'Single Light Source IV' Challenge Recalculated

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

01/31/2012 01:44:25 PM · #26

His opinion was that I knowingly cheated.

Where as the opposite is true. If I had known this, I would not have been so plain stupid and sent off all my editing steps, posted my original shot, the cropped version or how I achieved it.

So yeah, His opinion is wrong.

stphq IMHO this is a case of reading the rules and attempting to bend them.. just my opinion.

Message edited by author 2012-01-31 13:46:58.

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

01/31/2012 02:06:50 PM · #27

Originally posted by JulietNN:

... I would not have been so plain stupid and sent off all my editing steps, posted my original shot, the cropped version or how I achieved it.

You would have had to after getting a ribbon anyway.

Many DC/validation decisions require a degree of subjectivity, and opinions can sometimes differ (even among the SC members judging the photo); it doesn't really have anything to do with "cheating."

It's still a fine photo, and fine bit of editing (other than its non-fit with this set of rules). I suggest you write it up in detail and submit it, along with a series of illustrative screen-shots -- if Langdon posts it under the Learn > How'd They Do That? section you'll get an month's extension on your membership. :-)

kichu

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

01/31/2012 02:08:15 PM · #28

Originally posted by stphq:

.. IMHO this is a case of reading the rules and attempting to bend them.. just my opinion.

Why are we always so quick to think the worst in each other?? Especially for a respected member of the site.

I was wondering the same as Juliet, I totally didn't get how this was a DQ until Bear made his comment...then I got it, but up until then I had no idea what the problem was. Looks like Juliet thought the same thing and genuinely only got it after a couple members explained the problem.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/31/2012 02:30:06 PM · #29

Let me explain why i said this was "a case of reading the rules and attempting to bend them"...

By your own admission you felt you were within the rules yes?? If so this implies you must have read the rules to know this.. Correct?? .. and if you indeed did read the rules then you would have spotted the line I highlighted in my earlier post clearly stating that any removal even by accepted tools makes it a rule violation... leaving me with no other conclusion than you decided to make the choice to still remove the parts of the image that you did by using otherwise legal tools..

I think most will agree this is a valid argument.. so no i am not just calling people cheats etc,, just pointing out the obvious conclusion based on your own admissions,, saying in a much more direct way what many others may possibly be thinking.

I've had a DQ also.. but i at least had the front to admit it was my own fault and not look to others to back me up when i clearly broke the rules. I made a silly mistake back then and you have also.. its no massive drama.

Message edited by author 2012-01-31 14:44:38.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

01/31/2012 02:38:50 PM · #30

Originally posted by stphq:

.. and if you indeed did read the rules then you have spotted the line I highlighted clearly stating that any removal even by accepted tools makes it a rule violation... leaving me with no other conclusion that you decided to make the choice to still remove the parts of the image you did by using otherwise legal tools..

I think will most agree this is a valid argument.. so no i am not just calling people cheats etc,, just pointing out the obvious conclusion based on your own admissions,, saying in a much more direct way what many others may possibly be thinking.

I think I know where the disconnect in your logic is. You assumed that she understood the implications of that statement. She did not. Lots of folks don't. It's understandable, since the Basic Rules are completely the opposite; with Basic it's specific tools and methods that are either legal or not. Folks don't always "get" that Advanced is a different can of beans.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/31/2012 02:45:02 PM · #31

Originally posted by stphq:

...

I've had a DQ also.. but i at least had the front to admit it was my own fault and not look to others to back me up when i clearly broke the rules. I made a silly mistake back then and you have also.. its no massive drama.

Juliet has also done exactly this in a past DQ. She realized she made a mistake and submitted an alternatively edited photo that she knew wasn't advanced, told us what it was, and basically said DQ it.

Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone understands all the nuances of the rules. DQs are definitely learning experiences.

Remember, if in doubt, you can submit a ticket (contact us form) with a reduced Before/After diptych with the specifics of the edit, the challenge name, the ruleset, and your question. You need to give us at least TWO DAYS in advance of the challenge due date to collect a decent number of opinions (SC have lives too) and get back to you. Also, since we likely won't get everyone's opinion in time, the response is "advisory" and not binding!

