| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/09/2005 11:42:43 AM · #51 |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 01:28:42 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by blemt:
I also want to make sure that you guys see and understand the major elements clause:
--
Using ANY editing tools to duplicate, create, move or remove major elements of your photograph is not permitted. Major elements are the features that a typical person might mention if asked to describe the photo in general terms. They have a significant impact on composition and content, and are not necessarily determined by size. Since a minor distraction for one person could be a major element to another, borderline cases are judged by majority Site Council vote.
--
Under this rewording, things that may have been legal in past challenges may not be going forward. This includes challenge entries that have been recently validated.
Questions? |
Can you give some examples of what may have been valid in the past, but may not be going forward?
If you hadn't pointed out that this is a significant change, I don't know that I would have made the connection that the change in wording could alter the ruling of a validation request.
Thanks,
Tim |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 02:41:30 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If you shoot in RAW, you can legally combine a dark and light exposure processed from the same original capture to achieve a similar result. |
When I started shooting raw, I asked if this was a legal technique and was told it wasn't because you're actually loading two images into photoshop...
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 02:44:39 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by scalvert:
If you shoot in RAW, you can legally combine a dark and light exposure processed from the same original capture to achieve a similar result. |
When I started shooting raw, I asked if this was a legal technique and was told it wasn't because you're actually loading two images into photoshop... |
They have apparently decided that in advanced editing this is still working with a single image. As a parallel example, there is nothign to stop me from processing the same image twice on 2 different layers in PS, once for the highlights, once for the shadows, and then masking off the 2 layers in inverse nmasks. In fact it's done all the time.
This is qualitatively different from making 2 original exposures and sandwiching them.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 02:48:36 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
When I started shooting raw, I asked if this was a legal technique and was told it wasn't because you're actually loading two images into photoshop... |
the way i read it is that it's legal if the IMAGE was produced with one click of the shutter. |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 02:48:36 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by TooCool:
When I started shooting raw, I asked if this was a legal technique and was told it wasn't because you're actually loading two images into photoshop... |
They have apparently decided that in advanced editing this is still working with a single image. |
Wish I woulda known this for the last challenge! :-P
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 04:01:48 PM · #57 |
(inquiring bump)
I raised these two points in a post very early this morning, so perhaps no SC member saw them. But I would still like some feedback on them.
As far as I can see, these revisions are only to the first section of the Advanced rules (the preamble?) and to the "Image Modification and Content Rules" section. Is it safe to assume that their are no changes or ommissions to other parts of the rules included in this revision?
And since we are going to revise, how about puting the photographic integrity rule back in?
"Members are reminded to hold photographic integrity in the highest regard when both submitting and voting." (bold and italics from the original)
Or perhaps some other wording of the principle.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 04:27:21 PM · #58 |
No other changes so far...
That line about photographic integrity wasn't taken out. It's in the voting instructions, not the rules. The first two sentences of the rules discuss photographic integrity (at least in the context of this non-journalistic site). |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 05:10:13 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No other changes so far...
That line about photographic integrity wasn't taken out. It's in the voting instructions, not the rules. The first two sentences of the rules discuss photographic integrity (at least in the context of this non-journalistic site). |
Thanks Shannon, but I am still at a loss. Where are the "voting instructions"? I can't find mention of photographic integrity in either the section of the Advanced rules entitled "Voting", nor in the FAQ section called "Voting".
That sentence appeared in the "Image Modification and Content Rules" section of the original Advanced rules.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 05:29:43 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
That sentence appeared in the "Image Modification and Content Rules" section of the original Advanced rules. |
By jove, you're right! So much for relying on my memory. The sections of the rules shown in this thread are the only parts that we've worked on. The rest would stay as-is, including the area on voting that discusses photographic integrity. It might be a good idea to make that sentence bold and add it to the voting FAQ page, too.
The beginning of the revised Advanced Editing rules also encourage photographic integrity:
"The advanced editing rules were created to allow photographers better use of the "digital darkroom" to more accurately represent their photographic intent. These rules are not meant to allow the creation of new features that didn't exist in the original capture..." |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 06:05:38 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by coolhar:
That sentence appeared in the "Image Modification and Content Rules" section of the original Advanced rules. |
By jove, you're right! So much for relying on my memory. The sections of the rules shown in this thread are the only parts that we've worked on. The rest would stay as-is, including the area on voting that discusses photographic integrity. It might be a good idea to make that sentence bold and add it to the voting FAQ page, too.
