| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2012 02:17:10 PM · #76 |
To be honest, given the use of the word "removal", I would have thought what she did was legal. Cloning would've been over the line, but by her description, I would've thought it was ok.
Perhaps a slight rewording - "remove or obscure" - would make it more comprehensive.
Very nice shot, by the way. |
|
|
|
02/01/2012 02:50:14 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Nobody:
To be honest, given the use of the word "removal", I would have thought what she did was legal. Cloning would've been over the line, but by her description, I would've thought it was ok.
Perhaps a slight rewording - "remove or obscure" - would make it more comprehensive.
Very nice shot, by the way. |
obscuring is fine, actually. If you leave it so that you can still kind of see it, that's usually acceptable.
You'd probably have to do "remove or hide" :) |
|
|
|
02/02/2012 12:03:22 AM · #78 |
| Is this still going on? I flew half of the world in the meantime! |
|
|
|
02/02/2012 12:44:39 AM · #79 |
| Have a great time in Whistler. You are just a couple of hours away from me! |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 11:41:20 AM · #80 |
Ok, late to the party, and an interesting, albeit unfortunate, circumstance...
I avoid Advanced editing for this very reason...and it shows in my work, but that's another topic.
Having gotten the removal think clarified of sorts, yet Juliet admitted to not removing, but changing color, using contrast, etc.....someone please explain to dumb me the meaning of the DQ reason on the shot posted by Wendy? The explanation is in itself confusing (to me) based on this situation as it says changing color is ok...so at what point do we start drawing the line of you can do X, but then again, you CAN'T do X...this is exactly why some still get confused.
RULING FROM PHOTO Wendy posted:
---You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.---
(AND for the record....I don't consider myself the "TYPICAL VIEWER" as I strive not to be typical and what I present here (as do most) is my view of an image. No one will get 100% of people viewing and "seeing" their image in the exact way the photographer did, thus that statement is not worded the best for me, but this is now getting to another whole topic (dead horse) that will always be a discussion.) |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 12:15:23 PM · #81 |
| here's an analogy: murder is illegal whether or not you obtained the gun legally or illegally. |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 12:16:32 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by bergiekat:
Ok, late to the party, and an interesting, albeit unfortunate, circumstance...
I avoid Advanced editing for this very reason...and it shows in my work, but that's another topic.
Having gotten the removal think clarified of sorts, yet Juliet admitted to not removing, but changing color, using contrast, etc.....someone please explain to dumb me the meaning of the DQ reason on the shot posted by Wendy? The explanation is in itself confusing (to me) based on this situation as it says changing color is ok...so at what point do we start drawing the line of you can do X, but then again, you CAN'T do X...this is exactly why some still get confused.
RULING FROM PHOTO Wendy posted:
---You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.---
(AND for the record....I don't consider myself the "TYPICAL VIEWER" as I strive not to be typical and what I present here (as do most) is my view of an image. No one will get 100% of people viewing and "seeing" their image in the exact way the photographer did, thus that statement is not worded the best for me, but this is now getting to another whole topic (dead horse) that will always be a discussion.) |
The issue here is that she completely hid various elements of the photo, which is (as an end result) the same as removing them.
A (possibly) good analogy is moving to a new house that has wallpaper posted. You don't like the wallpaper, so you have two options: you can either remove the wallpaper, or you can simply paint over it. Your friend comes over after you have done either of these, and just sees a blue wall. No matter how you got to the end result, you are essentially removing the wall paper from the viewer's eyes. |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 12:31:50 PM · #83 |
nicely put giantmike...
People need to remember that with pixels,, if you make elements the same colour as the background surrounding them, in this case black (an RGB of 0,0,0).. once that image is saved out those elements are gone, all undo data gone.. once the picture is reloaded, either on the same computer or another, no amount of brightening will bring those elements back.. those pixels are all now jet black and anything that once was there is now gone completely, no matter how it was done.
If you fail to understand this, grab the original entry that got DQ'd and put it in your chosen package, be it photoshop or paintshop pro.. whatever, and brighten the image as much as you like.. all the black will do is go lighter throguh shades of grey until its so bright it goes white... none of the elements REMOVED will come back.
Message edited by author 2012-02-13 12:37:35.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2012 02:11:07 PM · #84 |
Kat, I know why you are confused, I was as well, Bear and Kirbic explained it very well. It is an interpritation of the rules, it can be seen in two different ways. 1 being the wrong way , which was my way.
I thought if the arm was still in the photo, then I did NOT remove it. It was still there. You could still find it if you needed too. I did not chop it off, replace it with anything or clone it out. That is how I saw it. I did not cut off part of the picture, it was all still intact.
BUT
the way the rule is written and intended was, that even if you use all the tools that are legal, and you still manage to hide it, it has still been removed, because you can not see it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
It makes sense both ways, but the way the rule was written was intended for the second way of thinking. 1/2 thought it was my way, the other 1/2 thought it was the 2nd way to do things.
