| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2004 08:23:32 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
I don't get it. We have heard now from four (4) Site Council Members and only one of them has even attempted to address the issue and his answer is that it was addressed before the challenge started and therefore isn't even an issue.
Is this the official answer then? |
Ummm, it's been validated. Which means they discussed it. So unless his EXIF is evil, I think that's the official answer. :) |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 09:02:26 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Ummm, it's been validated. Which means they discussed it. So unless his EXIF is evil, I think that's the official answer. :) |
But this doesn't address the core issue!
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 09:15:37 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by blemt:
Ummm, it's been validated. Which means they discussed it. So unless his EXIF is evil, I think that's the official answer. :) |
But this doesn't address the core issue! |
I believe it did, if the 'core issue' is whether this entry is legal. We validated the entry, which means it is.
Is there another issue I'm missing?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 09:42:29 PM · #79 |
There are two schools of thought here.
A) People that use Photoshop to polish their images
B) People that use Photoshop to enhance their images
These look similar, but let me put it to you this way. People A, can go back to doing Film, and not owning a computer, and make the images they want. School B, would quit taking pictures.
I'm in School A. Frankly, it's hard to compare my images that I submit with ones that School B submit. The School B ones are sharper, have fewer flaws, colors are more saturated, and they are missing "distracting elements" that to me, add charachter to the image.
What seems to be the simple way to put it, is how do you compare school A, and School B fairly without limiting one school or the other.
Hopefully that makes sense, if not, catch me at robbii95 on AIM, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. If your username doesn't match, please let me know your DPC username on your first message. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 09:53:11 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by eckoe:
There are two schools of thought here.
A) People that use Photoshop to polish their images
B) People that use Photoshop to enhance their images
These look similar, but let me put it to you this way. People A, can go back to doing Film, and not owning a computer, and make the images they want. School B, would quit taking pictures.
I'm in School A. Frankly, it's hard to compare my images that I submit with ones that School B submit. The School B ones are sharper, have fewer flaws, colors are more saturated, and they are missing "distracting elements" that to me, add charachter to the image.
What seems to be the simple way to put it, is how do you compare school A, and School B fairly without limiting one school or the other.
Hopefully that makes sense, if not, catch me at robbii95 on AIM, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. If your username doesn't match, please let me know your DPC username on your first message. |
Hey eckoe, how about taking a glance at my portfolio and telling me which school I fall into. I can't seem to understand your logic.
I don't like the highly manipulated images that are popular with many here so that would say I'm an A. But I can't go back to film so I must be a B. So confusing. Please help, I don't want to have to quit taking pictures. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 10:03:56 PM · #81 |
Like me, You seem to like to use the camera to show your point. I'd classify you as an A.
Like me, you wont' stop taking pictures, and likely won't stop submitting photo's here, because you like doing it. I'm 30% of the way for paying for my digital rebel in the savings from developing, and have taken more shots since then.
To clarify, I'm not here to win ribbons. Personally, comments are what keep me going, and TooCool, and e301, Tranquil, and several others are causing me to think about things that I wouldnt' have thought of a month ago. However, it'll be a LOOOONG time before you see anything more than a crop, resize, or brightness/contrast change in PS from me.
I think everyone here has different reasons for posting, and what they want to do with their images, it's just REALLY tough to judge these two schools simultaneously. I'm not even sure looking back that I'm completely fair. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 10:21:42 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
I believe it did, if the 'core issue' is whether this entry is legal. We validated the entry, which means it is.
Is there another issue I'm missing?
-Terry |
It is quite obvious that the impact of the submission is derived not from the photograph itself, but instead from the addition of the element of the border. This was refered to by Konador as a 'simple' border. However this is a bogus statement. A simple border is simply a frame around the photograph. It may enhance, or detract from the impact of the photograph, but it doesn't create the impact. In this case, the impact of the photograph is CREATED by the frame, not enhanced by it. How can I make such a statement? Read the comments on the shot itself during submission. 37 out of 49 comments during the challenge mention the panels, tryptich or frame. Out of these 37 comments, 8 of them don't even refer to the original photograph at all. Now how can you say that this is a simple border that doesn't add a compositional element to the piece? How is this different than creating glass shards and placing them in the photograph? That is the core issue.
