| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2012 11:45:27 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pamb:
*Bold* added by me - just wanted to bring this forward again, as this mystifies me too. |
Dodging is legal in Advanced Editing. So is cloning out a minor distraction. The allowance for multiple exposures only adds more control over tone and DOF to what was already allowed.
|
It seems that some people are thinking the challenge was 'Basic Editing'. As Shannon reminds us, this was an 'Advanced Editing' challenge.
I know that  MattO is an accomplished sports photographer that routinely publishes in newspapers where cloning etc. are significantly frowned upon. But the rule set allows minor things (including people if they are in fact not critical to the overall impression of the image) to be cloned out. Any cloning will in fact 'create new material', but it is the intent of the edit/cloning to make it appear as if the object was not there.
To be honest, when I look at the original unedited image and then the final edit, I had to look for a while to even see the people that this whole discussion is referring.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 11:46:18. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:48:31 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pamb:
*Bold* added by me - just wanted to bring this forward again, as this mystifies me too. |
Dodging is legal in Advanced Editing. So is cloning out a minor distraction. The allowance for multiple exposures only adds more control over tone and DOF to what was already allowed. |
Yep, no problem with dodging being legal. I'm trying to work out the extent of dodging/burning that would be legal. (If I'm about to cross the line, feel free to censor the following...)
The boxer's bruises were burnt in - not legal.
The eyelet holes on the mouth - yet to be determined if legal? or was this not required to be validated?
The large amount of light on the arch in the landscape, dodged in - legal.
I don't want to beat the dead horse, I know everything is subjective, I'm just trying to establish vague boundaries for myself for future reference... |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:51:58 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Don't get me wrong, I love the image and am not unhappy about the ruling, Just need to understand how the rule will be applied in the future ... |
I just wanted to echo this summarizes the only reason I have had input in this thread. I'm not mad about anything and I don't think SC did a poor job in this case. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:52:10 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by pamb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pamb:
*Bold* added by me - just wanted to bring this forward again, as this mystifies me too. |
Dodging is legal in Advanced Editing. So is cloning out a minor distraction. The allowance for multiple exposures only adds more control over tone and DOF to what was already allowed. |
Yep, no problem with dodging being legal. I'm trying to work out the extent of dodging/burning that would be legal. (If I'm about to cross the line, feel free to censor the following...)
The boxer's bruises were burnt in - not legal.
The eyelet holes on the mouth - yet to be determined if legal? or was this not required to be validated?
The large amount of light on the arch in the landscape, dodged in - legal.
I don't want to beat the dead horse, I know everything is subjective, I'm just trying to establish vague boundaries for myself for future reference... |
You are not going to get an answer. It is subjective and up to the site council.
I can live with that, but I can't live with being told its a "bright line" or easily understandable rule that I should understand...
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 11:53:09. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:52:39 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by pamb:
The boxer's bruises were burnt in - not legal.
The eyelet holes on the mouth - yet to be determined if legal? or was this not required to be validated?
The large amount of light on the arch in the landscape, dodged in - legal.
I don't want to beat the dead horse, I know everything is subjective, I'm just trying to establish vague boundaries for myself for future reference... |
A bruise is something that physically exists, holes in the mouth also. a highlight on an arch is just a highlight!
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 11:53:40. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:53:20 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by pamb:
I'm trying to work out the extent of dodging/burning that would be legal. |
Modifying exposure or contrast with dodge/burn (brightening the arch, adding a vignette, boosting cloud detail) = legal
Creating something new with dodge/burn (inventing bruises, creating clouds in a flat sky, turning on a light bulb that was off) = not legal
It's clearly stated in the rules: "You may apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process."
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 11:56:33. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 11:56:41 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pamb:
I'm trying to work out the extent of dodging/burning that would be legal. |
Modifying exposure or contrast with dodge/burn (brightening the arch, adding a vignette, boosting cloud detail) = legal
Creating something new with dodge/burn (inventing bruises, creating clouds in a flat sky, turning on a light bulb that was off) = not legal |
Thank you! |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 12:43:32 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by pamb:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pamb:
*Bold* added by me - just wanted to bring this forward again, as this mystifies me too. |
Dodging is legal in Advanced Editing. So is cloning out a minor distraction. The allowance for multiple exposures only adds more control over tone and DOF to what was already allowed. |
Yep, no problem with dodging being legal. I'm trying to work out the extent of dodging/burning that would be legal. (If I'm about to cross the line, feel free to censor the following...)
The boxer's bruises were burnt in - not legal.
The eyelet holes on the mouth - yet to be determined if legal? or was this not required to be validated?
The large amount of light on the arch in the landscape, dodged in - legal.
