Border legality and rules. - DPChallenge Forums

06/19/2014 02:38:21 PM · #51

Originally posted by giantmike:

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.

Probably, but good luck with the score.

Originally posted by giantmike:

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.

All commenters and complainers have referred to it as a border and assumed it was created even while questioning the validity. The frame could not be more obviously a border. The only concern is regarding overlapping elements, which have been done before, and their editing legality is not contigent upon the topic or image type.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

06/19/2014 02:38:36 PM · #52

Would something like this be legal in Advanced?

nygold

Nikon D5000

06/19/2014 02:40:54 PM · #53

Holy can of worms Batman.

Maybe we really should just get rid of ALL borders.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/19/2014 02:42:55 PM · #54

Originally posted by scalvert:

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.

Note: Emphasis in Shannon's quote above is mine.
So, I agree with Shannon again, but in doing so it brings up the question of why Kelli's shot:

was deemed illegal, whereas Shannon stated that if the masking had been done manually, it would have been legal. If process does not matter, how is this justified?
I would submit that in Kelli's case, no part of the image used to mask for the border remained in the entry, and therefore it should not have been DQ'd. IMO, of course.

MattO

Nikon D4

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

06/19/2014 02:43:18 PM · #55

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..."

You duplicated the shadow. How is that ANY different.

06/19/2014 02:43:32 PM · #56

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

Would something like this be legal in Advanced?

According to the rules, yes. It's not like this is some new thing. We had a split decision on this one FIVE YEARS AGO, but only because some SC members thought the textured part was clip art.

06/19/2014 02:46:12 PM · #57

Originally posted by kirbic:

Shannon stated that if the masking had been done manually, it would have been legal. If process does not matter, how is this justified?

Process doesn't matter when matching the background to get around image removal, but certain processes are specifically ILLEGAL, including the use of clip art in the border.

Message edited by author 2014-06-19 14:51:46.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/19/2014 02:49:27 PM · #58

Originally posted by MattO:

You duplicated the shadow. How is that ANY different.

I created a shadow in the border, which is not subject to that rule (otherwise a border itself would be a created element that wasn't part of the capture). In the other example, the outside area is make to look like part of the image with an inline border and the reeds [illegally] cloned out.

MarkB

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/19/2014 02:49:34 PM · #59

Shannon - Thank you for you answers. I will say when initially saw the image I thought it would be DQ'd but my opinion on that has been changed. Complex borders are always tricky and this thread has some valuable information to go forward with.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

06/19/2014 02:51:30 PM · #60

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by kirbic:
Shannon stated that if the masking had been done manually, it would have been legal. If process does not matter, how is this justified?

Process doesn't matter when matching the background to get around image removal, burt certain processes are specifically ILLEGAL, including the use of clip art in the border.

It's not the process, it's the result... and in Kelli's entry there was no clip art of any type in the border. She made a selection for "cropping" her entry - a complicated one, no doubt - and the process by which she made that selection should not matter.

MattO

Nikon D4

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

06/19/2014 02:52:08 PM · #61

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by MattO:
You duplicated the shadow. How is that ANY different.

I created a shadow in the border, which is not subject to that rule (otherwise a border itself would be a created element that wasn't part of the capture). In the other example, the outside area is make to look like part of the image with an inline border and the reeds [illegally] cloned out.

Where does it say that you can create or duplicate objects in the border even if they become part of the image? It says you cannot duplicate any element. It doesn't say *except on border*

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/19/2014 02:52:35 PM · #62

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

Would something like this be legal in Advanced?

The green "border" uses a cardboard texture to look like a matte board, so probably not. If it were a simple green, probably good. But I'm the new kid here, I'd have to consult with my more experienced colleagues :-)

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

06/19/2014 02:54:46 PM · #63

Originally posted by kirbic:

in Kelli's entry there was no clip art of any type in the border. She made a selection for "cropping" her entry - a complicated one, no doubt - and the process by which she made that selection should not matter.

