| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/02/2015 03:44:39 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
ETA: It's high time we talked seriously about modifying the "single scene" language to allow panoramas. I know L wanted to reserve that for special-rules challenges, but now with the larger image sizes we really have the capability to display these images much better. Why not allow it? |
It's under discussion. The only potential stumbling block right now is whether in-camera panoramas provide valid EXIF... Mine certainly does... |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 03:47:43 PM · #52 |
| OUT OF CURIOSITY, I'd be interested in seeing how many of those reading this thread believe the image under discussion should have been allowed to stand, for reasoning such as Kirbic just provided? In other words, do you folks WANT your SC to be awarding exceptions to rules if the intent of the photographer was benign and DQ seems too draconian of a response? |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 03:57:53 PM · #53 |
| good question. I think the rules need a tweak, not SC. (Though if you asked maybe you could get a fair number of volunteers to tweak you guys and gals). I am full of benign intentions, but that does not keep me from unintentionally infringing. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:01:16 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
OUT OF CURIOSITY, I'd be interested in seeing how many of those reading this thread believe the image under discussion should have been allowed to stand, for reasoning such as Kirbic just provided? In other words, do you folks WANT your SC to be awarding exceptions to rules if the intent of the photographer was benign and DQ seems too draconian of a response? |
My thought (without seeing the original image) is that SC made the correct call, the photographer has already stated that the foreground crop made it a stronger image - would it be such a strong image if the sky was cropped the same way? if it was as strong then no need to break the (current) rules but I'm guessing that the wide sky with narrower foreground somehow enhanced the image? (I personally thought the light on the tree was a little funky and couldn't work out how it was achieved and this drew me to the image). |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:04:40 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
OUT OF CURIOSITY, I'd be interested in seeing how many of those reading this thread believe the image under discussion should have been allowed to stand, for reasoning such as Kirbic just provided? In other words, do you folks WANT your SC to be awarding exceptions to rules if the intent of the photographer was benign and DQ seems too draconian of a response? |
yes. I'd like the SC to make exceptions. its why i asked what the purpose of rules are to begin with. if the rule was broken but didn't violate the spirit or purpose of that particular rule, then an exception should be made.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:08:00 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
OUT OF CURIOSITY, I'd be interested in seeing how many of those reading this thread believe the image under discussion should have been allowed to stand, for reasoning such as Kirbic just provided? In other words, do you folks WANT your SC to be awarding exceptions to rules if the intent of the photographer was benign and DQ seems too draconian of a response? |
I hate to trot out legal jargon, but just how in Hades would you ever establish "Mens Rea" in a venue such as this. One would think that given the rules and the challenge description that in scenarios such as this, "Actus Reus" would be the measuring stick.
As much as I care for my friend  Kirbic, and notwithstanding my admiration for the SC members, I really have no idea just how you could ever measure intent and because of this, I cannot in good conscience support exceptions to the rules based on something that is not quantifiable.
Just another man's view.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:18:46 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
OUT OF CURIOSITY, I'd be interested in seeing how many of those reading this thread believe the image under discussion should have been allowed to stand, for reasoning such as Kirbic just provided? In other words, do you folks WANT your SC to be awarding exceptions to rules if the intent of the photographer was benign and DQ seems too draconian of a response? |
I hate to trot out legal jargon, but just how in Hades would you ever establish "Mens Rea" in a venue such as this. One would think that given the rules and the challenge description that in scenarios such as this, "Actus Reus" would be the measuring stick.
As much as I care for my friend Kirbic, and notwithstanding my admiration for the SC members, I really have no idea just how you could ever measure intent and because of this, I cannot in good conscience support exceptions to the rules based on something that is not quantifiable.
Just another man's view.
Ray |
How about replacing 'intent' (or lack thereof) with reasonable interpretation, as judged by SC? |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:22:10 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
My thought (without seeing the original image) is that SC made the correct call, the photographer has already stated that the foreground crop made it a stronger image - would it be such a strong image if the sky was cropped the same way? if it was as strong then no need to break the (current) rules but I'm guessing that the wide sky with narrower foreground somehow enhanced the image? (I personally thought the light on the tree was a little funky and couldn't work out how it was achieved and this drew me to the image). |
That's not the issue. Imagine you put your camera on a tripod with a 17-40mm lens on it and framed up the image at 35mm because you liked the prominent stump on the left. Then you zoomed out to, say, 20mm to try a wider angle. Now, in this case, if you CROP the wider shot it will be identical to the narrower one, just a tad grainier. In this case, it happened that the wider shot was more underexposed than the narrower one, so the photographer merged the sky from that one into the narrower one, after cropping, enlarging, and aligning the wider one to fit. But she was hand-held, not on a tripod... BTW, the "light on the tree" wasn't changing.
