out too, hah. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:47:19 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by MattO:
If the people moved, the base of the arch existed in one image and not in the other. If the people did not move then he added the base which did not exist in either image. |
You're not making any sense. If a leaf blew in one frame then it would also cover up something that wasn't covered in another frame, which by your bizarre logic would apparently invalidate every multiple frame outdoor entry ever submitted. Obviously that's absurd. If a leaf didn't move (and was a minor distraction), then it could be cloned out and replaced with what would otherwise be there just like every other minor distraction since the very beginning of Advanced Editing. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:48:25 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
when it's specifically stated that you cannot remove all the people from an image, well..... |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's not specifically stated anywhere. |
My mistake.
I extrapolated from this.....
Originally posted by frisca:
I found the ticket where you asked us this, and saw your edit had ALL the people removed. Clearly a different scenario than what we are debating here. |
|
I meant it just as scalvert explained it. In kirbic's example, he had a prominent person in the forground as well as a small group to the left of the image, more in the background, and I simply meant to say that kirbic removed them all, and given the prominence of the removal, it was deemed illegal. I never meant to say, and no one should interpret my words to mean that removal of "all persons" in an image is automatically illegal or that simply removing one of many people is by extension, permissible. Neither iteration is true or accurate. |
So let's say, just to clarify, that it would be legal if only the small group under the wing were romoved? Because I would say that would be an identical situation. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:48:40 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
I understand that removing a small 3-5% of an image is not considered "Major Elements"... |
If something is a minor distraction, then you can clone it out. In case anyone is unfamiliar with cloning, it does not mean you have to leave a blank spot or hole in its place. |
You are really avoiding the question I have that I don't understand. I realize you have to put something there. However he ADDED the base of the Arch, which did not exist in the Image for the sky, if it did in the second, then per the earlier response you can't leave something in one image that didn't exist in all of them.
If the people moved, the base of the arch existed in one image and not in the other. If the people did not move then he added the base which did not exist in either image.
Am I not making clear what I don't understand? |
You don't understand why we found it permissible for him to "put back" the part of the base of the arch that was obscured by the people he removed? If you can follow us up to the point where we say it is ok for him to remove the people, what were you imagining he'd put in their place? Make up a rock? Leave it a blur? Or, maybe, reconstruct the arch because that small amount of cloning is within the rules?
I get what you don't understand, I just don't get WHY you don't understand! |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:48:55 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by EntertainMe:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
I understand that removing a small 3-5% of an image is not considered "Major Elements"... |
If something is a minor distraction, then you can clone it out. In case anyone is unfamiliar with cloning, it does not mean you have to leave a blank spot or hole in its place. |
You are really avoiding the question I have that I don't understand. I realize you have to put something there. However he ADDED the base of the Arch, which did not exist in the Image for the sky, if it did in the second, then per the earlier response you can't leave something in one image that didn't exist in all of them.
If the people moved, the base of the arch existed in one image and not in the other. If the people did not move then he added the base which did not exist in either image.
Am I not making clear what I don't understand? |
They are not covering anything that can be considered anything close to significant. The base of the arch is 95% in view. |
So then he ADDED 5% of an element. That is not allowed at any point in the rules. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:49:39 PM · #45 |
The point is: you could do the same by cloning on a single exposure only. This is not an exploit of a multi-exposure.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 15:50:49. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:50:52 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by EntertainMe:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
when it's specifically stated that you cannot remove all the people from an image, well..... |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's not specifically stated anywhere. |
My mistake.
I extrapolated from this.....
Originally posted by frisca:
I found the ticket where you asked us this, and saw your edit had ALL the people removed. Clearly a different scenario than what we are debating here. |
|
I meant it just as scalvert explained it. In kirbic's example, he had a prominent person in the forground as well as a small group to the left of the image, more in the background, and I simply meant to say that kirbic removed them all, and given the prominence of the removal, it was deemed illegal. I never meant to say, and no one should interpret my words to mean that removal of "all persons" in an image is automatically illegal or that simply removing one of many people is by extension, permissible. Neither iteration is true or accurate. |
So let's say, just to clarify, that it would be legal if only the small group under the wing were romoved? Because I would say that would be an identical situation. |
That small group under the wing are a larger part of the composition than the people removed in the current example, so I think it would be debateable, but may well be found to be ok on a majority vote (equally, I could see it going the other way due to the percentage of the composition issue). We weren't asked it, and it cannot be answered by just one voice on the SC.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 15:52:05. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:50:59 PM · #47 |
i think a big part of the issue here is that the photographer could have taken 2 images without the people in it for the hdr since he clearly got 1. if you can take 2 without people in it and hdr it at no extra effort to yourself, or take 1 with an element in it that will not exist in your next and claim that it's not okay it's going to ruffle the feathers of those who are unsure in the first place and those who have had images disqualified for the same reason.
I understand where the SC is coming from, i'm not arguing against you here, i'm just stating a fact that others are dancing around.
i don't envy the SC their duties and the grief they get for it, i know that regardless of your choice there is a backlash, but a 'case-by-case basis' is not going to fly with many people here.
True that most of the long timers will not skate on such thin ice, but it does happen, and for those learning, it's good to have a firm foundation. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:52:13 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by MattO:
So then he ADDED 5% of an element. That is not allowed at any point in the rules. |
Advanced Editing has always allowed cloning out minor distractions. What do you think appears in its place? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:53:11 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by frisca:
That small group under the wing are a larger part of the composition than the people removed in the current example, so I think it would be debateable, but may well be found to be ok on a majority vote (equally, I could see it going the other way due to the percentage of the composition issue). We weren't asked it, and it cannot be answered by just one voice on the SC. |
Ditto. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:53:54 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by MattO:
This is where it gets confusing. Had the people been no where near the Arch and they were shadowed small then fine it's easy to understand. But they are blocking and he had to recreate a section of the arch OR the people moved and he combined images where elements(albeit small) moved and that wasn't allowed either right? |
To go back to the swan example, had Alex not used the area with the swan in that one exposure he would have been legal, even though the swan was a major element in that one frame, because he was trying to get a consistent image across several exposures. If you can use several images for an HDR, and you can't select in elements that are not in all frames, then you have to be able to select them out |
|