Edited to make this not so confrontational. Sorry Terry, it sounded like I was attacking you and I wasn't meaning to. I gotta learn to use the preview button more!
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 22:26:42.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 10:22:05 PM · #83 |
| So it's ok for me to go to class at School A even though I don't have a deep background in film. That's a relief, ty eckoe. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 11:22:59 PM · #84 |
A Suggested Path Forward ...
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
{snip}
The solution to this unending nightmare is very simple yet it is not addressed in its full dimension. First, let us define the final objective:
First and foremost basic editing and advance editing should bear rules to preserve the full integrity of the image. Basic editing should include the removal of minor imperfections, such as hairs, dirt and sensor dirt artifacts. Advance editing is simply to allow the use of tools to help deliniate contrast and tonal values. Use of copies of background in other modes than normal to enhance lighting, contrast and again tonal values. That is it for advance. In short, basic and advance have as the primary concern the preservation of the integrity of the image.
Then you have creative editing. Here the object is not to preserve the integrity but rather to allow creative artistic expression. In this form filters are allowed. No moving of elemenst are allowed, but the indroduction of frames, or dedicated special effects.
Then you have: Digital Editing which is totally open but elements must all bear the date required.
{snip} |
Reading this thread from top to bottom and countless other related threads I would draw a few conclusions and I have a suggestion.
Conclusion: Current rules create confusion through ambiguity of what is legal editing.
Conclusion: Many participants want the freedom to extend the impact of their photos through graphic editing techniques whose legality is ambiguous or forbidden under current rules.
Conclusion: Many participants prefer more stringent editing rules to preserve the photographic integrity of challenge submissions and would prefer addressing legal ambiguity by tightening the rules.
Conclusion: You can't please everyone every time.
Suggestion: I suggest the Site Council (or preferably a specially chartered committee of members selected by the Site Council) develop a 4 tier editing structure along the lines suggested by graphicfunk. Such a structure would allow members to participate at the editing level that best represents their interest, ability and photographic desire. The committee would then review provisional editing tiers and guidelines with the Site Council to obtain suggestions on how to make they more clear and less ambiguous. Once revised, put the new editing tier structure and rules up for a vote of paid members. If approved, they would be adopted. I volunteer to participate on such a standards committee.
This suggestion would have a few other benefits. It might tend to increase the number of challenges reducing the number of entries in each to a more manageable level for voting. It could level the playing field in each tier making comparison of photos more meaningful. And to close with a laugh ... [laugh] We could have a real election with campaign speaches, buttons, and whole (ignorable) forums for soapbox apeals to vote.[/laugh]
Site Council ... seriously, I'd ask you to seriously consider. Thanks ... DQ.
Edit: All in favor, say "Aye!"
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 23:43:37. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 11:27:07 PM · #85 |
Okay: so we are all beating a dead horse. Since this image was validated it means the part of the frame was made in the camera, the two verticals and then the outside border added in post processing. How else can it have been validated.
If this is the case then this thread officially vindicates BradP. However, even if that is the case, there still remains ambiguity with the attitude that you do as you like within the rules and if you stretch it too far we will dq you. This is the only reason this thread was created. It was not made to reflect on Brad. Look, the voters here know when they are being taken and rarely ribbon an image they deem out of bounds.
Everyone speaks about how difficult it is to write rules with few loopholes. In that case why have any rules at all. And since this is the case, why have rules that fall so short?
Some of you will argue that it is good that the freedom is left to us..but listen to what you are saying. You will one day work an image and push the rules and then you will have to wait to see if it will be accepted. If you were super cute then the council will agree with you and then that norm will become legal. More forms will rise and at what point will it end?
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 23:36:53. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 11:29:53 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
A Suggested Path Forward ...