She used another photo as a mask in Photo/Graphic Edges. That's why some rough edge borders have been DQ'd while others have been validated. I don't like it, but them's the rules.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/19/2014 02:56:16 PM · #64

i think this is all stupid.. just stop allowing borders and judge the image on its own..

Message edited by author 2014-06-19 14:56:27.

06/19/2014 02:56:37 PM · #65

Thank you Shannon. This is news to me - good news too!

So just to confirm how I would go about something like that flower example legally. Would the following be a legal way to do this?

1. Cut out in Photoshop the area of the photo that overlaps the border that I don't want to keep
2. Make a duplicate layer and add a drop shadow and then cut out the area that is inside the border
3. Add border on a layer below the cut out elements that have drop shadow

If this is not the legal way to do it I would be curious as to the best way to do it?

Message edited by author 2014-06-19 15:03:44.

06/19/2014 02:56:51 PM · #66

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The green "border" uses a cardboard texture to look like a matte board, so probably not. If it were a simple green, probably good.

See?

Originally posted by scalvert:

...only because some SC members thought the textured part was clip art.

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

06/19/2014 02:59:00 PM · #67

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:
Would something like this be legal in Advanced?

The green "border" uses a cardboard texture to look like a matte board, so probably not. If it were a simple green, probably good. But I'm the new kid here, I'd have to consult with my more experienced colleagues :-)

Sorry it was a bad example - ignore the texture on the border in my example

aliqui

Nikon D300s

06/19/2014 03:00:09 PM · #68

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The green "border" uses a cardboard texture to look like a matte board, so probably not. If it were a simple green, probably good.

See?
Originally posted by scalvert:
...only because some SC members thought the textured part was clip art.

He's on drugs, therefore his vote doesn't count yet. ;)

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/19/2014 03:02:31 PM · #69

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

So just to confirm how I would go about something like that flower example legally.

Whatever works best for you. Think of the image area as Advanced or Basic and the border as Expert editing (at least as far as I can tell). If the "border" matches the background to masquerade as image area, then it falls under those rules. If it's obviously a border disctinct from the image area, then you just have to worry about added text, clip art, etc.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

06/19/2014 03:06:08 PM · #70

Originally posted by aliqui:

He's on drugs, therefore his vote doesn't count yet. ;)

Plus, this thread's moving so fast that "he" was working out the ramifications and composing a reply while Shannon was working on his... And "he" did say he'd need to consult with more-experienced SC, didn't he? Neener neener. But the drugs R good

giantmike

06/19/2014 03:08:19 PM · #71

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:
So just to confirm how I would go about something like that flower example legally.

Whatever works best for you. Think of the image area as Advanced or Basic and the border as Expert editing (at least as far as I can tell). If the "border" matches the background to masquerade as image area, then it falls under those rules. If it's obviously a border disctinct from the image area, then you just have to worry about added text, clip art, etc.

I was just about to write "Ah, so borders are basically expert editing, while everything else falls under the selected ruleset."

I'm glad I understand this better now.

06/19/2014 03:08:27 PM · #72

Originally posted by scalvert:

Thanks Shannon

I was just confused what now constitutes the image area and what constitutes the border area as the image area and border area overlap in these out of the frame examples. I am not trying to cause grief - just want to be sure I know what I am legally allowed to do. I won't ask about circular and triangular shaped borders:)

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

06/19/2014 03:10:17 PM · #73

I thought it was a definite DQ OR that the cat was stepping out of a white framed doorway of some sort and the frame was blended into that doorway, which would be the only way I would have thought it was legal. After reading the whole discussion, I would say it might be legal WITHOUT the drop shadow, but the drop shadow made the border part of the image in my view.

Borders are obviously an area of confusion and inconsistency, but I would rather have the occasional controversy than get rid of them. FWIW

06/19/2014 03:12:51 PM · #74

Here's another one we validated.

FWIW, I've long advocated that borders follow the same rules as the challenge they're in, which would eliminate most of the confusion.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II