The beginning of the revised Advanced Editing rules also encourage photographic integrity:
"The advanced editing rules were created to allow photographers better use of the "digital darkroom" to more accurately represent their photographic intent. These rules are not meant to allow the creation of new features that didn't exist in the original capture..." |
I am getting a little frustrated with this. Are we talking about the same document? I am looking at the current Advanced rules, and I can't find the part which you refer to when you write "the area on voting that discusses photographic integrity." Please help me!
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 06:15:03 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by coolhar:
That sentence appeared in the "Image Modification and Content Rules" section of the original Advanced rules. |
By jove, you're right! So much for relying on my memory. The sections of the rules shown in this thread are the only parts that we've worked on. The rest would stay as-is, including the area on voting that discusses photographic integrity. It might be a good idea to make that sentence bold and add it to the voting FAQ page, too.
The beginning of the revised Advanced Editing rules also encourage photographic integrity:
"The advanced editing rules were created to allow photographers better use of the "digital darkroom" to more accurately represent their photographic intent. These rules are not meant to allow the creation of new features that didn't exist in the original capture..." |
I am getting a little frustrated with this. Are we talking about the same document? I am looking at the current Advanced rules, and I can't find the part which you refer to when you write "the area on voting that discusses photographic integrity." Please help me! |
I think it's the boldfaced part quoted above, which is from the very beginning of the Advanced Rules.
The phrase "photographic integrity" was determined to be pretty meaningless by itself, and the cited phrasing was intended to describe what was meant (at DPC) by that phrase. At least that's my interpretation of it. |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 06:46:57 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The phrase "photographic integrity" was determined to be pretty meaningless by itself, and the cited phrasing was intended to describe what was meant (at DPC) by that phrase. At least that's my interpretation of it. |
Thanks GeneralE. I guess I was looking in the wrong place.
I find the term "photographic intent" to be as meaningless as "photographic integrity". Someone could use some exotic editing tools that produced an image so unlike the original that it was not even apparent that it was the same photo, and then claim that look was what they intended when he pressed the shutter button. How about some thing that says the advanced rules are to allow making the original look as good as it can? I'd offer this as a rough draft --
The advanced editing rules are intended to allow photographers better use of the "digital darkroom" so they may improve their original image as much as possible while still representing the original capture.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 06:47:11 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by w24x192:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Without a written standard in place, the only way to understand the Major Elements rule is to keep up on an ever-increasing body of past precedent -- a tall order considering the members generally do not have access to the unaltered originals to fully understand the basis for our decisions.
It is our hope that this written standard (subject to the revisions that come from this discussion) will replace the current "unwritten" stanard, and ultimately make things less confusing and, most importantly, more fun for everyone.
-Terry |
Is it possible that we can have some examples posted of good and bad shots per the ruleset? Granted, the people on this site may not wish to have their original and submitted photos posted with a caveat. But, the SC is full of creative people, all of whom own and opperate cameras, so the SC themselves could manufacture examples specifically for the purpose.
I understand that this type of example could lead to a stifling effect with some people, who take the examples to a literal extreme. For the rest of us, however, it could be a good tool. After all, this site is chock-full of people who think and learn visually, people who do not have English as a first language (and could be a bit bewildered by the rules), and those of us who just don't have good reading comprehension. |
This is a project already in progress, but we're still working out the details of how we would like to do this. One option involves having volunteers and/or Site Council prepare some hypothetical entries. Another includes requesting volunteers and/or contacting the photographers of key images for permission to use them as examples.
In either case, we would likely post the actual entry, the original image (cropped and resized to the same dimensions, but otherwise unedited), and an explanation of whether the entry would be DQ'ed or validated under the revised rules (of course, these may contradict the decision made under the rules active at the time of entry).
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 07:46:43 PM · #65 |
Note that voters typically frown upon heavily filtered images that look more graphic than photographic.
Yes, that is one of the many grey areas, but that just can't be helped (and luckily we have our SC to deal with it).
We NEED such a statement to remind us that something can be "legally" right, but morally wrong, i.e. against the spirit of why we are here.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 08:03:16 PM · #66 |
One more question about image modification: is it acceptable to reverse (right to left) or invert an image? Sometimes the image just looks better if it is reversed.
|
|
|
|
06/09/2005 08:04:31 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
One more question about image modification: is it acceptable to reverse (right to left) or invert an image? |
Yes, as long as it's the whole image. |
|
|
|
06/09/2005 11:04:18 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Someone could use some exotic editing tools that produced an image so unlike the original that it was not even apparent that it was the same photo, and then claim that look was what they intended when he pressed the shutter button. |
One of two things would happen in that situation... if the photographer made such extreme changes that he violated the Major Elements clause or other rules, then the image would be disqualified. If the editing does not break the rules, then the photographer is within his right to make it look any way he wants, and the voters will score it accordingly. Voters should assume the image is legal when scoring, and request validation if they're suspicious. Truth is often stranger than fiction and the image may have been edited very little.