All in favor, say "Aigh!" |
Aye aye aye.................. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 11:53:13 PM · #87 |
| It never ocurred to me that Brads simple triptych framing was any more of an added element than any other type of frame. In an earlier example, pictures of discrete objects (snapshot corner tabs) were placed on the photo. That seems like a clear difference to me. IMO, a well concieved frame can make a big difference in aesthetic appeal, but many submissions hurt themselves with trying to be too creative. I don't think we're in danger of being overwhelmed with rococo frames. I think Brad's is a great example of presenting to great advantage what you have already accomplished photographically. If people want to start going nuts with frames, I yhink the voting results will bring them back to reality. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 12:09:02 AM · #88 |
Boy oh boy...
Frames are added often PP and often are blasted for such. This was a case of just such, with the added element of two additional verticals in the same fashion the outsides were added. I made this known in the comments after the challenge as well as in the photographer's comment box.
If this issue will be the catalyst for crossing the line between photography and digital art, then digital art it is and shit can the picture. I took the chance knowing it would pushing the envelope a bit.
If the future of this iste being a free-for-all regarding what can and cannot be done, shit can the picture. I wil take no offense.
Yes, I wish I had the equipment to allow me the freedom to do what I need to do, but in a nutshell, I don't. I have to make up for what my camera lacks in it's 5-year old imaging sensor by post-processing it. I adjust in curves, I boost saturation levels, I sharpen in lab color, I go into selectives and adjust Black, Neutral and White levels.
Dump the shot - it's not worth the degradation of the site.
Let's move on.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 12:50:01 AM · #89 |
Brad: you are not only a nice guy but a modest one at that. What you just said above could have been said by a member from the council. If you can believe it, the problem is that there is a lot that is unresolved in the rules and when someome crosses to something which was never done before with the current rules it simply gives rise to reopen all the other misgiving regarding the rules.
Listen, your image is great and you have earned the ribbon. Case closed.
This does not mean that the place will now go digital, but that now the triptych frame is allowed. Yes, it will be followed by other creative frames.
Again: this proves my point that the it is left to members to push the rules until they get busted. You see, I would not know where to put my face if my image was dq, so for me, I have to follow the instructions on stay on the cautious side. I mean, I would have never thought of attempting a triptych. I just do not see this stretch. Yet I am happy you did it because it simply opens another form of expression.
Of course, the site council will defend their decision proving my point that the rules are as flexible and as muttable as the moving sands. If we like your usage and bending of the rules we will accept them, if not we will dq them.
Again congrats. Remember , you have pioneered not a new form, but the use od a the popular triptych. Tomorrow somebody else will break another barrier and when it goes too far the council will meditate and restructure a new comprehensive set of rules. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:14:41 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Since this image was validated it means the part of the frame was made in the camera, the two verticals and then the outside border added in post processing. |
According to Brad's notes, this is not the case. The verticals were created in photoshop. This is not the question, this is a given in this instance.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
How else can it have been validated. |
This is in my mind the serious question. Why/how was it validated. What was the reasoning?
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
If this is the case then this thread officially vindicates BradP. However, even if that is the case, there still remains ambiguity with the attitude that you do as you like within the rules and if you stretch it too far we will dq you. This is the only reason this thread was created. It was not made to reflect on Brad. Look, the voters here know when they are being taken and rarely ribbon an image they deem out of bounds. |
Not necesarily true. The voters were taken twice in the Window View challenge...
Where is the consistancy? You can add compositional elements or you can not add compositional elements. You can not have it both ways. Was it validated because the Council Members all liked the effect? Becuase they wanted to throw the members a bone after all the hard feelings about the 'Masters Challenge'? Because this is the direction they believe the site should be moving towards? Why?
To the site council: I beg of you to simply explain how/why this was validated before the members of the site even got a chance to look at it and explain their reasoning for why it should be dq'ed (and don't say it's a simple border 'cause, I'm sorry it ain't.) I promise to drop the whole issue. However I will require consistency...
To BradP: Originally posted by BradP:
Dump the shot - it's not worth the degradation of the site.
Let's move on. |
The character you show is exemplary. I'm proud and humbled to be able to share my standing as a member with you!
