| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2014 01:47:03 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Mike:
explain this then...
|
Re the leopard, I am with those in the "it's legal, quit yer whinin'" camp :-). But THIS one is tough to explain. I will be interested to see how SC explains why this one was illegal and others posted above are not. It can't just be adding two-tone color to the frame, because there is no question that its a border and not a part of the photograph, particulary with that one bird cut off by the frame on the left. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 01:53:26 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Mike:
explain this then...
|
That wasn't DQ'd for the border per se. The original had a large stand of reeds on left side foreground that was removed and replaced with a border made to appear like original image area, so it was major element removal. Without those reeds it would have been fine.
Message edited by author 2014-06-19 13:54:17. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 01:53:28 PM · #28 |
it was explained ad nauseum when it happened that the border was created by taking the orginal image and blurring it to oblivion.
dq'd for extending the image area if i recall.
i dont agree, its clearly a border, even the saturation of the border is different and its separated by a drop shadow.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2014 01:54:24 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
explain this then...
|
That wasn't DQ'd for the border per se. The original had a large stand of reeds on left side that was removed and replaced with a border made to appear like original image area, so it was major element removal. |
you have got to be kidding me.. why not just dq cropping too???
you can use a border to add a third dimension but you cant use it to crop???
Message edited by author 2014-06-19 13:55:15. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 01:56:43 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LN13:
...I don't think anyone is fooled by Shannon's leopard. |
No, I can clearly spot the foolishness ;-)
FWIW, I stopped on the leopard image for all of an extra 5 seconds or so when voting. It was clear that the border was a border, and that it did not contain any disallowed "graphics, clip art, computer-rendered images or parts of other photographs." Thus, it's legal. |
I still agree with Matt and Mike for the reason I boded above.
Please, someone describe to me how adding a drop shadow does NOT constitute adding computer-rendered images.
According to this ruling, taking the photo on the left, and adding a shadow as seen in the photo on the right should now be legal in advanced editing.
  |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 01:58:31 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Mike:
you can use a border to add a third dimension but you cant use it to crop??? |
Of course you can crop, but you can't then go back and add a "border" to pretend it wasn't cropped. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 01:59:40 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Mike:
[
you have got to be kidding me.. why not just dq cropping too???
you can use a border to add a third dimension but you cant use it to crop??? |
Not at all the same thing. Read Shannon's post again... the reeds were within frame, were cropped out (legal) and then the border added apparent space back in (with out the reeds) by "masquerading" as part of the image. Not legal.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2014 01:59:51 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
you can use a border to add a third dimension but you cant use it to crop??? |
Of course you can crop, but you can't then go back and add a "border" to pretend it wasn't cropped. |
so please explain how you think its legal to add a shadow.. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:01:54 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
According to this ruling, taking the photo on the left, and adding a shadow as seen in the photo on the right should now be legal in advanced editing.
|
That would be within the image area where new features and created shapes are forbidden, not the border. We have validated literally dozens of borders with rough edges, drawn frames and drop shadows. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:03:37 PM · #35 |
i intend to fully test the limits of this concept. i haven't had a dq in a while so i can afford one.
:/ |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:04:07 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
According to this ruling, taking the photo on the left, and adding a shadow as seen in the photo on the right should now be legal in advanced editing.
|
Not at all. The "drop shadow" was a gradient added to the border, outside the image area. Don't try that inside the image 8-o
Now, does that added gradient constitute adding artwork to the border? History sez "no." We could dig up dozens of images with gradients in the border that have passed validation.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:08:49 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
We could dig up dozens of images with gradients in the border that have passed validation. |
Just don't get too matchy-matchy? The example posted earlier is just a crop with a gradient border.
|
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:09:09 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Matt, I don't see anything that DISallows it, in the rules. And yes, it HAS been validated, during voting. We've had a number of breakout borders validated over the years. The drop shadow's not an issue for me because we're regularly allowing canned "creative" borders with the rough edges, the "fake photo emulsion" look, and so forth. A lot of those result in an irregular border. We've also validated wedge-shaped borders and so forth; it's pretty wide open.
