| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/02/2015 02:09:22 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
We've just been getting more explanations. Many times there wasn't even an announcement that there was a DQ, and we just noticed in passing.
I don't think that there have been more DQs than normal, I think people are just starting to push the boundaries more. |
so right |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:10:04 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cutout:
since Bear_Music became member of the supreme counsel,has there be more suppression of creative thinking?
or is it just my take on this? |
It's just your take -- what you've been getting is more detailed explanations of exactly why images get DQd ...
|
It's funny you post this because I was considering creating a thread thanking Robert for the detailed insight since he had become a member. I think it's really opened the door into the SC's thinking that has benefited all of us. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:11:01 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by cutout:
its really something to be ignored |
I agree ... :-(
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cutout:
since Bear_Music became member of the supreme counsel,has there be more suppression of creative thinking?
or is it just my take on this? |
It's just your take -- what you've been getting is more detailed explanations of exactly why images get DQd ...
@ Mike -- suppose you answer that, why do we have rules? How would you run a contest without them? |
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:16:34 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i didn't ask why we have rules, I asked what is their intended purpose. |
1. In order to have a game, with scores and winners, you first have to have SOME form of rules that defines the game.
2. Way back in the beginning, it was decided by the original site participants/administrators that the site was to emphasize more or less traditional photographic skills. That is to say, it has never been the gestalt of the site that "anything goes" in post-processing.
3. In the beginning, the rules were much more restrictive than they are now, but this was 13 years ago and there also weren't as many options available for post-processing.
4. As "hobbyist photography" has evolved through the years, with ever-more accessible and sophisticated processing solutions available to everyone, the site periodically moved towards redefining what's considered "acceptable" PP in advanced editing based on what people are actually DOING with their tools in the real world.
5. Nevertheless, these changes have been grafted onto the existing rule set with an eye towards *evolving* it, not just tossing it and replacing it with something else.
6. It goes without saying, of course, that the rules are ion one sense entirely arbitrary, but that's in the nature of rules. Why 3 strikes to make an out in baseball? 4 downs to gain 10 yards in football (the Canadians make do with 3)? The simple answer is, "because the rules define the game so we all play on the same field.
Does that answer your question, Mike? |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:21:14 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by cutout:
since Bear_Music became member of the supreme counsel,has there be more suppression of creative thinking?
or is it just my take on this? |
Actually, I'm one of the ones pushing for MORE creative thinking. I have also spearheaded several changes in the rules to loosen them up for that very reason. I think the reason you have this perception of me is because I am (as far as I know) the first SC to spend time out in public EXPLAINING the DQs so that people understand exactly how we interpreted the rules in what might be controversial cases.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:21:36 PM · #31 |
love the ones who are not really fitting in
they are the one
(and most likely makes your grandchildren very rich) |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:31:54 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You need to cite a specific case in order to give you a rational answer -- different parts of the rules have different intents. |
why re we allowed to use textures? what purpose does it serve? they dont need to be ours, can find them on the internet, they dont preserve photographic integrity, they dont level the playing field, they dont add any constraint to the challenge, in fact the only thing they do is to appease the multitude of people to use apps and software to easily apply them.
so on hand we have the ability to apply a texture that not only isn't ours but is of a completely different composition and isubject than the one on which you are applying it yet, if you combine an image of a scene that is composed differently simply because of magnification factor and time, and you took them yourself, you get a dq.
you can't blur something into oblivion, why? or burn something down so that its unnoticeable, never mind the fact that its most likely blurred already or that there is a very good chance its in shadow to begin with.
how about cloning? we can clone out a boat (terribly), but not add insignificant parts to an image.
Message edited by author 2015-06-02 14:39:46. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:32:40 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by cutout:
love the ones who are not really fitting in
they are the one
(and most likely makes your grandchildren very rich) |
Yes, we DO love them, but their images aren't always viable challenge entries, no matter how otherwise-wonderful they might be. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:32:48 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Actually, I'm one of the ones pushing for MORE creative thinking. I have also spearheaded several changes in the rules to loosen them up for that very reason. I think the reason you have this perception of me is because I am (as far as I know) the first SC to spend time out in public EXPLAINING the DQs so that people understand exactly how we interpreted the rules in what might be controversial cases. |
Thanks, Robert. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:37:34 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by cutout:
since Bear_Music became member of the supreme counsel,has there be more suppression of creative thinking?
