Legal edit or not? - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

05/13/2023 10:10:26 AM · #26

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
It's a major element. I'm not convinced it's legal.

Where in the rules does it mention "major element"? I have seen a few people refer to "major element" so perhaps I am being blind and missing this rule.

To be honest it's a long time since I've read the rules. It just feels like creating something that doesn't belong.

tanguera

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

05/13/2023 10:25:32 AM · #27

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
It's a major element. I'm not convinced it's legal.

Where in the rules does it mention "major element"? I have seen a few people refer to "major element" so perhaps I am being blind and missing this rule.

To be honest it's a long time since I've read the rules. It just feels like creating something that doesn't belong.

The "major elements" language was eliminated when we did a significant overhaul to the rules several years ago, even renaming the rule sets from minimal, basic, expert to minimal, standard, extended; we wanted to eliminate as much of the "gray area" as possible.

This thread could be seen as an opportunity for everyone to get familiar with the rules as currently written, and help SC see where clarification of the rules might be needed. Just in time for DPL!

05/13/2023 03:41:32 PM · #28

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Round 2
(please pardon my quick and clumsy editing - it's the concept I'm going for)

Standard Editing ruleset

Original: ... Edit:

Legal or not?

Ok - This one is also legal under Standard Editing Ruleset. :-) Just adjusted some pixels to a lighter shade and color.

05/13/2023 03:42:24 PM · #29

Round 3

Standard Editing Ruleset

Original:

... Edit:

Legal or not?

05/13/2023 04:36:22 PM · #30

Erin, my previous post was meant for the SC thread where we solidify our stance on these. Forgive me for hiding your post, which quoted mine, and opine away anew :-)

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

05/13/2023 04:51:48 PM · #31

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Round 3

Standard Editing Ruleset

An additional element was added that was not in the original scene, so not legal under standard editing.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

05/13/2023 08:21:59 PM · #32

nope. If those clouds were part of the original photo and just brought out through editing, then yes. But they don't appear to be in the original photo at all.

Bonus round: If it was extended editing, and you took the photo of the clouds and merged it together, it would be legal, correct? But if it was just sky replacement using skies that already exist in Skylar or photoshop that wouldn't be legal -- correct?

Yo_Spiff

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

05/13/2023 09:47:09 PM · #33

Originally posted by vawendy:

nope. If those clouds were part of the original photo and just brought out through editing, then yes. But they don't appear to be in the original photo at all.

Agreed. It looks like additional clouds were added as an overlay.

Message edited by author 2023-05-13 21:47:23.

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

05/13/2023 09:51:55 PM · #34

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by vawendy:
nope. If those clouds were part of the original photo and just brought out through editing, then yes. But they don't appear to be in the original photo at all.

Agreed. It looks like additional clouds were added as an overlay.

Here's the editing note (in photo details):
"Added texture overlay (Grandmas Yarn) to the top half of the image. Darkened, Clarify, and Vignette applied."

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

05/13/2023 10:16:04 PM · #35

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by vawendy:
nope. If those clouds were part of the original photo and just brought out through editing, then yes. But they don't appear to be in the original photo at all.

Agreed. It looks like additional clouds were added as an overlay.

Here's the editing note (in photo details):
"Added texture overlay (Grandmas Yarn) to the top half of the image. Darkened, Clarify, and Vignette applied."

It was my understanding that textures needed to be added to the whole photo in standard editing so it didn't become a feature. If it was grandma's yarn texture over the whole thing, I think that's legal.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/13/2023 10:52:22 PM · #36

Originally posted by vawendy:

It was my understanding that textures needed to be added to the whole photo in standard editing ...

That provision is not in the current version of the Standard rules.

Also, it is sometimes possible to make a texture "disappear" in parts of a photo by applying it in Color, Darken, Lighten, or some other blending mode, even if the texture fills the entire frame.

Message edited by author 2023-05-13 22:55:04.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED

05/13/2023 10:55:30 PM · #37

Originally posted by vawendy:

... It was my understanding that textures needed to be added to the whole photo in standard editing so it didn't become a feature. ...

