| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/28/2014 07:52:57 AM · #1 |
Just saw this comment below by SC and was wondering if we could get some clarification.
Originally posted by Paul:
Just a quick note to say, although highly effective, this is a DQ-able edit (for the creation of new image features). It split SC opinion but the nature of the challenge meant that we felt that this was an understandable response to the challenge. Human discretion has won out.
Please don't use this image as a reference case to avoid future DQs in less specialised challenges though. (A general note, not specifically aimed at this photographer).
(And congrats on the ribbon!)
Thanks
Paul |
Curious, if the image had DQ-able edits by creating new features, how was it decided by SC to be glossed over since it was "in the spirit of the challenge"? Is the administration of the rules typically so arbitrary, for lack of a better word?
Did the image have added features? Yes. Is this a DQ under advanced? Yes. Does SC admit it was a DQ-able offense? Yes. Yet the rules were selectively superceded this time?
Curious how this is so and what constitutes having enough "spirit" of the challenge to temporarily waive the rules? Especially with Samantha ' s recent DQ for adding a few eeyelashes which was also in the spirit of the challenge?
Message edited by author 2014-12-28 11:38:49. |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 08:48:07 AM · #2 |
None of these decisions are as cut and dry as you put it here. I agree with your argument BUT the rules aren't perfect and mediation by humans - themselves photographers on this site is, I would contend, a sensible approach.
Is the decision irregular? Not to half of the voting SC who declared it legal straight off. Me, I voted for DQ. But... I was swayed by the logic that DQ'ing this image in a challenge that actually encouraged this sort of look by virtue of its title would seem a little off.
I anticipated just such entries and flagged the issue with other SC members prior to the challenge going into voting. It was predictable. Please remember, Langdon sets the challenges - not SC. We merely offer a peer review of the results. I'd like to have seen a rules modification flag for this challenge, but it wasn't there.
So, I was invited (by other SC members) to leave the comment as a guide to ensure it wouldn't be a 'precedent case'. Is it perfect? No, Is it fair? I think so.
I think 'we' (SC) are trying to ensure that we interpret context as fairly as possible. I for one think that particular rule - new feature/image area is soooo difficult to interpret. If we were as strict as you suggest in your post Garry, we'd need to DQ any entry where the processing introduced haloing artefacts. Realistically, we aren't going to do that and in this challenge - in this particular context, we used some discretion.
Does the community want us to be automatons that strictly (and blindly) police the rules (remember the halos) or does the community want us to be fellow photographers who try our best to find a fair solution to necessarily subjective criteria?
We have some new SC members, we have our own interpretations of the rules, new discourse in relation to them is going on all the time and I think we are warmly disposed to discussing them.
Will everybody agree with this decision? No. Would there have been a thread protesting a DQ if we had done that? Yes.
I appreciate that sometimes it looks like the rules are applied differently to different challenges and different images but when we get down to subjective interpretations, context is important - and here, the nature of the challenge gave a context that members of the SC thought was important.
I think the cleaner route would have been a DQ but I became persuaded that the fairer route was to not DQ. Sometime fair is better than clean.
Surely an SC that tries to weigh up such things within a context is better than us being simply draconian?
Thanks for bringing this up for discussion.
Paul |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 10:21:04 AM · #3 |
Thanks Paul, appreciate you taking the time to clarify the process some.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2014 11:04:45 AM · #4 |
| i agree it was in the spirit of the challenge but why was there no special rule put in place to allow for this type of edit? |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 11:06:49 AM · #5 |
| I'm happy to hear that these days fair is more important than clean. Thanks to the new blood. I was actually surprised that this image passed validation but it's too bad that we can't use it as a future example. I'm not sure I agree that the challenge topic should determine the extent of subjectivity. |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 12:00:43 PM · #6 |
Now I am confused. What was the new image feature that was created?
|
|
|
|
12/28/2014 12:16:47 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Now I am confused. What was the new image feature that was created? |
All that cross-hatchy, textury stuff that looks like impasto laid on with a palette knife. According to some of us, anyway. Personally, I think it falls under the loosened-up texture rules in advanced, but not everyone in SC agrees with me. In the end, it would have looked ridiculous to encourage people to "...edit your entry this week to look more like a painting than a photograph" and then DQ someone on a split-decision because they applied a texture too liberally. But at the same time we didn't want this image to stand as an example of a valid texture, 'cuz then someone would push it a little beyond THAT and then... you get the picture... |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 02:06:36 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
All that cross-hatchy, textury stuff that looks like impasto laid on with a palette knife. |
I found it completely appropriate, given the topic, and I'm surprised it would even have to be debated for this subject. I do agree that is may be pushing the boundaries a little too far for anything else, though.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2014 02:27:59 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
All that cross-hatchy, textury stuff that looks like impasto laid on with a palette knife. |
I found it completely appropriate, given the topic, and I'm surprised it would even have to be debated for this subject. I do agree that is may be pushing the boundaries a little too far for anything else, though. |
Well, that's the issue, see? There's actually no statement anywhere in the rules that SC will relax their interpretation of any particular rule if the challenge warrants it. As pointed out earlier, there really should have been a flag on this challenge. In the event, there wasn't :-( So we did what seemed the fairest thing. |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 02:32:52 PM · #10 |
| I think all the entries (mine included) which were given a painting effect contained added features. |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 02:42:49 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I think all the entries (mine included) which were given a painting effect contained added features. |
See, that's the thing of it: *TEXTURES* used to be added features, and we decided to loosen up there, so most of what happened in this challenge fits *my* definition of textures, see? OR consider Topaz Simplify: would you consider the result to be added features, or just a simplification of existing details? It's impossible to draw a clean line here, and why should we even BOTHER? Within reason, let's let the voters make the decisions...
