"Nude III" Results Recalculated - DPChallenge Forums

09/03/2005 11:15:20 PM · #26

Originally posted by nsbca7:

You all really need to clarify what is and is not permissible.

An example page to clarify the Literal Artwork rule already exists, but Langdon hasn't posted it yet. He has to work out the best way to link it for easy reference, etc.

09/03/2005 11:17:51 PM · #27

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
The reason I ask this is simple: for this image ro be done exactly as is requires the soft box this close.

Martin could have used a larger light source farther away (like a window) or cropped the image. In a cropped version, the less imposing light stand would be less of an issue and likely would have passed.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
This image is not a mistake by the photographer or an oversight.

I don't think we can (or should) judge the photographer's intent. The softbox is a big, significant thing in the original (i.e. major) whether it was a mistake or not.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Take an image that suspends an item by a thread. Without the thread the effect can not be done, so the thread can be argued to constitute a major element. Yet its removal is never questioned.

Whether the thread is important to the setup is irrelevant (likewise with the softbox). A thread is visually insignificant (unless the shot is an extreme macro, I suppose), so it's no different than a stray hair or twig. Not so with a big piece of equipment in an otherwise barren background.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
...if you have a wrinkled white backdrop background you can select the subject and drop a white or color background even with a gradient.

Actually, I don't think that's entirely true. You can replace an essentially blank background with another blank background, and color shifts are allowed, but you couldn't replace a flat background with an obvious gradient. Also, if the background was heavily textured or had deep shadow detail from the wrinkles, you might not be able to replace it with a flat color. I'm looking for the final to be essentially what the original was... blank to blank, not something to nothing or nothing to something.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That is great and that is your opinion and some of the s.c. But what about those that thought different? Your voice is that of the majority but what about the voice of the minority. Again, I question the number, like was it an overwhelming majority. I simply state this because you are posting the opinions of the majority and as you know these are merely judgement calls. Their logic is not locked in. One can poke enough holes to prove each point the other way.

Message edited by author 2005-09-03 23:18:16.

09/03/2005 11:21:34 PM · #28

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by nsbca7:
You all really need to clarify what is and is not permissible.

An example page to clarify the Literal Artwork rule already exists, but Langdon hasn't posted it yet. He has to work out the best way to link it for easy reference, etc.

Fair enough.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/03/2005 11:24:21 PM · #29

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Your voice is that of the majority but what about the voice of the minority. Again, I question the number, like was it an overwhelming majority.

I'm only stating the rationale of the majority as it relates to the rules. While it represents my opinion in this case, I've made similar forum posts to explain majority decisions even when I voted the other way. I stated in my original post that the vote was close. I think it was a majority of two (but I can't be sure), and not everyone had voted. We made several calls to get as many votes in as possible (hence the delay), but some SC members may not be around and we can't drag out the decision forever.

Message edited by author 2005-09-03 23:27:18.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

09/03/2005 11:24:36 PM · #30

Dan, I don't know if the voting has been made public before, so I am not going to do that now.

For myself, I don't think DrJOnes' image should have been DQed. I understand the arguments in favour of DQ, but, to my thinking, there are also valid arguments in favour of no DQ. I don't think for one minute that Martin would have wanted a final image with the softbox included. I don't believe that Martin's editing compromises the picture. I am having a hard time explaining why though.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/03/2005 11:26:50 PM · #31

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Your voice is that of the majority but what about the voice of the minority. Again, I question the number, like was it an overwhelming majority.

I'm only stating the rationale of the majority as it relates to the rules. I have made similar posts to explain majority decisions even when I voted the other way. I stated in my original post that the vote was close. I think it was a majority of two (but I can't be sure), and not everyone had voted. We made several calls to get as many votes in as possible (hence the delay), but some SC members may not be around and we can't drag out the decision forever.

A majority of one.

But I'm being a sore looser here :) It's probably best to quit talking about this, and talk about Paul's (GeneralE) suggestion that it should take a 2/3rd majority or so to DQ pictures.

Message edited by author 2005-09-03 23:28:03.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

09/03/2005 11:34:52 PM · #32

Originally posted by ursula:

For myself, I don't think DrJOnes' image should have been DQed. I understand the arguments in favour of DQ, but, to my thinking, there are also valid arguments in favour of no DQ. I don't think for one minute that Martin would have wanted a final image with the softbox included. I don't believe that Martin's editing compromises the picture. I am having a hard time explaining why though.

