Validation discussion. Keep it civil please.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

08/16/2012 06:31:06 PM · #101

Originally posted by frisca:

Stepping back, I think most of us can see where the bright line is, and if anyone thinks they are approaching it, one can either as SC ahead of time (like kirbic did), or take a chance.

I appreciate what you are saying Frisca, I guess I've always said that the line isn't as bright as you might think. Like I said, I've avoided DQ in 300 entries while doing lots of things to my pictures so I think I understand the rules as well as anybody. I personally would have thought long and hard about cloning those people out as being too major. I would have guessed it had a better-than-not chance of DQ. It's not that big a deal for me to be wrong about it. The point is to just be a voice to say over the last years the rules have seemed to get more difficult to interpret than less difficult.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/16/2012 06:33:50 PM · #102

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The point is to just be a voice to say over the last years the rules have seemed to get more difficult to interpret than less difficult.

im sure the tax laws were simple at one point too.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

08/16/2012 06:36:30 PM · #103

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by frisca:

Originally posted by EntertainMe:

Originally posted by MattO:
I'd just like to bring a few images up for the cloning people and distractions out in reference to the Kirbic image.

Validated entry Original that shows what all was removed. Here is another entry with the same scene but a couple years later. Now if all of this cloning is allowed on these, but then Kirbics example would not be how is this? There is as much or more cloned out in those examples as would be to remove the people in Kirbics.

Matt

The people gone, yeah no problem...but the posts!? wow, I would not think that would be ok.... good to know!

rules have changed since this example.

Since Feb 2010? Current rule set says (updated on Nov 9th, 2009)

I think it's pretty clear what must have happened here... Obviously the guy had entered in one like it before, the rules had just changed, and he almost certainly (and possibly rightly) claimed ignorance. I don't know that I absolutely advocate for iron-fisted by-the-rules sort of SC behavior, frankly I rather like it that they will sometimes squeeze in some forgiveness..

Although.. I do have to say, this is a very interesting case, and one don't know that we'll ever get an explanation for, probably a bit of a bad decision, but I think it's inevitable that any decision making group will make errors, it's really the frequency that matters, and on the whole the SC does a pretty great job, considering the difficulties they face because of the very nature of their task..

*shrug*

jadin

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

08/16/2012 06:38:19 PM · #104

Originally posted by mike_311:

yep, don't use posts, hang it and clone out the wires, the viewers depiction is clearly unaltered from the original in the second case and not the first :)

That looks like a large statue 10 feet tall. Not exactly something to hang from wires. ;)

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

08/16/2012 06:44:21 PM · #105

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by frisca:
Stepping back, I think most of us can see where the bright line is, and if anyone thinks they are approaching it, one can either as SC ahead of time (like kirbic did), or take a chance.

I appreciate what you are saying Frisca, I guess I've always said that the line isn't as bright as you might think. Like I said, I've avoided DQ in 300 entries while doing lots of things to my pictures so I think I understand the rules as well as anybody. I personally would have thought long and hard about cloning those people out as being too major. I would have guessed it had a better-than-not chance of DQ. It's not that big a deal for me to be wrong about it. The point is to just be a voice to say over the last years the rules have seemed to get more difficult to interpret than less difficult.

I agree Doc, I surely thought I had a handle on this. Apparently I have no clue. I like you would not have done the cloning, because I thought for sure it was a surefire DQ based on what I took from all the multiple image discussions. I guess based on what Frisca said, even if voted to DQ like in my last example sometimes they still don't DQ them. So it's very subjective as to what can and can't fly.

scalvert

08/16/2012 08:28:29 PM · #106

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've avoided DQ in 300 entries while doing lots of things to my pictures so I think I understand the rules as well as anybody.

Being conservative with edits to avoid a DQ is not evidence of understanding the rules. You could enter 300 shots straight from the camera having never read the rules at all and achieve the same result.

Originally posted by MattO:

Validated entry

At a glance, it's a frame on the beach with or without the supports, so whether the legs change a typical viewer's description is certainly debatable. The newer entry was headed for DQ (in part because the legs are more readily noticed in a "Framing" challenge), but we had already validated a nearly identical entry years before, so we would have been vilified either way. Hence, lots of debate and no decision.