or is it just my take on this? |
Actually, I'm one of the ones pushing for MORE creative thinking. I have also spearheaded several changes in the rules to loosen them up for that very reason. I think the reason you have this perception of me is because I am (as far as I know) the first SC to spend time out in public EXPLAINING the DQs so that people understand exactly how we interpreted the rules in what might be controversial cases. |
dont think i do appreciate what you doing i am just pissed of when you sort of listen
to the wrong vibe
i am finished
Message edited by author 2015-06-02 14:39:22. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:38:04 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Does that answer your question, Mike? |
yes.
i'm just pressing for a faster evolution. someone has to, it wont happen on it's own. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:38:56 PM · #37 |
Mike, I don't think you will ever be happy with this site.
Robert, thank you for all your efforts. I appreciate the detailed explanations of DQs and your push for loosening up the rules a bit. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:39:56 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cutout:
since Bear_Music became member of the supreme counsel,has there be more suppression of creative thinking?
or is it just my take on this? |
It's just your take -- what you've been getting is more detailed explanations of exactly why images get DQd ...
|
It's funny you post this because I was considering creating a thread thanking Robert for the detailed insight since he had become a member. I think it's really opened the door into the SC's thinking that has benefited all of us. |
Without a doubt, and a big benefit for the community.
That said, this DQ makes me cringe. Sometimes, we get so hung up on the technical aspects of the rules that we fail to see that intent is everything. Heck, if I do a merge to HDR from several hand-held shots, they *all* will have very slightly differing fields of view, and if my zoom ring happens to move between them, I'll hav eto do exactly what was done here. So what? In the end, I didn't create a panorama, just a single view that was present in all the shots. If that's not within the intent of the rules, I don't know what is.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:41:42 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Mike, I don't think you will ever be happy with this site.
|
I'm quite happy, just trying to keep this place progressive. go back and read Roberts #4. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:45:27 PM · #40 |
Rules, in a general sense, can sometimes add to creativity. It sounds counterintuitive but look back at some of the basic and minimal editing challenges. Creating with restrictions can be just as exciting as having none.
However, in this particular case, perhaps it is worth examining (and possibly editing) the Advanced rule set. The issue is how to word it. I'm sure the SC it open to amendments, as Bear has mentioned.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:49:06 PM · #41 |
Taking things away is one thing. Adding things that did not exist and making it look like they were always there is quite another. That's what we have expert editing for. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:52:45 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Taking things away is one thing. Adding things that did not exist and making it look like they were always there is quite another. That's what we have expert editing for. |
This is where I get confused, by taking something away then you have to add something and in the quoted image it's sea and sky so why is that ok?
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 02:56:54 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Taking things away is one thing. Adding things that did not exist and making it look like they were always there is quite another. That's what we have expert editing for. |
i disagree. especially when its not a major element of the image.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 03:00:17 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
That said, this DQ makes me cringe. Sometimes, we get so hung up on the technical aspects of the rules that we fail to see that intent is everything. Heck, if I do a merge to HDR from several hand-held shots, they *all* will have very slightly differing fields of view, and if my zoom ring happens to move between them, I'll hav eto do exactly what was done here. So what? In the end, I didn't create a panorama, just a single view that was present in all the shots. If that's not within the intent of the rules, I don't know what is. |
I'd agree with you here, actually, but we'd need to find a way to reword the rule to make this possible. Let's be clear on one thing; the deviation here isn't like the difference between 17mm and 18mm, it's more like the difference between 17mm and 24mm, or something. The source image for the sky was MUCH wider.
In a nutshell, here's my problem, conceptually: imagine a scene where you're shooting a sunset from a low angle through a tree's framing branch across the top third of the image. Imagine even that you shot a full-burst HDR bracket of this scene, you have all the exposures you want. But the sun's right in the middle of the exposed sky, and it bothers you. So you stand UP and frame, from the exact same place, a slightly different image where the branch obscures the sun, and you do an HDR burst on THAT view as well.
Now, in post, you combine the best elements of each view by grafting the branch/sky of the high shot over the same part of the low shot. Mission accomplished!
