| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/20/2004 05:38:52 PM · #1 |
I have a question about wether something is legal that i want to do.
Say, for example, that i have a picture of a rubber duck, with a blue sky around it.
-i took the image too tight.. and want more blue sky above the duck's head.
-under the advanced editing rules, can i expand the canvas size, then clone the sky a little larger into the newly created area??
thanks for your respone ahead of time.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 05:41:51 PM · #2 |
not a judge - but would have to say no, that would be moving/adding elements to the original.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 05:42:52 PM · #3 |
Personally, I would do this by enlarging the canvas and then selecting and scaling an area of the sky, rather than cloning it.
If you have any clouds or detail in the sky, then you run the risk of people considering that a "created element," especially if you clone it.
I believe the scaling is legal, so as long as it doesn't look "fake" it would probably be OK. |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 05:43:52 PM · #4 |
| From what I understood, you can't draw pictures but you can remove little distracting things. |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 06:13:46 PM · #5 |
From what I think,it won't be legal. You are adding more to the picture than it had. This also happens when you crop with rotate and then you might like to extend the picture to fill corners ?
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 06:15:50 PM · #6 |
| Doesn't feel legal to me. Adding pixels to the photo. |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 06:50:51 PM · #7 |
| This very thing has been under discussion very recently. I can say with near certainty that the edits you propose would result in a DQ. |
|
|
|
10/20/2004 06:54:54 PM · #8 |
If your sky is a solid colour though you could just expand the canvas with the background colour the same as the sky, which is effectively just creating a border. You can't do this if your sky has detail though.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 07:10:36 PM · #9 |
You could legally:
> Expand your canvas
> Duplicate your layer
> Motion blur the background layer (to fill the gap you want)
> Dupe the layer again if necessary until you have the density you need
> Add layer mask to the top layer and soften the edges so that it blends with the bottom elements
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 07:16:37 PM · #10 |
I dunno, I'd interpret the rules slightly differently ....
"Cloning, dodging, and/or burning to remove imperfections and minor distracting elements is permitted, however using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not."
To me the duck would be a "major element". Adding in some additional sky around it to me would not be altering a major element of the photo, unless the sky was what the photo was about, rather than (almost) incidental).
As long as the sky came from the original photo I'd not have a problem with that and see it as being within the rules.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2004 07:59:52 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Natator:
I dunno, I'd interpret the rules slightly differently ....
"Cloning, dodging, and/or burning to remove imperfections and minor distracting elements is permitted, however using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not."
To me the duck would be a "major element". Adding in some additional sky around it to me would not be altering a major element of the photo, unless the sky was what the photo was about, rather than (almost) incidental).
As long as the sky came from the original photo I'd not have a problem with that and see it as being within the rules. |
if its a clear blue sky, then its considered adding a border of the same colour. |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 05:43:29 AM · #12 |
any other thoughts...i have some votes for both sides, but mostly thoughts that this would be grounds for DQ.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 06:29:22 AM · #13 |
The thoughts that matter have already posted.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 09:26:44 AM · #14 |
| I'm with Natator on this one. If the sky was basically a featureless background, then cloning a little extra wouldn't be adding any major elements. It seems silly to me to enlarge the canvas or create a one-sided border to achieve the same departure from the original under advanced editing. |
|
|
|
10/21/2004 10:01:25 AM · #15 |
yeah, i agree.. the thoughts that matter have posted.. however they disagree.. i guess memebers of the site council are allowed to disagree. I think i have 2 saying it is not ok probably and one saying it is probably ok.. making it a 2 to 1 vote.. making it a dq image.. :(
which means i probably should not...
unless of course... i wanted to find out and create a precident...
i am not sure i want to do that.... :S
|
|
|
|
10/21/2004 10:55:22 AM · #16 |
I reckon the missing portion of sky could be described as an imperfection rather than adding a new feature to the shot.
After all, if it's legal to make a shot interesting mainly due to a filter like motion blur, why the heck not add some sky for your border which hardly makes a crucial difference at all? |
|
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: 09/09/2025 03:47:53 AM EDT.