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

08/16/2012 08:31:50 PM · #107

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've avoided DQ in 300 entries while doing lots of things to my pictures so I think I understand the rules as well as anybody.

Being conservative with edits to avoid a DQ is not evidence of understanding the rules. You could enter 300 shots straight from the camera having never read the rules at all and achieve the same result.

You missed the phrase "while doing lots of things to my pictures"... ;)

jomari

Nikon D7000

08/16/2012 08:55:32 PM · #108

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is to just be a voice to say over the last years the rules have seemed to get more difficult to interpret than less difficult.

im sure the tax laws were simple at one point too.

Yep, you gave all your chickens to the man on the horse.

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

08/16/2012 09:31:16 PM · #109

Originally posted by drachoo:

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.

Bribes? Voodoo? I'll never forget that a prominent handwritten note was cloned out of the foreground of this image and imo really should never have passed validation:

scalvert

08/16/2012 09:55:12 PM · #110

Originally posted by skewsme:

I'll never forget that a prominent handwritten note was cloned out of the foreground of this image and imo really should never have passed validation:

It almost didn't. A split decision that eventually got the benefit of doubt.

08/16/2012 10:02:32 PM · #111

Ya. That one was risking a DQ in the name of not offending a helpful little girl... ;)

PapaBob

08/16/2012 10:13:52 PM · #112

If the people would have been left in the image do you think it still would have placed where it did, I would say no, it would not have been the same image. I gave the image a 10 but never would have gone more the 6-7 with the people at the base of the arch. I feel a bit cheated finding I voted on a composite image!

08/16/2012 11:05:03 PM · #113

Originally posted by PapaBob:

would you give the same score to a lot of the advanced edited photos if they were only basic editing instead?... probably not

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

08/16/2012 11:40:40 PM · #114

Originally posted by EntertainMe:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
If the people would have been left in the image do you think it still would have placed where it did, I would say no, it would not have been the same image. I gave the image a 10 but never would have gone more the 6-7 with the people at the base of the arch. I feel a bit cheated finding I voted on a composite image!

would you give the same score to a lot of the advanced edited photos if they were only basic editing instead?... probably not

PapaBob's point (and mine back before) was to evaluate the "major element" quality of the people. The classic question asked for years was "does it change a typical description of the photo?" (although seemingly we have gotten away from that question. We all know we can do wonders with PS tools to improve an image.

Message edited by author 2012-08-16 23:40:54.

MattO

Nikon D4

08/16/2012 11:46:42 PM · #115

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Two you may nots from the rules

combine captures of different scenes, move or change a feature between frames, or combine different captures to create a new scene.

use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.

This is something that is so subjective. To me and to others obviously, the photographer removed something that would change the typical viewers description of the photograph.

And a feature has changed between the frames. And they combined two different captures to create a new one(one with people and one without) this just to me makes that Bright line Frisca referred to even darker then she imagines.

Matt

08/16/2012 11:58:53 PM · #116

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't feel like that question is a problem solver. Who's to say how detailed a 'typical description' is, but I realize that there isn't any better way to describe the rules without going all 'lawyer' on it. We don't need a rule book that is 100 pages long.

I think of the site council as judges, they may not always be right, but they have the best intentions and more importantly, the final say.

PapaBob

08/17/2012 12:07:55 AM · #117

Originally posted by EntertainMe:

No and I think that is a silly question to even ask.

For me It is hard to understand how you can take the best of two images and combine them in some instances but not others. In this case the photographer knew the people would be a distraction and took them out. I guess if you carry the stray bird idea maybe you could convince me but at what point would be to much, if you had 4 captures with people in three in different locations as they walk through the image, is that too much? Is it the size of the people? Is it where they are located? When I see the too images I see one that is a scenic and one that is a vacation snap shot most people get when they visit a place like this. This is the age old concern of having the rules interpreted in a confusing manner. If we can go out and take several shots and use the best of each shot thats fine but I always understood that was not allowed.