But that's no different, conceptually, then borrowing the smiling head from frame 1 of a group portrait and grafting it onto frame 3, where the kid at the other end is NOT sticking his tongue out. And we've never allowed that, except in expert editing. It IS something that Mike's asked us about incorporating into the rule set, because that's an accepted way to work now, and we've THOUGHT about it, but so far we haven't gotten a workable rule that defines it without at the same time letting people go to town with element-swapping.
The DQ'd image we're discussing here, I'll agree, is an entirely benign example of this, but once you open that door how can you shut it again? We need to be careful... |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 03:02:34 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Taking things away is one thing. Adding things that did not exist and making it look like they were always there is quite another. That's what we have expert editing for. |
This is where I get confused, by taking something away then you have to add something and in the quoted image it's sea and sky so why is that ok? |
I would say that cloning out the ship, the sky and ocean were there you just couldn't see them, seems different to me than adding something that was never there to start with. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 03:03:39 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Taking things away is one thing. Adding things that did not exist and making it look like they were always there is quite another. That's what we have expert editing for. |
This is where I get confused, by taking something away then you have to add something and in the quoted image it's sea and sky so why is that ok? |
Because that's exactly what you'd be seeing if the boat wasn't there! In the dress example, the dress never HAD a fringe of fur down there, Tanguera invented it because it "looked better". That's what we do in expert. In advanced, we don't make things up. Me may eliminate stuff that distracts us, up to a point (nothing major), but we can't, say clone a duplicate of the house on the left into the clearing on the upper right.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 03:09:49 PM · #47 |
here is another example, in the case of the boat image from earlier the photographer said, I'll fix that in Photoshop and did. we've had other cases were toothpicks and fishing line where used and the photographer said, I'll remove it in Photoshop" and got a dq.
in the first case the photographer used an image that was better but had a distracting object in the background and instead of having to recompose the image properly, you know without a large boat in the background right next to the subject head, they cloned out the distracting object, and we let the ribbon stand. In the second case the photographer is actively thinking about the shot, but needs small insignificant objects to help to set up the shot properly, and gets penalized for removing them.
Message edited by author 2015-06-02 15:10:28. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 03:14:25 PM · #48 |
at some point we really need to discuss this:
Mike said:"why [a]re we allowed to use textures? what purpose does it serve? they dont need to be ours, can find them on the internet, they dont preserve photographic integrity, they dont level the playing field, they dont add any constraint to the challenge, in fact the only thing they do is to appease the multitude of people to use apps and software to easily apply them.
so on hand we have the ability to apply a texture that not only isn't ours but is of a completely different composition and isubject than the one on which you are applying it yet, if you combine an image of a scene that is composed differently simply because of magnification factor and time, and you took them yourself, you get a dq. "
my suspicion is that textures just crept in. because textures are easy, but what Skews did requires a good deal of art - manipulation of her own original photographic material. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 03:30:01 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Taking things away is one thing. Adding things that did not exist and making it look like they were always there is quite another. That's what we have expert editing for. |
This is where I get confused, by taking something away then you have to add something and in the quoted image it's sea and sky so why is that ok? |
Because that's exactly what you'd be seeing if the boat wasn't there! In the dress example, the dress never HAD a fringe of fur down there, Tanguera invented it because it "looked better". That's what we do in expert. In advanced, we don't make things up. Me may eliminate stuff that distracts us, up to a point (nothing major), but we can't, say clone a duplicate of the house on the left into the clearing on the upper right. |
But then again, if the photographer had bothered to wait for the boat to pass as it was a distraction (it obviously was if it was removed) then if the subject/s hadn't given up and gone home then the sky would most likely be very different?
And finally it all comes down to what the SC deem as a major element? Am glad I'm no good at this ps lark - it would get me in to so much trouble lol |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 03:36:43 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The DQ'd image we're discussing here, I'll agree, is an entirely benign example of this, but once you open that door how can you shut it again? We need to be careful... |
I think one approach might be to open a virtual copy of the door. In other words, don't re-word the rules, but judge whether, in a specific instance, the intent of the rule was followed. I would submit that in this case, the full intent of the "single scene" portion of the rules was met, since the final entry came from an area that was part of all of the acquired images.
ETA: It's high time we talked seriously about modifying the "single scene" language to allow panoramas. I know L wanted to reserve that for special-rules challenges, but now with the larger image sizes we really have the capability to display these images much better. Why not allow it?
Message edited by author 2015-06-02 15:40:27.
|
|