That said, I encourage people to read the rules carefully, and only submit such questions when you've exhausted other avenues. It will be faster for you, and leaves us more time for the hard problems and real validations.

01/31/2012 02:53:08 PM · #32

The rules don't seem hard to understand as far as I can see...

You may not:- "use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal"

Whats not to understand, remove part of your picture by ANY means and it violates rules.. simples. People seem quick to bash the site for not making the rules easy to understand yet in this case I feel the site made this part perfectly clear.

I realise others will disagree with me, thats fine, thats what a discussion is all about after all.. lol. I am not syaing Juliet is some evil person or calling for a gang of us to turn up at her door with pitchforks,, just stating that I personally think that part of the rules isn't a part easily misunderstood as its worded perfectly clearly.

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

01/31/2012 02:56:09 PM · #33

Originally posted by stphq:

I'll present an alternative argument ... in the context of the rules, does "removal" mean to erase or replace pixels ("cloning-out"), or merely to render those pixels "unnoticable"?

In this case (as I understand it), no pixels were removed or replaced -- they merely had their color selectively altered to blend them into the existing background. I believe "reversing" the color shifts could render the objects visible again.

The rules (as interpreted here) mean that "effective removal" of an object is illegal, even if no pixels have been "literally" removed.

BeefnCheez

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/31/2012 03:01:31 PM · #34

Don't underestimate the power of sending in a query before the challenge, very helpful

Message edited by author 2012-01-31 15:18:15.

P-A-U-L

Canon EOS R6

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

01/31/2012 03:01:51 PM · #35

Originally posted by stphq:

The rules don't seem hard to understand as far as I can see...

You may not:- "use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal"

Whats not to understand

Interesting this thread has come up as I was unsure about this with regards my entry to the "After the Party" challenge. I had taken a photo against a backdrop but the backdrop did not quite extend enough so there was a small bit of my studio wall left in the background. I wanted to know if I could legally clone out this area.

I believe the important element in my case is the words that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph

I am still not sure whether this would be allowed or not?

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

01/31/2012 03:04:39 PM · #36

I did not understand the rule completely until Bear and Kirbic wrote it down.

What I believed was that you could not remove any major element, i.e cloning it out totally, chopping bits out pasting other bits onto it, etc etc. I believed that because the arm was still in the photograph and I had not removed it, it was legal because it was still actually IN the photograph.

Now I get it, and it won't happen again!

If you notice on any one of my DQ's, I have written an explanation as to why it was DQ'd, so that myself and other people that look can see the rule and why, that way maybe it can help someone else out.

01/31/2012 03:18:04 PM · #37

Originally posted by BeefnCheez:

you have little to no tact in your posts, you should really stop while you are digging yourself deeper

You are of course entitled to your opinion, I disagree that his is a case of having no tact though.. I am merely defending the site and its wording of the rules, which I believe to be quite clear on this particular occasion. This requires directness so as not to lead to more misunderstandings.

I have nothing against Juliet who has some amazing work on her page, of that there is no doubt. Yes its a shame she was DQ'd but it wasn't the fault of the rules wording, it was her own mistake.. as it was mine when I got DQ'd once also.

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

01/31/2012 03:19:41 PM · #38

Originally posted by paulsteven:

I believe the important element in my case is the words that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph

I am still not sure whether this would be allowed or not?

Originally posted by BeefnCheez:

Don't underestimate the power of sending in a query before the challenge, very helpful

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

01/31/2012 03:22:33 PM · #39

Originally posted by paulsteven:

Maybe best just to crop the image to not include that part before editing maybe ?? but i do understand that this can sometimes ruin your original composition, or change it at least.. so not always the best option, just a sugestion anyway.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/31/2012 03:30:58 PM · #40

Originally posted by stphq:

Originally posted by BeefnCheez:

you have little to no tact in your posts, you should really stop while you are digging yourself deeper

You are of course entitled to your opinion, I disagree that his is a case of having no tact though.. I am merely defending the site and its wording of the rules, which I believe to be quite clear on this particular occasion. This requires directness so as not to lead to more misunderstandings.

I have nothing against Juliet who has some amazing work on her page, of that there is no doubt. Yes its a shame she was DQ'd but it wasn't the fault of the rules wording, it was her own mistake.. as it was mine when I got DQ'd once also.