08/17/2012 12:21:09 AM · #118

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by EntertainMe:

Originally posted by PapaBob:
If the people would have been left in the image do you think it still would have placed where it did, I would say no, it would not have been the same image. I gave the image a 10 but never would have gone more the 6-7 with the people at the base of the arch. I feel a bit cheated finding I voted on a composite image!

would you give the same score to a lot of the advanced edited photos if they were only basic editing instead?... probably not

No and I think that is a silly question to even ask.

For me It is hard to understand how you can take the best of two images and combine them in some instances but not others. In this case the photographer knew the people would be a distraction and took them out. I guess if you carry the stray bird idea maybe you could convince me but at what point would be to much, if you had 4 captures with people in three in different locations as they walk through the image, is that too much? Is it the size of the people? Is it where they are located? When I see the too images I see one that is a scenic and one that is a vacation snap shot most people get when they visit a place like this. This is the age old concern of having the rules interpreted in a confusing manner. If we can go out and take several shots and use the best of each shot thats fine but I always understood that was not allowed.

From earlier discussion, I believe that the site council would say, in that case, that the scene is that of a crowded tourist attraction, and using multiple captures to elimanate all people would change the description of what the real life scene was.

In this case, having three small figures of insignificant proportion doesn't change the description. Maybe is changes someones description, but like I said, it's the site council's description that matters.

PapaBob

08/17/2012 12:37:01 AM · #119

Originally posted by EntertainMe:

I believe that the site council would say, in that case, that the scene is that of a crowded tourist attraction, and using multiple captures to elimanate all people would change the description of what the real life scene was.

Part of the problem is I think most people felt they knew what the ruling would be and it did not come out the way it was expected. The rules seem to be an ever changing target and we want to understand where the line is today and where it will be tomorrow. Don't get me wrong, I love the image and am not unhappy about the ruling, Just need to understand how the rule will be applied in the future and feel this one pushed the door open more than a crack.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

08/17/2012 12:41:13 AM · #120

Originally posted by PapaBob:

Originally posted by EntertainMe:
I believe that the site council would say, in that case, that the scene is that of a crowded tourist attraction, and using multiple captures to elimanate all people would change the description of what the real life scene was.

Part of the problem is I think most people felt they knew what the ruling would be and it did not come out the way it was expected. The rules seem to be an ever changing target and we want to understand where the line is today and where it will be tomorrow. Don't get me wrong, I love the image and am not unhappy about the ruling, Just need to understand how the rule will be applied in the future and feel this one pushed the door open more than a crack.

I can see this image being called up a while down the road in another validation debate, and the answer will just be "it was debated but the trigger wasn't pulled"

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/17/2012 01:22:39 AM · #121

Originally posted by MattO:

And a feature has changed between the frames. And they combined two different captures to create a new one(one with people and one without) this just to me makes that Bright line Frisca referred to even darker then she imagines.

With the exception of the people isn't it the case in all HDR images that you combine fundamentally different captures to create a new one? The first exposure in the group has a blown out sky, and the last one has a black foreground. The end result is a composite that is different in major elements than any of the single frames that went into the finished product.

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

08/17/2012 08:22:25 AM · #122

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by MattO:
And a feature has changed between the frames. And they combined two different captures to create a new one(one with people and one without) this just to me makes that Bright line Frisca referred to even darker then she imagines.

With the exception of the people isn't it the case in all HDR images that you combine fundamentally different captures to create a new one? The first exposure in the group has a blown out sky, and the last one has a black foreground. The end result is a composite that is different in major elements than any of the single frames that went into the finished product.

No it's the same scene with different exposures. Not changed scenes with different exposures.

pamb

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

08/17/2012 08:57:20 AM · #123

Originally posted by tanguera:

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

*Bold* added by me - just wanted to bring this forward again, as this mystifies me too.

Devinder

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/17/2012 09:04:59 AM · #124

I read a couple pages of this, and it may be old but i want to chime in.

i take my pictures seriously. I think you know via the comments you get if the image was well received. I think theres no question that some of the decisions are going to be subjective( i chalk it up to the art bit). Winning is important, understanding the rules clearly is as well; but so is knowing that when you're doing something potentially rule breaking in a competetion, assume the hammer will fall or just ask. If you don't care to ask, then accept the hammer when it comes.

scalvert