| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2012 03:54:38 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by MattO:
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. |
Incorrect. Your interpretation is a perversion of the rules. If you allow cloning "out" of something, as our rules do, you necessarily must allow "cloning in" because something has to replace what you removed, so the way we look at it is "what was removed, what was it replaced with" and we make our judgement based on that, not simply the removal. Sorry that much wasn't obvious, but we thought most who had been here over 6 months would have naturally understood that practicality.
Edited to add: I think I should go further, given your comments, to state that if the people were on top of the arch, and they were removed, their removal would be much more questionable, but not because the top of the arch would have to be "reconstructed" but because of the relative prominent to the overall image/scene.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 16:00:15. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:55:15 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by RyanWareham:
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. |
I'm sure the photographer would have done that if he could, but the frames were taken about 3 minutes apart, and the sunset was nearly gone by the time the people left.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 15:57:53. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:57:35 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
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. |
Probably not the best example since the swan would still be a major element and not subject to legal removal. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 03:59:46 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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? |
To me cloning out something and cloning IN something are two different areas. Removing a black spec of a bird in the sky, is one example of removing a non major element. But removing something so you add a part of a major element back in is totally different.
I understand cloning just fine. I just never thought you could remove something to add part of something else in that is a major focal point of the image, no matter how small it is.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:00:04 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Probably not the best example since the swan would still be a major element and not subject to legal removal. |
So would you have to jettison the whole frame with the swan? I would think that using the sky in that frame would have been fine, since the intent of presenting a consistent scene would be the intent of getting that major element out of the frame. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:01:26 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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? |
To me cloning out something and cloning IN something are two different areas. Removing a black spec of a bird in the sky, is one example of removing a non major element. But removing something so you add a part of a major element back in is totally different.
I understand cloning just fine. I just never thought you could remove something to add part of something else in that is a major focal point of the image, no matter how small it is. |
I cannot think of a single example where we have ever differentiated that rule in the way you have described. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:01:57 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
I did a quick overlay.. the two groups occupy identical proportions of the composition. I'm not trying to argue that it should not be allowed to be clone people out of the arch. I'm trying to help your argument.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 16:08:56. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:05:01 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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? |
To me cloning out something and cloning IN something are two different areas. Removing a black spec of a bird in the sky, is one example of removing a non major element. But removing something so you add a part of a major element back in is totally different.
I understand cloning just fine. I just never thought you could remove something to add part of something else in that is a major focal point of the image, no matter how small it is. |
So because rocks have more texture than sky, it's not ok to clone? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:07:33 PM · #59 |
No one is asking the really important question: Are those people okay? What happened to them? Where did they go?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:08:34 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So would you have to jettison the whole frame with the swan? I would think that using the sky in that frame would have been fine, since the intent of presenting a consistent scene would be the intent of getting that major element out of the frame. |
IMO, yeah, the whole frame would have to go per the, "You may not... obscure significant parts of your original capture(s)" clause.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 16:12:17. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:10:56 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by EntertainMe:
I did a quick overlay.. the two groups occupy identical proportions of the composition. |
Minor distractions are not a question of percentage, but of prominence. The group in the background of the plane image are somewhat more prominent than the ones shadowed under the arch, so it might generate some discussion, but I'm reasonable sure it would pass. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:12:23 PM · #62 |
People, just realize the rules are not hard and fast. There is no single, consistent explanation that will explain every validation or DQ. It's just the way it is. Personally I go by this rule:
"The more you do, the higher your risk of DQ." Somehow I've managed to evade DQ in 300+ images and I've cloned out people, cars, combined photos taken 20 minutes apart, etc. etc. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:13:20 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Somehow I've managed to evade DQ in 300+ images |
Give me a minute... |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:13:35 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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? |
To me cloning out something and cloning IN something are two different areas. Removing a black spec of a bird in the sky, is one example of removing a non major element. But removing something so you add a part of a major element back in is totally different.
I understand cloning just fine. I just never thought you could remove something to add part of something else in that is a major focal point of the image, no matter how small it is. |
I cannot think of a single example where we have ever differentiated that rule in the way you have described. |
I didn't say you or the SC ever did. I said based on the discussions of multiple images and what could and couldn't be done in them, that was what my understanding of it's uses were. And that nothing could change. Scalvert said that in one image the people were in the way and that in the other they weren't in the way. So he combined images where "part" of the focal point of the image was there and part of it wasn't in the other. My understanding was incidental things (such as a leave blowing through as earlier stated) was allowed in wiggle room. But other things weren't. The way I understood this is the area that wasn't going to be allowed, where parts of major elements changed. And yes I understand that it's a *small* part of it. But the rule doesn't state that, nor was that ever discussed. Which is why I was confused about it. And truthfully I still think it's very gray. What percentage can change and it not be major?