Yep. Thought the same as well once; still looking for that in writing - have you seen it? :-)

eta - The General beat me to the punch. :-D

Message edited by author 2023-05-13 22:56:55.

ErinKirsten

Nikon Z9

05/13/2023 10:59:13 PM · #38

glad2badad could you in essence add a contrast or highlight or curves layer (as was done with the lamp posts in the previous discussion) and define the edges of the existing cloud layer to refine the edges selectively?

Message edited by author 2023-05-14 11:37:47.

05/13/2023 11:08:24 PM · #39

The relevant rule:

You may: use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules.

That's actually one of the remaining gray areas in the rules. We have to decide if it functions as a texture. The selective application is not an issue, that's no longer forbidden. But IMO anyway the editing was an attempt to insert clouds in an otherwise clear sky, and it "circumvents other rules", in this case against combining images in Standard Editing.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED

05/13/2023 11:22:05 PM · #40

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

"in this case against combining images in Standard Editing."
Where is that? I can't find it.

ErinKirsten

Nikon Z9

05/13/2023 11:55:23 PM · #41

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by vawendy:
nope. If those clouds were part of the original photo and just brought out through editing, then yes. But they don't appear to be in the original photo at all.

Agreed. It looks like additional clouds were added as an overlay.

Here's the editing note (in photo details):
"Added texture overlay (Grandmas Yarn) to the top half of the image. Darkened, Clarify, and Vignette applied."

It was my understanding that textures needed to be added to the whole photo in standard editing so it didn't become a feature. If it was grandma's yarn texture over the whole thing, I think that's legal.

When I add a texture to a portrait I donâ��t want it on my subject and will either remove or use average blur to maintain color continuity to the entire image so it all works together.

05/14/2023 04:50:50 AM · #42

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The relevant rule:

You may: use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules.

That's actually one of the remaining gray areas in the rules. We have to decide if it functions as a texture. The selective application is not an issue, that's no longer forbidden. But IMO anyway the editing was an attempt to insert clouds in an otherwise clear sky, and it "circumvents other rules", in this case against combining images in Standard Editing.

"in this case against combining images in Standard Editing."
Where is that? I can't find it.

You must: create your entry from 1 or more captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose overall composition/framing does not change).

05/14/2023 09:48:57 AM · #43

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The relevant rule:

You may: use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules.

That's actually one of the remaining gray areas in the rules. We have to decide if it functions as a texture. The selective application is not an issue, that's no longer forbidden. But IMO anyway the editing was an attempt to insert clouds in an otherwise clear sky, and it "circumvents other rules", in this case against combining images in Standard Editing.

"in this case against combining images in Standard Editing."
Where is that? I can't find it.

You must: create your entry from 1 or more captures of a single scene (defined as a scene whose overall composition/framing does not change).

Gah! Thanks Robert. This, folks, is one example of our checks and balances (one of us - me in this case - misreading or missing a piece of the rules - and someone else seeing it). :-}

FTR - we're still discussing Edit #3.

05/14/2023 01:09:02 PM · #44

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Round 3

Standard Editing Ruleset

Original: ... Edit:

Legal or not?

This one gets DQ'd! The texture comes too close to combining images (circumventing other rules). Be careful with textures.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED

05/14/2023 01:10:19 PM · #45

Round 4

Standard Editing Ruleset

Original:

... Edit:

Legal or not?

ErinKirsten

Nikon Z9

05/14/2023 02:42:17 PM · #46

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Round 4

Standard Editing Ruleset

Original: ... Edit:

Legal or not?

Not Legal No flash element present(?) so not a possibility in reality . . . .

ETA; If there was a flash popped up just not lit - it would be legal (?)

Message edited by author 2023-05-14 15:04:54.

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

05/14/2023 03:00:47 PM · #47

I thought the same, though you said it better than I could have done.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/14/2023 04:01:30 PM · #48

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Ok - This one is also legal under Standard Editing Ruleset. :-) Just adjusted some pixels to a lighter shade and color.

I could do a LOT by "adjusting some pixels to a lighter shade and color."