I don't want to beat the dead horse, I know everything is subjective, I'm just trying to establish vague boundaries for myself for future reference... |
You are not going to get an answer. It is subjective and up to the site council.
I can live with that, but I can't live with being told its a "bright line" or easily understandable rule that I should understand... |
You've taken my words out of context. I didn't say the rule is "bright line". What I said was that if you step back, most of us are able to determine where the bright line is, that is, we can tell what is clearly legal, and what is clearly illegal. Edits that approach the boundary between legal and illegal risk an unfavourable ruling, as this image did, but it passed. A black and white rule, like we've had in the past, may be easier to communicate, and to understand, but it leads to many nonsensical/illogical rulings, so we had to have a modified objective test instead. Sorry that it isn't completely objective, but that subjectivity is to give you guys more leeway and the benefit of the doubt.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 12:44:00. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 01:11:51 PM · #134 |
I didn't mean to misquote, it was more paraphrasing. But no matter,
I should get popcorn and watch, I have no dog in this fight,
I don't have enough skills to perform have the maneuvers needed to break the rules... |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 02:56:25 PM · #135 |
| I think maybe he was getting confused because the phrases "bright line" and a "black and white rule" are probably terms that are synonymous but it seemed to sound like you were saying the rule both has a bright line yet is not black-and-white. It was just a communication thing. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 03:10:19 PM · #136 |
I think the rules are way too limiting on HDR. It's perfectly reasonable to take three exposures of the same scene and choose to clone out someone who was in only one exposure or leave in a swan that was in only one exposure.
At the very least change the rules so that one particular exposure is your template. You may not add or remove major features from that one exposure, only enhance it with different lighting in other exposures. That will prevent the "tricks" that so many DPCers are so afraid of, like seeing one person twice in the same image. Ultimately, DPC needs to get over that fear, but I realize that it hasn't gone through enough therapy yet. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 03:12:46 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think the rules are way too limiting on HDR. It's perfectly reasonable to take three exposures of the same scene and choose to clone out someone who was in only one exposure or leave in a swan that was in only one exposure.
At the very least change the rules so that one particular exposure is your template. You may not add or remove major features from that one exposure, only enhance it with different lighting in other exposures. That will prevent the "tricks" that so many DPCers are so afraid of, like seeing one person twice in the same image. Ultimately, DPC needs to get over that fear, but I realize that it hasn't gone through enough therapy yet. |
Absolutely agree. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 03:47:51 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think the rules are way too limiting on HDR. It's perfectly reasonable to take three exposures of the same scene and choose to clone out someone who was in only one exposure or leave in a swan that was in only one exposure.
At the very least change the rules so that one particular exposure is your template. You may not add or remove major features from that one exposure, only enhance it with different lighting in other exposures. That will prevent the "tricks" that so many DPCers are so afraid of, like seeing one person twice in the same image. Ultimately, DPC needs to get over that fear, but I realize that it hasn't gone through enough therapy yet. |
I like your idea.
Alternatively I'd like a little more consistency. For example in the swan photo, he could not leave it in NOR could he take it out. That exposure had to be tossed out completely to be valid. If it is against the rules to leave it in, it should be legal to remove it (or vice versa).
Another possibility would be something has to be in 51% of the layers. If you take 3 exposures, something in two of them must be in the final image. Something in just one must be removed. In the case of 2 exposures, it must be in both since otherwise it would only be in 50%.
ETA: this would be a lot less subjective. While subjective is good for the SC to 'give us more leeway', it also means we don't know exactly what is required of us. Any of the above ideas would clarify for people what is required of them.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 15:49:28. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:25:16 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think the rules are way too limiting on HDR. It's perfectly reasonable to take three exposures of the same scene and choose to clone out someone who was in only one exposure or leave in a swan that was in only one exposure.
At the very least change the rules so that one particular exposure is your template. You may not add or remove major features from that one exposure, only enhance it with different lighting in other exposures. That will prevent the "tricks" that so many DPCers are so afraid of, like seeing one person twice in the same image. Ultimately, DPC needs to get over that fear, but I realize that it hasn't gone through enough therapy yet. |
Big old +1 on this. It would clear things up a ton. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:39:47 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think the rules are way too limiting on HDR. It's perfectly reasonable to take three exposures of the same scene and choose to clone out someone who was in only one exposure or leave in a swan that was in only one exposure.
At the very least change the rules so that one particular exposure is your template. You may not add or remove major features from that one exposure, only enhance it with different lighting in other exposures. That will prevent the "tricks" that so many DPCers are so afraid of, like seeing one person twice in the same image. Ultimately, DPC needs to get over that fear, but I realize that it hasn't gone through enough therapy yet. |
Big old +1 on this. It would clear things up a ton. |
Add me to the list. Honestly, what are we afraid of?
