Advanced Editing: Perspective tool permitted?

09/01/2004 06:24:35 AM · #26

Originally posted by Konador:

It depends what you want to remove.

Cloning, dodging, and/or burning to remove imperfections and minor distracting elements is permitted.

What defines a distracting element. I can't say obviously as it's for a challenge submission.

Lets say I took a photo of a green field and there were 3 cows in it, I didn't like the there they were distracting from the big rock which is the main focal point. Can I get rid of the little critters?

09/01/2004 06:25:33 AM · #27

re: perspective;

I think what the SC decided was that it was moving pixel's positions in relation to other pixels, therefor it wasn't legal under basic editing.

Message edited by author 2004-09-01 06:26:05.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

09/01/2004 06:28:23 AM · #28

It really depends how big the cows are and how much of a focal point they are in the photo. If you dont know whether they are minor or not, then they are probably major as you had to ask... but if you want to make sure you can email me or another SC member with your submission and we'll come to a consensus.

geewhy

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

09/01/2004 06:38:33 AM · #29

Given that my post processing knowledge is somewhat "limited", I`ve been reluctant to add to this thread..but I must confess to a bit of bafflement as to why the process of altering the whole image to correct a minor distortion caused by the camera lens should be banned from basic editing and yet we are allowed to alter skies and landscapes through various means of contrast control which results in a far more dramatic image than was originally taken ?

09/01/2004 06:44:24 AM · #30

Likewise i can't see why i can't clone out that annoying hair on my CCD which comes up on every photo, but yet we can remove all grain, noise and texture from our images with Neat Image - and make our models skin look like that of the slippery eel :D

Edited for Konador's amusement :D

Message edited by author 2004-09-01 06:48:51.

09/01/2004 06:46:17 AM · #31

I guess cloning can be abused a lot more than allowing a noise reduction filter.

PS jon, I prefer the phrase you used about turning a models skin into milk :P

09/01/2004 06:49:20 AM · #32

Hows about the new analogy?

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

09/01/2004 06:50:46 AM · #33

Lovely, hehe :)

geewhy

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

09/01/2004 06:54:51 AM · #34

Originally posted by jonpink:

I agree with your point Jon as I`ve often had good pictures that I couldn`t use because I found dark blotches in the sky from oily marks on the lens that I hadn`t noticed. As for the misuse of the cloning tool..surely that would be caught when the original image is inspected.

09/01/2004 06:56:31 AM · #35

But not all originals are inspected, only suspicious ones and top 5 ones, and the occasional random few.

09/01/2004 06:59:18 AM · #36

Originally posted by Konador:

But not all originals are inspected, only suspicious ones and top 5 ones, and the occasional random few.

Ok, so not all are inspected. How does this affect the allowing or disallowing of a particular tool?

09/01/2004 07:01:22 AM · #37

It just means that not all abuses of the rules will be caught, as geewhy said. Neatimage can only do 'what it says on the tin' whereas allowing cloning can drastically alter a photo. Sure, some people would only use it to clone out spots, but others would use it to clone out whole cows :P

09/01/2004 07:03:08 AM · #38

Originally posted by Konador:

Very good ;)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/01/2004 07:09:13 AM · #39

While I understand what you are saying it just doesn't seem like a reason to not allow it. After all there are only three photos in any challenge that really matter and you check those. The rest are basically also-rans and you have a random few checks on those as well as any that were poorly done. Seems like that would keep it, as well as possible, to legitimate use.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/01/2004 09:00:50 AM · #40

One primary reason is because it keeps the Basic Editing rules simple to comprehend. If insert program feature here is applied to the entire image without moving pixels, it is valid, otherwise it isn't. This clear delineation is why the perspective tool (it moves pixels) and the clone tool (it isn't applied to the entire image) are not permitted. Simple to explain, simple to arbitrate.

There have been countless debates as to why this or that should or shouldn't be allowed in the Basic Editing rules. This is simply the proverbial "line" that makes Basic Editing what it is, and it makes for a very objective (as opposed to subjective) set of rules under which a photo can be DQ'd. Compare and contrast that to the Advanced Editing rules, where there is much subjectivity. I personally prefer objective rules, where there is no personal opinion involved.

Plus, as Ben stated, once you allow tools that can modify individual pixels, the chance of somebody "abusing" that tool beyond its intended purpose (and not being caught) increases, which is unfair to those who use the tool within the rules.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

09/01/2004 08:31:38 PM · #41

Originally posted by EddyG:

The argument for disallowing certain tools appears to be, because we say so. That's fine but it begs my original question, are the rotate and flip commands illegal? They move pixels too.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

09/01/2004 08:40:38 PM · #42

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

The argument for disallowing certain tools appears to be, because we say so.

Well, no, it's because we need to have a ruleset that is based on a few simple premises. If we start allowing individual tools, one has to keep track of which are legal and which are not; not only that, but each editing program may call the same tool something different. A nightmare to administer, and to live with from a submittor perspective. What we have tried to do is maintain a non-path-based ruleset as much as possible, e.g. the rules tell you what you can & cannot do, functionally, but say nothing about specific tools in most cases, with the exception of using them as examples.

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

That's fine but it begs my original question, are the rotate and flip commands illegal? They move pixels too.

Yes, they are legal. They do not move any pixels relative to their neighbors (distorting the photo).