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 01:34:21 AM · #91 |
I am going to withdraw from this thread because I am in no way suggesting that Brad's image be dq. The bone we are picking here is with the site council which has aptly avoided this thread altogether.
The excuse given by one council member defy's common sense and everyone else has remain silent. Fine.
All that TooCool was addressing is where do we go from here. Do we proceed with the same ambiguity? Apparantly that is the answer of the site council. Since I do not own the site I will simply go back to my corner and be silent and let the wiser ones take care or ignore this request. It is certain that the place is split. I will just watch the rules evolve and examine what has been done. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 02:03:40 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
I am going to withdraw from this thread because I am in no way suggesting that Brad's image be dq. The bone we are picking here is with the site council which has aptly avoided this thread altogether.
The excuse given by one council member defy's common sense and everyone else has remain silent. Fine.
All that TooCool was addressing is where do we go from here. Do we proceed with the same ambiguity? Apparantly that is the answer of the site council. Since I do not own the site I will simply go back to my corner and be silent and let the wiser ones take care or ignore this request. It is certain that the place is split. I will just watch the rules evolve and examine what has been done. |
I am almost there myself. The only thing that keeps me looking and hoping is a sincere passion for this site that so far has refused to let me drop this. I'm deeply saddened that there has been no real response from those that could put this to rest...
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 02:25:07 AM · #93 |
Here's an idea:
Dump the shot without punitive DQ violation marks, and disallow the use of frames completely from this point forward unless specifically permitted in extra rules, similar to being allow to add text to a challenge. Seems this will be the only way to level the playing field - all or none.
FWIW, I had a copy of my submission in my workshop folder and asked SC to see if it was allowed ahaed of time, as I was not going to be able to change it as I was going out of town. That is how it was validated ahead of time, without the original in their hands. I explained what I did. It was brought up to a vote, and evidently was allowed.
I have no beef with any decisions made either way - I'm just here to have fun, learn and pretend I know what I'm doing. LOL
Edited for spelling errors I blame on my defective keyboard..yeah right!
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 02:26:31.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 02:41:59 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Seems this will be the only way to level the playing field - all or none. |
Disagree, Brad your ribbon was won fair and square, you entered a shot that was deemed legal by the SC and did deservedly well with it. If your image were to be disallowed then the issue would be escalated and the lynch mob would be out to get all images with anything other than a basic black or white border of no great than 5px.
The sensible way forward seems to be to add another level of editing where everyone can be clear where they stand. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:34:24 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
To the site council: I beg of you to simply explain how/why this was validated before the members of the site even got a chance to look at it and explain their reasoning for why it should be dq'ed (and don't say it's a simple border 'cause, I'm sorry it ain't.) I promise to drop the whole issue. However I will require consistency... |
Okay, if you want a response from the whole SC you might have to wait some time, more than a day at least, as we are all real people (gasp!) and do have other commitments. I will however try to clearly give reasons why I voted that the shot was legal. Bear in mind I'm not the best person at putting things into words so don't go nit-picking at every tiny thing I say.
1) We have allowed the same technique before. You keep going on about consistency. How inconsistent would it be to DQ this shot when the motivational poster 3rd place used the same technique.
2) At first I wondered whether it was adding major elements to the photo, but then I dismissed that. Why? Here is the rule: "blah balh blah however using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not." The border, even if it could be considered a major element of the presentation, is NOT a major element of the photograph.
3) There are no rules in Advanced Editing mentioning what can and can't be done with borders. The fact that they can't include artwork etc comes from this rule: You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images, or elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week), and other similar items. (Notice the use of the word 'entry' here, rather than 'photograph', which includes the border whereas photograph doesn't.)
4) I believe the use of a triptych does not break the spirit of the rules, and links in with traditional photography. This can only ever be personal opinion.
5) Why didn't we let the voters decide? We were asked by the photographer before the challenge whether the technique was legal. Saying "I dunno, wait and see!" isn't what we're here for.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 04:18:04 AM · #96 |
I don't see that it should be DQ'd - but under a careful reading of the rules it seems that it probably ought to be.