The way the rules are currently interpreted, there are some pretty bizarre outcomes, like stuff that's legal in Basic but illegal in Advanced, or the fact that I can take a 5-minute star trail image and add blur to make it look like a 1-hour star trail... but I can't do it the *right* way and combine 12 5-minute trails.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:50:07 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I can take a 5-minute star trail image and add blur to make it look like a 1-hour star trail... but I can't do it the *right* way and combine 12 5-minute trails. |
Using one image as your template does nothing to change this. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 04:54:14 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I can take a 5-minute star trail image and add blur to make it look like a 1-hour star trail... but I can't do it the *right* way and combine 12 5-minute trails. |
Using one image as your template does nothing to change this. |
I didn't say it did. I used it as an example of the bizarre outcomes of the current interpretations of the Advanced rules. I did not, either implicitly or explicitly, state that either of these examples was an artifact of the "appearing, moving or disappearing object" conundrum. They are separate. Sorry if I was unclear on that.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:12:43 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I used it as an example of the bizarre outcomes of the current interpretations of the Advanced rules. |
So make a workable proposal then. I'd love to do some star trail photos. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:22:07 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I used it as an example of the bizarre outcomes of the current interpretations of the Advanced rules. |
So make a workable proposal then. I'd love to do some star trail photos. |
Apparently any proposal I make is unworkable for some reason ;-)
Go back and look over the voluminous SC discussion on this topic, there will be a lot of ideas there. It's not really that hard, though I know we got all caught up in the minutiae of distinguishing "natural" vs. "directed" movement of objects.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:22:29 PM · #145 |
| Another vote for Don's proposal. In an HDR nominate one frame as the main, and the rest are supplemental. The major elements rule applies only to the main frame. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:31:25 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Another vote for Don's proposal. In an HDR nominate one frame as the main, and the rest are supplemental. The major elements rule applies only to the main frame. |
I agree with this and move that it be called Posthumous' Law. :-) |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:36:30 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I used it as an example of the bizarre outcomes of the current interpretations of the Advanced rules. |
So make a workable proposal then. I'd love to do some star trail photos. |
I'm just spitballing here, but how about a specific rule that allows you to combine images by using blending layers at 100% opacity without consideration for adding/subtracting elements. It would be a specific rule to allow for star trails (which are linked together from separate images through the "screen" blending mode) but I can't imagine would lend itself to other abuses (famous last words).
EDIT: Actually I just thought that might lend itself texture overlays, but then again that wouldn't qualify because it wasn't the same composition.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 17:39:55. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:51:23 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Apparently any proposal I make is unworkable for some reason ;-) |
"It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."
(attributed to Thoreau)
My point being that I do not believe there will ever be a rule set which cannot be circumvented or be subject to some real or hypothetical paradox.
There is also certain to be a degree of disagreement over what the goals/limits of the rules should be. For example, I think linking several successive star-trail images to make one long set of star trails is clearly creating a "new feature" not present in the original, exactly analogous to merging a series of someone walking through the frame and showing them in successive positions, yet people seem to argue that it's a form of HDR, or should otherwise be allowed under rules other than Expert. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 05:56:44 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Apparently any proposal I make is unworkable for some reason ;-) |
"It is impossible to make anything foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."
(attributed to Thoreau)
My point being that I do not believe there will ever be a rule set which cannot be circumvented or be subject to some real or hypothetical paradox.
There is also certain to be a degree of disagreement over what the goals/limits of the rules should be. For example, I think linking several successive star-trail images to make one long set of star trails is clearly creating a "new feature" not present in the original, exactly analogous to merging a series of someone walking through the frame and showing them in successive positions, yet people seem to argue that it's a form of HDR, or should otherwise be allowed under rules other than Expert. |
I think people's objects to your line of thinking here is that we're a photography site trying to help people learn photography through challenges. There is little use in teaching people how to do something the bizarro way to conform to some ruleset when the best practice for the genre is completely different. If we want to teach star trails we need to allow for multiple exposures and linking the trails because this is absolutely the best practice method for doing such an image. |
|
|
|
08/17/2012 06:18:45 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There is little use in teaching people how to do something the bizarro way to conform to some ruleset when the best practice for the genre is completely different. If we want to teach star trails we need to allow for multiple exposures and linking the trails because this is absolutely the best practice method for doing such an image. |
This is not a case of restricting the ideal method to achieve a particular result. The genre is time-lapse, and was specifically prohibited here. If we want to teach star trails or other time lapse, an appropriate special rule would be used to enable best practices. |
|