I read your original post just as Juliette had i assume, you appeared to accuse her of cheating even if you didn't intend to. when she originally posted her image i was shocked that you couldn't do this either. when i think of removing elements i think cloning them out.

basically if one wanted to create a low key (or even high key) image, what Juliette did is illegal, even though i bet lots of people have done this, she just exposed becuase she won a ribbon. intentionally edited this way, yes, intentionally breaking rules for the sake of cheating, no.

P-A-U-L

Canon EOS R6

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

01/31/2012 03:31:55 PM · #41

Originally posted by stphq:

Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately it isn't the best option. I have emailed the site owners to clarify this as I find the text that says that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph unclear

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

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

01/31/2012 03:32:02 PM · #42

Originally posted by stphq:

Originally posted by paulsteven:
Interesting this thread has come up as I was unsure about this with regards my entry to the "After the Party" challenge. I had taken a photo against a backdrop but the backdrop did not quite extend enough so there was a small bit of my studio wall left in the background. I wanted to know if I could legally clone out this area.

I believe the important element in my case is the words that would change a typical viewerâ��s description of the photograph

I am still not sure whether this would be allowed or not?

Maybe best just to crop the image to not include that part before editing maybe ?? but i do understand that this can sometimes ruin your original composition, or change it at least.. so not always the best option, just a sugestion anyway.

Be careful about editing the background. I believe this DQ edited a small part of light or reflection, or something like that from the background.

If in doubt -- ping the SC

Message edited by author 2012-01-31 15:34:48.

sjhuls

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/31/2012 03:32:26 PM · #43

Originally posted by stphq:

I think you are stating your opinion as though it were fact and as though everyone reads it the way you do, I happen to agree with Juliette I have wondered many times at what I can remove from an image and what needs to be left in, whether this rule specifically means cloning out or if it also refers to using dodge and burn or any other tool that would hide the appearance of an object in an image.

I came to the conclusion after consulting several members several months ago, that it is indeed illegal to use any tool to hide or remove and object, but it took some major thought on my part. The thing I always keep in mind when editing is when I want to clone out or hide something it must be small enough that it cannot be seen in the thumbnail, this has helped me quite a bit. Even then if it is small but could change a viewers perception of an image it can not be removed, Also you can clone out or remove things but you can not clone in or add things,(like more background)

I just re read this and even my explanation is confusing, it's no wonder people get confused at the rules.

Message edited by author 2012-01-31 15:34:36.

kichu

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

01/31/2012 03:33:48 PM · #44

Originally posted by stphq:

...I disagree that his is a case of having no tact though..

this:

Originally posted by stphq:

.. but i at least had the front to admit it was my own fault and not look to others to back me up when i clearly broke the rules...

= no tact

fyi

Message edited by author 2012-01-31 15:35:22.

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

01/31/2012 03:35:28 PM · #45

Originally posted by Neil:

Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone understands all the nuances of the rules. DQs are definitely learning experiences.

=tact

fyi

kichu

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

01/31/2012 03:36:35 PM · #46

Originally posted by JulietNN:

Originally posted by Neil:

Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone understands all the nuances of the rules. DQs are definitely learning experiences.

=tact

fyi

+ 1

P-A-U-L

Canon EOS R6

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

01/31/2012 03:37:19 PM · #47

Originally posted by vawendy:

Be careful about editing the background. I believe this DQ edited a small part of light or reflection, or something like that from the background.

If in doubt -- ping the SC

Thanks - it sounds like I am skating on thin ice and expect the SC to confirm this:)

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

01/31/2012 03:41:52 PM · #48

Originally posted by paulsteven:

Thanks - it sounds like I am skating on thin ice and expect the SC to confirm this:)

01/31/2012 03:48:10 PM · #49

Originally posted by kichu:

Originally posted by stphq:
.. but i at least had the front to admit it was my own fault and not look to others to back me up when i clearly broke the rules...

= no tact

fyi

Thats fair enough on that comment.. Agreed, no tact.. as i said, happy to admit to my faults. I apologise for wording that statement as I did.. I do though still stand by defending the sites rules wording on this occasion.