^^^ was done with Topaz Simplify. I don't get very good scores with that approach in a normal challenge, but it worked fine for this challenge. |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 05:46:29 PM · #12 |
Not that mine was any good, but I tried to take a photograph that resembled a painting on its own, without trying to "make" it have a texture that no photograph could possibly obtain. I thought the texture rule was loosened only to include those that enhanced a look that was already there, not make a new one.
That said, I gave the entry a good score because we are supposed to grade as if it's legal. |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 06:57:06 PM · #13 |
That's a good approach.
I just shoehorned in something I shot for the hell of it by applying an oil painting action I found online. |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 07:31:00 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
That's a good approach.
I just shoehorned in something I shot for the hell of it by applying an oil painting action I found online. |
I really liked yours! |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 07:59:48 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Not that mine was any good, but I tried to take a photograph that resembled a painting on its own, without trying to "make" it have a texture that no photograph could possibly obtain. |
I did too but no one noticed........
Next time we do this I'm going to suggest minimal editing, and then the results will be entirely different! |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 09:11:46 PM · #16 |
| I could have done mine in minimal. What I really wanted to do was apply a pastel filter (to a different shot) but thought it would be going too far in advanced. I probably would have gotten away with it. |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 09:16:41 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jomari:
What I really wanted to do was apply a pastel filter (to a different shot) but thought it would be going too far in advanced. I probably would have gotten away with it. |
You can post that in the outtakes thread -- that's what it's there for ... |
|
|
|
12/28/2014 10:21:38 PM · #18 |
| Instead of 'Photograph Becomes a Painting' you could next time try 'Photograph With Dominating Painterly Qualities' & then flag it that all painterly qualities must be achieved in-camera at the time of capture. Then the PP opportunities of Advanced could still be enjoyed & additional features created by dodging/burning (for example) could still be proper & righteous cause for a DQ. |
|
|
|
12/29/2014 12:43:45 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Instead of 'Photograph Becomes a Painting' you could next time try 'Photograph With Dominating Painterly Qualities' & then flag it that all painterly qualities must be achieved in-camera at the time of capture. Then the PP opportunities of Advanced could still be enjoyed & additional features created by dodging/burning (for example) could still be proper & righteous cause for a DQ. |
The problem with that is that more and more apps being used in-camera are capable of producing "art" effects. My brother-in-law just sent me a "watercolor" he had done of my nephew, in his iPhone. Also, what you're suggesting is apparently to tell people they CAN'T do certain things that otherwise WOULD be legal in advanced, and I'm not sure that's an improvement in any respect...
Honestly, I'm not sure why folks are at all exercised about this. 2 of the 3 ribbons and 4 of the top 5 are VERY conservative in their editing; remove their slight textures and they'd still be "good paintings". The only outlier is Marnet's fisherman, and of course at 6th place comes my more abstracted use of simplify. But, in the main, the more photographic images seemed to beat out most of the heavily-worked images. Trust the voters :-) |
|
|
|
12/29/2014 12:51:19 AM · #20 |
| In-camera apps are after-capture editing apps & as far as I know if you use one it has a bad effect on the exif data. I might be totally wrong, though. |
|
|
|
12/29/2014 02:30:03 AM · #21 |
I've had Olympus Art filters validated in Minimal. It's applied to the EVF as you frame the scene, before you push the shutter.
It's a difficult area - think about peripheral illumination and chromatic aberration compensation on high end DSLRs or my Leica M.
Things are seldom cut and dry. |
|
|
|
12/29/2014 09:35:30 AM · #22 |
| What Paul said: that was one of the major incentives for loosening up the "texture" rule; we're getting valid EXIF off of in-camera modifications that are showing up in electronic viewfinders even before the shutter is actuated. Bit by bit it has come to seem that DPC is fighting a rear-guard action against changed in the photographic environment, and that's a bit worrisome, because we run the risk of becoming irrelevant... |
|
|
|
12/29/2014 10:07:03 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Bit by bit it has come to seem that DPC is fighting a rear-guard action against changed in the photographic environment, and that's a bit worrisome, because we run the risk of becoming irrelevant... |
I would change out the "we" to the "existing rulesets"
Message edited by author 2014-12-29 10:08:10. |
|
|
|
12/29/2014 01:14:23 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What Paul said: that was one of the major incentives for loosening up the "texture" rule; we're getting valid EXIF off of in-camera modifications that are showing up in electronic viewfinders even before the shutter is actuated. Bit by bit it has come to seem that DPC is fighting a rear-guard action against changed in the photographic environment, and that's a bit worrisome, because we run the risk of becoming irrelevant... |
Never irrelevant! Just not ready yet to accept changes dictated by end-users. |
|
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: 08/09/2025 10:19:20 AM EDT.