Message edited by author 2015-06-02 16:32:55. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:25:26 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Paul:
How about replacing 'intent' (or lack thereof) with reasonable interpretation, as judged by SC? |
That is something I most definitely could support.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:29:15 PM · #60 |
| I think SC made the right call given the current rules. These decisions have to be made on the actual photos and written rules or the lines will be too blurred to be fair. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:41:43 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... I cannot in good conscience support exceptions to the rules based on something that is not quantifiable.
Just another man's view.
Ray |
Mine too ... subjectively-made decisions are always wrong, as considered by one "side" or the other (sometimes both). It always engenders feelings/accusations of favoritism, bias, idiocy, and a variety of other negative characteristics with which I try to avoid association. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:51:51 PM · #62 |
| Thanks for the clarification [user]Bear[/user], makes (more) sense now. I still think it is a great image in its own right but agree with the DQ. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 04:56:37 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
OUT OF CURIOSITY, I'd be interested in seeing how many of those reading this thread believe the image under discussion should have been allowed to stand, for reasoning such as Kirbic just provided? In other words, do you folks WANT your SC to be awarding exceptions to rules if the intent of the photographer was benign and DQ seems too draconian of a response? |
Given Kirbic's logic and your detailed explanation of it in a more recent post, I would have liked it to have been validated as legal.
Other than date/exif infractions/mistakes, the discussions the SC has regarding potential DQs are mostly subjective, are they not? Focus stacking is legal; HDR is legal ΓΆ€” a handheld focus stack job that went wonky but was corrected in post processing to not take advantage of any perspective distortions is a legitimate challenge entry in my book. I would agree fully with the SC's decision if they looked at it and didn't think it added up properly, but for the SC to DQ it because they were unable to look at it subjectively isn't right as far as I'm concerned, nor is it accurate in the context of all the other subjective rulings. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 05:06:45 PM · #64 |
I agree with the decision by SC. The 'rules' state combined images of the same scene. A wider perspective is just not the same scene, and doesn't really seem to meet the intent of the rules.
Agree rules might be arbitrary, but they seem clear to me. When I take multiple exposures, which is admittedly not often, I thought it was expected that I have to leave my camera set to the same scene. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 05:27:47 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
My thought (without seeing the original image) is that SC made the correct call, the photographer has already stated that the foreground crop made it a stronger image - would it be such a strong image if the sky was cropped the same way? if it was as strong then no need to break the (current) rules but I'm guessing that the wide sky with narrower foreground somehow enhanced the image? (I personally thought the light on the tree was a little funky and couldn't work out how it was achieved and this drew me to the image). |
That's not the issue. Imagine you put your camera on a tripod with a 17-40mm lens on it and framed up the image at 35mm because you liked the prominent stump on the left. Then you zoomed out to, say, 20mm to try a wider angle. Now, in this case, if you CROP the wider shot it will be identical to the narrower one, just a tad grainier. In this case, it happened that the wider shot was more underexposed than the narrower one, so the photographer merged the sky from that one into the narrower one, after cropping, enlarging, and aligning the wider one to fit. But she was hand-held, not on a tripod... BTW, the "light on the tree" wasn't changing. |
you keep talking about zoom here but the actual difference between the two shots was 10mm and 11mm. The sky is wider because she shifted over a bit, not intentionally. Just didn't have a tripod. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 05:34:54 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
My thought (without seeing the original image) is that SC made the correct call, the photographer has already stated that the foreground crop made it a stronger image - would it be such a strong image if the sky was cropped the same way? if it was as strong then no need to break the (current) rules but I'm guessing that the wide sky with narrower foreground somehow enhanced the image? (I personally thought the light on the tree was a little funky and couldn't work out how it was achieved and this drew me to the image). |
That's not the issue. Imagine you put your camera on a tripod with a 17-40mm lens on it and framed up the image at 35mm because you liked the prominent stump on the left. Then you zoomed out to, say, 20mm to try a wider angle. Now, in this case, if you CROP the wider shot it will be identical to the narrower one, just a tad grainier. In this case, it happened that the wider shot was more underexposed than the narrower one, so the photographer merged the sky from that one into the narrower one, after cropping, enlarging, and aligning the wider one to fit. But she was hand-held, not on a tripod... BTW, the "light on the tree" wasn't changing. |
you keep talking about zoom here but the actual difference between the two shots was 10mm and 11mm. The sky is wider because she shifted over a bit, not intentionally. Just didn't have a tripod. |
How do you know this? Is there someplace to see both originals? |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 05:39:04 PM · #67 |
| I don't agree with the DQ. If the wider shot was cropped to fit the narrower one (and if the camera is in the same place pointed at the same static subject), it's the same scene in my opinion, and it plainly doesn't violate the intent of the rule. If we're to allow HDR bracketed shots that are auto-aligned in Photoshop, the difference to me is negligible, and doesn't justify putting a blue ribbon image at the bottom of the stack. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 05:44:27 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
|
Let's be clear on one thing; the deviation here isn't like the difference between 17mm and 18mm, it's more like the difference between 17mm and 24mm, or something. The source image for the sky was MUCH wider.
|
Previously the difference in camera angle specifically said to be more than just 1 mm. So I'm really confused - which was it?