Give us some examples of images DQ'd because of their borders? All I can recall are borders created from clip-art designs and such, which is not allowed, explicitly. |
So, based on what you're saying, would this now be legal?  |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:10:21 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The original had a large stand of reeds on left side foreground that was removed and replaced with a border made to appear like original image area, so it was major element removal. Without those reeds it would have been fine. |
Makes sense, assuming the reeds were within the image area - i.e., inside the border. If those reeds were all in the "frame" then its not so clear. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:15:41 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
So, based on what you're saying, would this now be legal? |
That was a Photo/Graphic Edges frame, which uses another photo as a mask. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:16:18 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by EstimatedEyes:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The original had a large stand of reeds on left side foreground that was removed and replaced with a border made to appear like original image area, so it was major element removal. Without those reeds it would have been fine. |
Makes sense, assuming the reeds were within the image area - i.e., inside the border. If those reeds were all in the "frame" then its not so clear. |
If those reeds were in the "border area" where the border area now covers, then his argument holds no water. Because a border according to what he told me is allowed to cover items.
Matt |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:19:16 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
Originally posted by scalvert:
 |
the border doesn't make it look like the little girl is doing anything she's not. |
Other than popping out of the frame in 3D of course...
Message edited by author 2014-06-19 14:20:09. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:22:05 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by MattO:
If those reeds were in the "border area" where the border area now covers, then his argument holds no water. Because a border according to what he told me is allowed to cover items. |
Cover items by cropping, yes; cover items and then uncover them with a matching background as if it hadn't been cropped, no. "You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element..." |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:22:24 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Kelli:
So, based on what you're saying, would this now be legal? |
That was a Photo/Graphic Edges frame, which uses another photo as a mask. |
You can obviously create this same effect manually with a mask and brush. If it were done that way would it be legal? |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:24:40 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
If those reeds were in the "border area" where the border area now covers, then his argument holds no water. Because a border according to what he told me is allowed to cover items. |
Cover items by cropping, yes; cover items and then uncover them with a matching background as if it hadn't been cropped, no. "You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element..." |
So if the border colors had been reversed with blue at the top it would be valid? |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:28:46 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by MarkB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MattO:
If those reeds were in the "border area" where the border area now covers, then his argument holds no water. Because a border according to what he told me is allowed to cover items. |
Cover items by cropping, yes; cover items and then uncover them with a matching background as if it hadn't been cropped, no. "You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element..." |
So if the border colors had been reversed with blue at the top it would be valid? |
if the borer had been created with a gradient and not blurring the image, would it have been validated?
Message edited by author 2014-06-19 14:29:01. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:28:46 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by giantmike:
According to this ruling, taking the photo on the left, and adding a shadow as seen in the photo on the right should now be legal in advanced editing.
|
That would be within the image area where new features and created shapes are forbidden, not the border. We have validated literally dozens of borders with rough edges, drawn frames and drop shadows. |
So this is legal? I added some puddles to the border only. I didn't use clip art or another photo. I just used a paint brush.
FYI, the drop shadow added in the Leopard photo makes it so the border is no longer clearly a border. It now looks like that white area was there while shooting the photo.
Message edited by author 2014-06-19 14:30:38. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:30:26 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by MarkB:
You can obviously create this same effect manually with a mask and brush. If it were done that way would it be legal? |
Yup, most likely. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:31:53 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by aliqui:
Originally posted by scalvert:
|
the border doesn't make it look like the little girl is doing anything she's not. |
Other than popping out of the frame in 3D of course... |
The challenge topic is important in this one. Had this not been in a Triptych challenge, my opinion would be different. I am not left with the impression that anything else is happening other than the little girl's limbs are overlapping the border. With your image, there is action implied that would not have been as effective without the border and added shadow. |
|
|
|
06/19/2014 02:32:19 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by MarkB:
So if the border colors had been reversed with blue at the top it would be valid? |
Correct.
Originally posted by Mike:
if the borer had been created with a gradient and not blurring the image, would it have been validated? |
No. What matters is that it matches the background and therefore fakes image area in order to remove a major element. HOW you match that background is irrelevant. |
|
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: 08/28/2025 05:53:06 AM EDT.