Matt |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:20:03 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by MattO:
What percentage can change and it not be major? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Minor distractions are not a question of percentage, but of prominence. |
A gnat on the nose of a cross-eyed lion could be prominent, while a faint wisp of cloud covering a large area of sky might not be. The people hidden in the shadows here were considered a minor imperfection and therefore legal to clone out regardless of whether it's one frame or not.
Think of it this way: even before the allowance for multiple captures, you could process a single file more than once with different settings and combine the results. This is basically the same thing: processing two layers, each within the restrictions of Advanced Editing, and combining the result.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 16:25:17. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:22:43 PM · #66 |
| Matt, would it help if you thought of those people as sensor dust, which we're allowed to clone out? When you clone out sensor dust, you "clone in" the sky, or whatever it is on (earth, water, etc.). The people in this image, to my eye, are practically invisible, so I would agree with the ruling. The dodging, on the other hand, totally mystifies me, as it appears to create something (a spotlight) that didn't existe before |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:24:43 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
What percentage can change and it not be major? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Minor distractions are not a question of percentage, but of prominence. |
A gnat on the nose of a cross-eyed lion could be prominent, while a faint wisp of cloud covering a large area of sky might not be. The people hidden in the shadows here were considered a minor imperfection and therefore legal to clone out regardless of whether it's one frame or not. |
Out of curiosity, let me ask this: going back to the swan-image, and comparing it to the arch issue, suppose in the arch composite he'd chosen to leave the people IN? Would THAT have been legal? Since they're not in all the frames? That was the issue with the swan, right? That it was just in one of the frames?
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 16:25:09. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:27:28 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That was the issue with the swan, right? That it was just in one of the frames? |
Yeah, it's right there in the rules: "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" |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:27:56 PM · #69 |
 
What really kills me about this entire discussion is that the HDR wasn't even needed here.... The sky source image has all the data needed to produce the final image. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:28:17 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
What percentage can change and it not be major? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Minor distractions are not a question of percentage, but of prominence. |
A gnat on the nose of a cross-eyed lion could be prominent, while a faint wisp of cloud covering a large area of sky might not be. The people hidden in the shadows here were considered a minor imperfection and therefore legal to clone out regardless of whether it's one frame or not. |
Out of curiosity, let me ask this: going back to the swan-image, and comparing it to the arch issue, suppose in the arch composite he'd chosen to leave the people IN? Would THAT have been legal? Since they're not in all the frames? That was the issue with the swan, right? That it was just in one of the frames? |
what if he left them in and titled it "people under the arch" |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:29:40 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Out of curiosity, let me ask this: going back to the swan-image, and comparing it to the arch issue, suppose in the arch composite he'd chosen to leave the people IN? Would THAT have been legal? Since they're not in all the frames? That was the issue with the swan, right? That it was just in one of the frames? |
You old hornets' nest poker, you!.......8~)
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:30:07 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
What percentage can change and it not be major? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Minor distractions are not a question of percentage, but of prominence. |
A gnat on the nose of a cross-eyed lion could be prominent, while a faint wisp of cloud covering a large area of sky might not be. The people hidden in the shadows here were considered a minor imperfection and therefore legal to clone out regardless of whether it's one frame or not. |
Out of curiosity, let me ask this: going back to the swan-image, and comparing it to the arch issue, suppose in the arch composite he'd chosen to leave the people IN? Would THAT have been legal? Since they're not in all the frames? That was the issue with the swan, right? That it was just in one of the frames? |
what if he left them in and titled it "people under the arch" |
According to what has been said, that would probably result in a DQ.
SC, I'd LURV to hear your answer to this one. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:31:22 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Cory:
SC, I'd LURV to hear your answer to this one. |
Scroll back about 5 posts. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:32:17 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That was the issue with the swan, right? That it was just in one of the frames? |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yeah, it's right there in the rules: "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" |
So he *had* to clone them out to use the image???
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 04:34:51 PM · #75 |
I think the rule should be written to reflect this truth.
"HDR images must only contain elements which are present in every frame" |
|
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: 08/02/2025 04:19:28 PM EDT.