Originally posted by coolhar:
The advanced editing rules are intended to allow photographers better use of the "digital darkroom" so they may improve their original image as much as possible while still representing the original capture. |
The final image doesn't necessarily HAVE to represent the original capture from a rules standpoint. Generally speaking, as long as the basic elements of the original are still visible in the final and no objects have been introduced or moved, it's allowed. Under the current rules, if you want to make a flamingo in your image green and change an empty blue sky to dark red, you're allowed to do so. Just be prepared for low votes if others don't share your vision. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 07:43:08 AM · #69 |
It seems to me there is a great deal of excessive verbage in the rules. This is not meant as a disparaging remark toward the rules themselves or their creators -- merely an observation of what I feel is causing most of the confusion. With each revision of the rules there is a lot of effort put into clarification to diminish this confusion -- this is good, but the clarification inevitably is done with even more words than the previous revision. I feel this excessive verbage is the result of a lack of clear definitions of the basic terms used in the rules.
Any discussion should, if it is to be taken seriously, begin with a firm understanding of the basic terms used to describe what is being discussed. While the members of the SC and long term members of the site each have a clear understanding of the terms used, it can not be taken for granted that each of them have the same understanding. In the interest of a clear understanding of what is being said -- by both those writing and reading the rules -- I submit that clear, concise definitions of the key elements must become a part of the document itself. Only by laying down a firm foundation in this manner are we able to be certain of the stability of what is built.
It would perhaps be easiest to use the definitions contained in any of several existing dictionaries -- and I'm sure some will consider the addition of the definitions not needed since dictionaries are readily available. However, a generic definition written for non-specific use in the world at large is equally unusable as a solid foundation due to the many varied common usages of the word being defined. For this purpose, specific definitions, tailored to the environment of the challenges, is needed.
To say the definitions are needed and then do no more would not be particularly helpful, so in the interest of providing a starting point for further discussion on the wording of challenge specific definitions I present a few I feel are particularly important. I am also including a few additional notes of the terms that may or may not be important enough to consider including. I lean more toward general clarity than specific and all-encompassing, so I have not worked these thoughts into the definitions.
Exposure: The record of light from a specific viewpoint over a single, uninterrupted length of time.
- This is the camera RAW data recorded by the sensor.
- Not all digital cameras allow user access to an exposure.
- In the interest of clarity it should be mentioned this term would also encompass film negatives and slide positives, outside the scope of the challenges.
Photograph: The result of processing an exposure for the presentation of the light captured within.
- The processing does not need to be complete, so this also includes any intermediate steps in the processing.
- This includes the files produced by cameras that do not provide access to RAW data.
- This could easily be expanded to include the use of multiple exposure, and probably should if used to increase dynamic range or reduce noise as I feel these methods are in agreement with the spirit of the site. However, current limitation of the challenges don't include this so I haven't as well.
Border: Any additional element that denotes and deliniates the extent of the photograph.
- The current rules limit what is valid to use as a border. I do not feel such limitations belong in a definition of what a border is.
Picture: A photograph along with all additional elements used in it's presentation.
- This includes a border if one is used, but may also include (if allowed by additional rules) such things are autographs, titles and verse.
Visualization: The visual conceptualization of the photograph the photographer intends the present.
- I have not placed a limitation on when the visualization must be made as each step during intentional processing is preceeded by a visualization of the outcome.
Photographic Integrity: The preservation of the photographers initial visualization in the final presentation of a photograph.
- I took a step backwards in the evolution of the rules and defined this instead of 'spirit of the rules' as I have no clear understanding of the later that is not contained within this term.
Major Element: A visual feature that represents some portion of the visualization of the photograph.
- see below. :p
I'm sure there are more terms that would be of benefit to have defined clearly, but these are the ones, which when absent, are creating the majority of the confusion.
---
Major Element: I am taking up this again as I have more to say on the proposed handling of this than I felt should be in a note of the term itself.
Currently, to know if an element of a photograph is a major element the photographer must try to second guess each of the SC's evaluation of what a major element is. Sure, the photographer could contact each personally and find out if that SC member would consider something a major element or not, but this is hardly a viable option as a long-term procedure. As each SC will likely have differing ideas of what a major element is, there is very little that can be considered stable about what is or is not a major element.