Message edited by author 2015-06-02 17:45:53. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 06:00:20 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Jules1x:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
|
Let's be clear on one thing; the deviation here isn't like the difference between 17mm and 18mm, it's more like the difference between 17mm and 24mm, or something. The source image for the sky was MUCH wider.
|
Previously the difference in camera angle specifically said to be more than just 1 mm. So I'm really confused - which was it? |
My interpretation of events is that the two different exposures are more than 1mm apart, but the second photo was cropped so that the original scene and perspective remained intact, but it wasn't exactly precise (about 1mm off). That's a harsh DQ.
As ecmguy noted, we align shots all the time. Bits are copped off here and there to keep the scene intact. And here, the photographer put in extra effort to keep the scene intact.
The rules are results-based, right? The results are exactly (or nearly) what they would have been had the photographer not been inebriated and on roller skates. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 06:03:12 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Taking things away is one thing. Adding things that did not exist and making it look like they were always there is quite another. That's what we have expert editing for. |
This is where I get confused, by taking something away then you have to add something and in the quoted image it's sea and sky so why is that ok? |
Because that's exactly what you'd be seeing if the boat wasn't there! In the dress example, the dress never HAD a fringe of fur down there, Tanguera invented it because it "looked better". That's what we do in expert. In advanced, we don't make things up. Me may eliminate stuff that distracts us, up to a point (nothing major), but we can't, say clone a duplicate of the house on the left into the clearing on the upper right. |
Judging by the bad photoshop scar the ship was (something major). |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 06:43:39 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
you keep talking about zoom here but the actual difference between the two shots was 10mm and 11mm. The sky is wider because she shifted over a bit, not intentionally. Just didn't have a tripod. |
You're right, I misspoke. I was typing all this from memory of the originals. It's not zoom, it's shift. However, it's a LOT of shift; the trunk is on the very edge of one image and nearly centered in the other... |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 07:14:10 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
you keep talking about zoom here but the actual difference between the two shots was 10mm and 11mm. The sky is wider because she shifted over a bit, not intentionally. Just didn't have a tripod. |
You're right, I misspoke. I was typing all this from memory of the originals. It's not zoom, it's shift. However, it's a LOT of shift; the trunk is on the very edge of one image and nearly centered in the other... |
So then, the salient question seems to be, is all of the submitted image contained within the overlapping portions of the original images? If this is the case, then truly this DQ is an egregious error. If not, then under the current rules it is justified.
|
|
|
|
06/02/2015 08:11:54 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Ecce_Signum:
My thought (without seeing the original image) is that SC made the correct call, the photographer has already stated that the foreground crop made it a stronger image - would it be such a strong image if the sky was cropped the same way? if it was as strong then no need to break the (current) rules but I'm guessing that the wide sky with narrower foreground somehow enhanced the image? (I personally thought the light on the tree was a little funky and couldn't work out how it was achieved and this drew me to the image). |
That's not the issue. Imagine you put your camera on a tripod with a 17-40mm lens on it and framed up the image at 35mm because you liked the prominent stump on the left. Then you zoomed out to, say, 20mm to try a wider angle. Now, in this case, if you CROP the wider shot it will be identical to the narrower one, just a tad grainier. In this case, it happened that the wider shot was more underexposed than the narrower one, so the photographer merged the sky from that one into the narrower one, after cropping, enlarging, and aligning the wider one to fit. But she was hand-held, not on a tripod... BTW, the "light on the tree" wasn't changing. |
you keep talking about zoom here but the actual difference between the two shots was 10mm and 11mm. The sky is wider because she shifted over a bit, not intentionally. Just didn't have a tripod. |
How do you know this? Is there someplace to see both originals? |
I know this due to intimate knowledge of the photographer in question. :)
I've not seen the originals, so that's all I'm going to say on the matter. |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 08:28:51 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I know this due to intimate knowledge of the photographer in question. :)
I've not seen the originals, so that's all I'm going to say on the matter. |
Fair enough. :-) |
|
|
|
06/02/2015 08:30:59 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
So then, the salient question seems to be, is all of the submitted image contained within the overlapping portions of the original images? If this is the case, then truly this DQ is an egregious error. If not, then under the current rules it is justified. |
In my opinion, if she moved enough to have the tree in a totally different place in the two photos, then she does not have two photos of exactly the same scene even if the part used was in both photos. |
|