~~~~~~~~~~~
It is just one of those things really, live and learn!
BUT it also does bring up some issues, as to how do you go about low key or high key, either way things are going to be obscured.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2012 02:25:33 PM · #85 |
Assuming it is possible to make rules that require no "interpretation of motive versus result" rules that are just black and white- you can or can't do this or that...
Assuming this is possible, and it is... what is the site's motivation for allowing themselves the final knock out on advanced challenges- rather than making hard fast rules that you break at your own peril, not "possibly at your peril if we interpret it that way?" |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 02:36:23 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Assuming it is possible to make rules that require no "interpretation of motive versus result" rules that are just black and white- you can or can't do this or that...
Assuming this is possible, and it is... |
I strongly doubt this is possible, but you are welcome to try -- you may succeed where so many have tried and failed.
Our Basic Rules set comes close ... but has its own flaws (something about whether the results are "photographic in nature") which the Advanced Rules try to compensate for, but that necessarily introduces a certain degree of ambiguity and subjectivity.
In this case, if you look at the original and the entry side by side, in one you see an arm, and in the other you don't -- I think if you asked the "typical viewer" to describe the difference, the reply would be that "one has had the arm removed" -- they won't know (or care) how it was done.
Message edited by author 2012-02-13 14:37:23. |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 04:43:06 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Assuming it is possible to make rules that require no "interpretation of motive versus result" rules that are just black and white- you can or can't do this or that...
Assuming this is possible, and it is... |
I strongly doubt this is possible, but you are welcome to try -- you may succeed where so many have tried and failed.
Our Basic Rules set comes close ... but has its own flaws (something about whether the results are "photographic in nature") which the Advanced Rules try to compensate for, but that necessarily introduces a certain degree of ambiguity and subjectivity.
In this case, if you look at the original and the entry side by side, in one you see an arm, and in the other you don't -- I think if you asked the "typical viewer" to describe the difference, the reply would be that "one has had the arm removed" -- they won't know (or care) how it was done. |
I didn't mean to stir up sh@#$- I just remembered lots of thread talks about process oriented versus results oriented- resulting in basic editing being allowing the pp'er to go nuts figuratively and do whatever, within the ruleset, and at least to the whole image. We allow totally weird and non-photographic double images that mimic bad photo shopping, but they are legal? where are the "not photographic in nature enough" police on those shots?
I see the site council's point. You have to leave in the subjective element based upon the "bad man theory of justice." But its a wide net snagging those who are well intentioned at times, it seems, while at other times, magical tricks not the least bit "photographic in nature" parade around, as scofflaws. (Sorry to hijack and prolong this) |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 06:18:40 PM · #88 |
So, please someone explain as I think I'm getting hung up on the wrong part of what I was questioning originally...
The explanation on Gyaban's photo DQ included this...but I'm confused on the bolded portion...
---You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.---
Isn't that what was done on the photo being discussed in this thread? Or are they meaning you can change the color, while the object remains visible...
I understand the final decision being that you cannot make things disappear to the naked eye, regardless of how you do it. It has been properly explained in this thread....thank you! |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 07:34:23 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by bergiekat:
---You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.---
Isn't that what was done on the photo being discussed in this thread? Or are they meaning you can change the color, while the object remains visible...
|
I think of any element of a photo to be a combination of color and form. If you have a red circle it's color is red, but it's form depicts a circle. Changing the color doesn't change the form, it just makes it a different color. But if you change the color to match the background, then the form is lost and you have removed that element in both form and color.
I don't know if that helps or not, but that's how I read the rule. |
|
|
|
02/13/2012 07:35:45 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by bhuge:
I think of any element of a photo to be a combination of color and form. If you have a red circle it's color is red, but it's form depicts a circle. Changing the color doesn't change the form, it just makes it a different color. But if you change the color to match the background, then the form is lost and you have removed that element in both form and color. |
That's a fairly accurate interpretation - you can change colours of existing objects, as long as they remain distinct objects.
Message edited by author 2012-02-13 19:38:38.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2012 01:50:16 PM · #91 |
| Ah, that is what I was thinking, but wanted clarification. Well done! |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 01:57:26 PM · #92 |
| These threads questioning rules and their applications are super-useful because many people need the same questions answered but were, as they say, afraid to ask. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 03:46:46 PM · #93 |
I just come here for the analogies.
Originally posted by giantmike:
... wallpaper ... |
Originally posted by posthumous:
... murder ... |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I have big boobs... |
Ok, so not just the analogies. |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 03:50:15 PM · #94 |
|
|
|
02/14/2012 06:32:21 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I just come here for the analogies.
Originally posted by giantmike:
... wallpaper ... |
Originally posted by posthumous:
... murder ... |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I have big boobs... |
Ok, so not just the analogies. |
Good grief....lol!
Hey, I'm never afraid to ask. If people think it makes me look like an idiot.....(Psssst!) They aren't looking HARD enough, lol! :P
|
|
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: 07/30/2025 01:21:16 AM EDT.