This lack of stability is seen clearly in the enforcement of the 'major elements' clause. For example, I can't seem to recall a single disqualification for having cropped a portion of the image off, even when what was cropped dominates the image. And yet, the cropping tool is an editing that is governed by this clause the same as any other is. Sure an enforcement of this would result in the DQ of a lot of entries, but would force those that remain to learn to compose a shot in camera. That can't be all bad -- can it?
The current system is confusing, but in an attempt to make it less confusing an alternative method has been proposed that creates even more guess-work on the part of each participating photographer. With the proposed guideline a photographer must second-guess the SC's idea of what a typical person is, and then second-guess the SC member second-guessing this non-existant 'typical' person's idea of what a major element is. To make matters worse, each SC member is likely to have differing ideas of what comprises a 'typical' person -- not to mention what that 'typical' person is likely to think.
It could be said that a guideline for a 'typical' person and what this person would consider a major element could be agreed upon, but in doing so I feel one would quickly find the differences originating in the differing personal definitions of what a major element is. This draws full circle, and leads no where but back to the conclusion that it is best to clearly define what constitutes a major element without resorting to consulting non-existant entities.
The problem with doing so comes from each of us having differing points of view and differing opinions on just about everything -- This is to be expected and encouraged. However, I present the stance that when considering the creation of someone else, the only opinion worth mentioning of what is a major element or not is that of the creator. To take any other opinion of the work as superior to that of the creator is to rob the creator of their right to have created it as they saw fit.
The SC are always telling us to ask if we are not certain of how they will rule in any specific instance, so I propose a description of the photographers initial visualization be included with the submission of the entry. Note that this is with each entry at the time it is entered -- not just with requested proof for a DQ validation.
Yes this is not perfect, and could be abused -- but those that would abuse it are easily spotted. I personally find it more palatable to ask and be willing to trust the response than to not ask and leave it to a lot of guessing.
Just a few thoughts I had on the matter.
David
Message edited by author 2005-06-14 07:44:30.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 08:14:34 AM · #70 |
i want to echo a point raised earlier that i didn't see a response to...
could you please put links in the rules to examples of what is allowable and what would get you disqualified
it would help to have a visual guideline as well as the textual. |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:28:20 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
i want to echo a point raised earlier that i didn't see a response to...
could you please put links in the rules to examples of what is allowable and what would get you disqualified
it would help to have a visual guideline as well as the textual. |
...and I want to echo my response that you didn't see! ;-)
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
This is a project already in progress, but we're still working out the details of how we would like to do this. One option involves having volunteers and/or Site Council prepare some hypothetical entries. Another includes requesting volunteers and/or contacting the photographers of key images for permission to use them as examples.
In either case, we would likely post the actual entry, the original image (cropped and resized to the same dimensions, but otherwise unedited), and an explanation of whether the entry would be DQ'ed or validated under the revised rules (of course, these may contradict the decision made under the rules active at the time of entry). |
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 09:41:52 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
...and I want to echo my response that you didn't see! ;-) |
well, finally an impetus for me to replace the coffee maker that died this weekend...i shouldn't be reading & writing while runnin low on joe
;-) |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 10:05:54 AM · #73 |
If I understand the proposed changes correctly, then a shot that (for instance) shrinks the size of one person and enlarges the size of another person would be illegal. Correct?
Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
|
06/14/2005 10:22:51 AM · #74 |
| Correct (and also true of the current rules). |
|
|
|
06/14/2005 12:15:18 PM · #75 |
Brittanica has given us a very thought-provoking analysis of the "problems" that are inherent in any set of rules, not just the DPC rules. I've been involved for years in writing and modifying rules of conduct and play for our social gaming website, and I can say from firsthand experience that these problems are universal.
I'd like to draw attention to one of David's paragraphs, however, and discuss it further:
This lack of stability is seen clearly in the enforcement of the 'major elements' clause. For example, I can't seem to recall a single disqualification for having cropped a portion of the image off, even when what was cropped dominates the image. And yet, the cropping tool is an editing that is governed by this clause the same as any other is. Sure an enforcement of this would result in the DQ of a lot of entries, but would force those that remain to learn to compose a shot in camera. That can't be all bad -- can it?
I think this is a horrible suggestion, for two reasons:
1. It eliminates the possibility of composing to other-than-standard shapes, i.e. square images or "panoramic" images, to name but two.
2. It gives an unfair advantage to those who have "Big Glass", long telephoto lenses. I can't see any difference at all between "zooming closer" in-camera to crop out unwanted elements of a scene and doing the same in post-production. Sure, ideally we'd all move in close enough to not have to crop, but this isn't always a practical alternative, especially if the ideal spot to take the shot happens to be (to name just one possibility) in the middle of the pond upon whose shoreline you happen to be standing.
Robt.
|
|
