| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2014 10:37:11 PM · #1 |
I have a photo that I'm thinking of entering for the 'best of 2013 challenge,' but in the photo I have an item hanging from a wire that absolutely needs to be cloned out to make it work, is that allowed? I can't tell from the rules description. Sorry, I'm sure this has been discussed to death already. :S
thanks though! :) |
|
|
|
01/16/2014 10:40:09 PM · #2 |
Couple of questions that seem to reoccur:
1. Can you see them in the thumbnail? It seems to be ok to clone things out if they're not particularly visible in the thumbnail.
2. Does it change the viewers description of the picture if you clone them out -- is it a major element, or just something that's not particularly noticeable? |
|
|
|
01/16/2014 10:41:01 PM · #3 |
| That being said -- I don't do much cloning, so this is just what I've picked up over the years. :) |
|
|
|
01/16/2014 10:41:34 PM · #4 |
| What Wendy said. If it's really just a wire (as opposed to a cable, say) you should be fine. |
|
|
|
01/16/2014 11:27:46 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 02:36:47 AM · #6 |
| I've had cables and an entire electricity pylon validated so wires should be fine. The fool the viewer risk is a bit different though. If the cloning out of the wires turns your photo into something that seems to have a higher difficulty tarif and this causes voters to give you a higher score then you may have an issue. Get rid of them for purely aesthetic reasons and I see no issue. |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 05:31:29 AM · #7 |
I think you're on dangerous ground. In your words:
Originally posted by kichu:
...a wire that absolutely needs to be cloned out to make it work |
So you are attempting to alter the viewer's perception of the item by cloning something out. I think that makes your cloning a removal of a major element which will leave you liable to disqualification in my opinion.
Kevin |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 12:48:39 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by paynekj:
I think you're on dangerous ground. In your words:
Originally posted by kichu:
...a wire that absolutely needs to be cloned out to make it work |
So you are attempting to alter the viewer's perception of the item by cloning something out. I think that makes your cloning a removal of a major element which will leave you liable to disqualification in my opinion.
Kevin |
I don't think that's correct, Kevin. An element's not made "major" by its necessity, but by its prominence.
 
I rest my case :-) |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 01:33:04 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by paynekj:
I think you're on dangerous ground. In your words:
Originally posted by kichu:
...a wire that absolutely needs to be cloned out to make it work |
So you are attempting to alter the viewer's perception of the item by cloning something out. I think that makes your cloning a removal of a major element which will leave you liable to disqualification in my opinion.
Kevin |
I don't think that's correct, Kevin. An element's not made "major" by its necessity, but by its prominence.
I rest my case :-) |
You've rested your case on two out of date editing ruleset validations.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is definitely a big-assed gray area...
Heck, I think of myself as an expert on what will and what will not pass validation, but I still don't know where this line really is drawn.
The thumbnail rule, I guess, is a good way to go - but frankly, it's pretty easy to argue both examples you posted would fall under the 'changes average viewer's description' category of DQ.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2014 01:33:11 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I rest my case :-) |
Problem is that those are old photos and old decisions, and may or may not represent the way a photo would currently be interpreted. This is one of the areas of the rules where subjectivity is involved, and it is impossible to be completely consistent.
Your best bet at this point, since we are not right up against the submission deadline, would be to submit a ticket with the original and proposed edit, and let one or more SC members give you a "informal opinion" (NOT "pre-validation") about whether it is DPC-legal or not. It's much easier to advise you on this if we can see what you are doing, rather than opining on a vague hypothetical ... |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 01:55:58 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Your best bet at this point, since we are not right up against the submission deadline.... |
Forgive me Paul, but that's some serious bullshit. :)
13 days should be WAY more than enough time for a prevalidation.
Honestly, you guys do need to figure out a way to deal with this particular situation more effectively - if you can't pre-validate with 13 days left before the deadline, then I can't see how you'd ever manage to be able to do so.
Really, no offense intended, but this is a significant weakness in DPC right now. |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 02:31:39 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Cory:
[quote=GeneralE]
Forgive me Paul, but that's some serious bullshit. :)
13 days should be WAY more than enough time for a prevalidation. |
Cory, it's not the time available, it's the time that would be required if the SC offered a full "pre-validation" service. They cannot afford to do that, because everybody and their brother would ask for it, and the SC would be buried.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2014 03:02:43 PM · #13 |
We don't do "pre-validations" simply because there is no way to know that the file we looked at in advance is the same one entered into the challenge, and because there is no way we can require everyone who might be voting on validation later to look at potential entries in advance.
We can only "validate" an entry once it has been entered and is in the voting stage, and we have compared it with the original.
ETA: We have received requests for our "unofficial opinion" on issues such as this on the same day as the deadline. How far in advance do you think people should have to ask before our refusal ceases to be semisolid digestive waste of male bovine origin?
Message edited by author 2014-01-17 15:07:00. |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 04:19:58 PM · #14 |
| That's just plain sad. We've always been able to do it, nobody's officially told us we CAN'T do it, and now we've been cautioned that *maybe* it's not a good idea to do it because there's no telling how the committee will vote when push comes to shove. THAT'S a dysfunctional ruleset, people. No wonder folks get confused. |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 04:35:32 PM · #15 |
| How can I possibly say "it's officially OK" without SEEING it? |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 04:43:07 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Honestly, you guys do need to figure out a way to deal with this particular situation more effectively - if you can't pre-validate with 13 days left before the deadline, then I can't see how you'd ever manage to be able to do so.
Really, no offense intended, but this is a significant weakness in DPC right now. |
No.
Read the rules. Take what you can know from them. Work accordingly.
If a rule makes something you want to do questionable, don't do it.