To remind some people of what happened with the Window View challenge. It was not simply a case of one contentious photograph. There was already a fierce argument running about a previous entry from Aleks, and then the fact that two highly edited shots came first and second really tipped things over the line. The rules were re-written, and the three shots (one of mine, two of Aleks') were then disqualified.
We could go into reasons for the rest of our lives, if we wanted; it seems to me, that Aleks and I were guilty of fooling people, being too clever with our editing (though in all three cases I would suggest that a careful look at the images would have made it quite plain that they were heavily edited). It was the huge pressure of people's unhappiness that created the DQ's, along with the chance coicidence of an SC majority decision.
There can be no effective ruling on this matter. Not only is it a fine line that is attempting to be defined, it is a fine line who's edges are blurred, as it's impact depends upon the specific challenge being undertaken. It also appears to be a blurred fine line that moves from time to time, which just makes it the more confusing for those of us here who like to play near the limits of what the site allows.
It is, as it always as been, an inevitable upsht of the relaxing of the editing rules way back when. I personally findd it more upsetting that folks like and vote highly for those ludicrously over-burnt images we're now getting all over every challenge. But times will change ... that's the only thing we can be confident of.
E |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 07:08:44 AM · #97 |
Geez I have been following this thread since it started, reluctantly holding back because I don't want to offend anyone. I love brad's entry -- I think it is a beautiful picture and no doubt deserved it's place.
On another note, I agree with pcody, what if there's something you don't want in your image that you wish you could clone out -- just add a border like this one and your problem's solved.
For the future, I'd say borders should only be allowed to reside around the outside of an image and obviously brad should NOT be dq'd because the shot was cleared before he entered, otherwise, he would have entered the shot with a simple border instead.
cheers |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 07:33:21 AM · #98 |
I strongly believe in the ability of systems, including this site, to regulate themselves. In the past, those entries with obtrusive, ugly, or non-elegant borders have been penalized accordingly. Feathered borders, for example, are highly discouraged by the voters. Some people have even commented (on some of my shots) that a fairly plain "double" border is too much.
Therefore, it is my considered opinion that we have nothing to fear from a deluge of borders used just to "hide" things. It would be a rare shot indeed that can be transformed from "average" to "exceptional" just by the addition of a border.
I can hear TooCool's argument now -- obviously this is exactly what happened with Brad's photo. To answer his objections, I think it is an exceptional photo, with or without the border. So to me, it's not obvious that it was all the border's doing.
Yes. I'm sure the border helped in some way. Can you honestly say that the addition of a similar border to the other images in the challenge would make much of a difference? I think in 95% of the cases it would be more of a distraction than anything else.
The trick with any tool (be it a triptych border or dodging and burning) is to know how, when, and where to apply it. The best photographers will use them accordingly and not overdo it.
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 07:52:54. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 07:44:26 AM · #99 |
I think the window frame challenge issue is really quite different to this one.
In the case of the window DQs, the entire challenge theme was around the idea of including a window frame in the shot. When that is created digitally - using 'borders' or not, a significant element of the photograph, that was asked for in the challenge, was being created after the fact.
This to me, has nothing whatsoever to do with borders or other digital editing rules at that point. When you create the challenge theme tie-in digitally, I don't much care which rules you follow, you are beyond the spirit and intent of the rules and challenges. Those pictures would not meet the challenge, without the elements that were added later. They should have been DQed.
I think arguing pros and cons about the method used to create the borders in those cases, just missed the point entirely.
This triptych is a different case, imho, and doesn't deserve to even be considered or discussed in similar terms.
Yes, talk about the borders and the means used to create them or if they should be allowed or not, but I'd suggest not using the window challenge as a precidence. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 08:22:44 AM · #100 |
| If this becomes a large enough problem, there is always the option to provide an "add a border" feature on the submit page. The admins could set exactly what variables the user could change (e.g. thickness, color, inner- and outer-lines). The rules would then be modified to simply disallow adding borders to the submitted .jpg files. |
|