There is plenty of freedom in challenges to submit a decent image without having to resort to trying to salvage that "almost" spectacular shot with editing tricks.
Nobody is really ever happy being DQed, and SC has to bear the brunt of the abuse when someone takes it really badly and starts up an "I hate those unforgiving bastids in SC.".
Why on earth would they sign up for that crap before a challenge even starts???
|
|
|
|
01/17/2014 04:47:57 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How can I possibly say "it's officially OK" without SEEING it? |
That's not my point. Of course you can't. But you HAVE just told us that the previously validated examples of this "might not be legal" at this time. That's the part that worries me. And lord knows I'm not blaming anyone either, least of all you; it just seems wonky to me, that's all. |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 04:56:19 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
How can I possibly say "it's officially OK" without SEEING it? |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's not my point. Of course you can't. But you HAVE just told us that the previously validated examples of this "might not be legal" at this time. That's the part that worries me. And lord knows I'm not blaming anyone either, least of all you; it just seems wonky to me, that's all. |
I seem to remember you and I both being around the last time one of the seriously splitting hairs DQs came around, and I know if I was on SC, I'd be damn cautious. As I remember, that last one got pretty ugly and bitter.
Nobody's ever happy with the rules........but the hue & cry is rarely to tighten them up, it's virtually always to relax them.
That doesn't seem right. There are so many good photogs who simply don't need to push the boundaries. Are they sometimes vague? Maybe so, but they're certainly not unreasonable if you have a truly good image to start.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2014 05:03:08 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That doesn't seem right. There are so many good photogs who simply don't need to push the boundaries. Are they sometimes vague? Maybe so, but they're certainly not unreasonable if you have a truly good image to start. |
This isn't about pushing boundaries. This is about hanging stuff from wires and strings and then cloning them out. We've been doing it as long as I've been here. We've just been told it may not be a good idea to do it anymore. It's CONFUSING :-) I'm SURPRISED! I've been around almost a decade and it never occurred to me my advice in this case might be dangerous...
I'm not gonna push it any further, I'm just surprised by this particular bit of information, OK? |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 05:21:30 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
That doesn't seem right. There are so many good photogs who simply don't need to push the boundaries. Are they sometimes vague? Maybe so, but they're certainly not unreasonable if you have a truly good image to start. |
This isn't about pushing boundaries. This is about hanging stuff from wires and strings and then cloning them out. We've been doing it as long as I've been here. We've just been told it may not be a good idea to do it anymore. It's CONFUSING :-) I'm SURPRISED! I've been around almost a decade and it never occurred to me my advice in this case might be dangerous...
I'm not gonna push it any further, I'm just surprised by this particular bit of information, OK? |
The Advanced Rule set has been updated three times since  Coley's picture was validated -- I'm not prepared at this to research any differences and decide whether some picture I haven't seen would be judged legal by a different set of voters. WTF is wrong with suggesting the OP submit the Before/After images so I/we can at least see what the current image looks like before rendering an opinion?
FWIW not every photo is validated (or disqualified) with a unanimous vote ... |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 05:36:08 PM · #21 |
Paul, I'm not annoyed at you. Or anyone for that matter. I'm standing on the outside expressing perplexity at a sense of ambiguity-where-I'd-thought-there-was-none. It's certainly not YOUR fault that it exists, if it does.
But I *will* say this: in my opinion (and it's an opinion only), if it's actually the case that either of those Coley pics would be disqualified under today's advanced ruleset, then we've gone seriously backwards with the rules. |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 05:37:00 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
ETA: We have received requests for our "unofficial opinion" on issues such as this on the same day as the deadline. How far in advance do you think people should have to ask before our refusal ceases to be semisolid digestive waste of male bovine origin? |
I suppose it's more just that we need some way to discern what is safe and what is not Paul..
I have many times chosen to not take a risk with cloning, and my entries have suffered for it.
You guys aren't really at fault - but as I said, this is a serious gap. Where the go/no-go line lies is about as clear as mud. |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 05:46:53 PM · #23 |
Surely this is about fooling the viewer, not cloning per se. If the phenomenon being photographed might conceivably be possible without the wire (but would be hard) then its reasonable to assume voters will give marks for that. On the other hand if the image can really only be achieved with wires and everyone knows they must have been cloned out then there is no problem - it's aesthetic tweaking not artful deception. So, I would contend that a major element is something that would fundamentally change the perception of a photograph AND a photographic process.
Now, I'm not saying that this is how it should be - just that this is the rule that I would apply to my own work as a mental exercise as to whether it would pass muster. I think it's unlikely I'd fall foul of a DQ under this rule. |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 06:06:23 PM · #24 |
If the criterion is "fooling the viewer", then to be consistent doesn't it follow that in any situation where cloning wires would be a transgression we should also DQ the image if it's LIT in such a way that we can't SEE the wires? If not, then why is it OK to "light" the wires away but not to "clone" them away? Both are photographic techniques in the 21st century.
Message edited by author 2014-01-17 18:06:37. |
|
|
|
01/17/2014 06:34:40 PM · #25 |
I think it's simply a question of extent.
If Coley's bicycles are held up with huge, thick ropes -- then I think it's a major element, and can't be cloned out. If they're hung with piano wire, that shows in parts, but is quite thin, and really doesn't show in the thumbnail, then it should be legal.
If a child is hung from a harness from a tree so that he's "flying", that seems way too much to clone out, and is more in the area of expert editing.
There's a difference between trying to set something up that's "hidden", but the light catches it wrong and in certain areas, and blatantly just using large chunks of props that you intend to clone out. |
|
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: 07/28/2025 01:27:38 PM EDT.