I for one would agree with the SC majority on this one. If not, what constitutes a major element if not something that takes up a major portion of the original image? You can argue intent, but I feel that intent is irrelevent if you are to have guidelines and would have need to adhere to them.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

09/03/2005 11:35:45 PM · #33

Originally posted by ursula:

Possibly because the nature of DPC is such that a softbox in the background would have had a *SIGNIFICANT* affect on his score. Argue until you're blue in the face for all I care that there's no proof of that, but anyone that knows this site knows it as well as I do.. that alone makes it a major element.

My view is this, if you make a choice to have something as significant as a 4 - 5 foot softbox in your photograph, than you either leave it in your challenge entry, or you re-shoot without it. Cloning it out should never be allowed. Opens far too many doors, and once you hit that slippery slope, you may as well not even *have* a rule.

To me it's kind of pathetic that it's even being argued.. but whatever. The only reason *I* can see for arguing for it is that you're planning on, have done in the past, or wish you could, shoot without a care and then just remove whatever the hell you want in post-processing. The fact that it's still frowned upon so far is a good thing.. the fact it's being so vehemently argued by people who should know better.. well, that's not. This whole, "let me do what I want and screw the rules" and flip-floppy SC voting that comes up now and then really just lessens my overall enjoyment of the site.

So seriously, if you *want* to enter a photo with a giant softbox in your nude background, or a garbage can sitting behind a plate of fruit, or a big car in the background of that cute child photo.. so be it, enter it and take your chances on the score... but I'll never advocate being allowed to clone that stuff out when it's in a competition setting. That's what proper set-ups are for in the first place.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Message edited by author 2005-09-03 23:37:16.

09/03/2005 11:40:13 PM · #34

How the SC runs their camp is none of my business. However, I did post elsewhere that a DQ is a very big deal and excepting the obvious infringements, all s/c members should be required to vote. To me, it is this big a deal and if it needs an extra week, so be it. Would it not be sad like those images that are right on the razors edge to be voted by a few only to find out that those who did not participate would have overturned the vote? To me, a judgemental DQ deserves this much.

Look, these are entries and the DQ must be solid in order to maintain integrity. I think the General should be listened to. Think about this too: if you have 5 to 4 vote for a DQ...This is too close for comfort.

09/03/2005 11:42:40 PM · #35

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

How the SC runs their camp is none of my business. However, I did post elsewhere that a DQ is a very big deal and excepting the obvious infringements...

What is not obvious about this?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/03/2005 11:49:19 PM · #36

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

...a DQ is a very big deal and excepting the obvious infringements, all s/c members should be required to vote.

I totally agree, but it's just not practical. Some SC members are invariably on vacation or otherwise not available to vote. On close decisions, we ALWAYS try to get as many votes as possible and post notices asking everyone to contribute and comment, but we simply can't wait for weeks after a challenge has ended to take action. It may be unfair to someone to get DQ'd on a vote that may have been overturned a month later, but it's equally unfair if someone who might have been bumped into a ribbon or top 10 didn't get their moment in the sun when the challenge results are posted. As for GeneralE's "overwhelming majority" approach, I think we'd be better served by clarifying the rules for more consensus than get wishy-washy with what's allowed.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/04/2005 12:03:52 AM · #37

If you were to ask me whether I thought it was "artistically kosher" to compose an image with major distracting elements, intending to clone them out afterwards, I'd say "Of course! Whatever works!"

If you were to ask me whether the DPC rules allow the same thing, I'd say "Absolutely not!" As Artyste pointed out, once we open that door we may as well toss the rule about cloning "out" and just leave it at not ADDING elements from outside the picture.

We're talking about RULES here, as they are written and have been enforced, not about whether the rules should be bent to take into account the photographer's intention. Basically what's happening here is that people are saying Martin is too good of a photographer not to have been aware of that light, so he obviously intended to remove it, so it's perfectly ok. To which I answer, "So if I'm a lousy photographer and didn't know any better it means it's not OK?" I donno, this seems silly to me.

I mean, that's a honking BIG, BRIGHT element in the picture. As someone else mentioned, if he'd cropped to exclude the softbox the lightstand wouldn't have been such a big deal if it were removed. The actual shot, as cropped and submitted but without cloning, is a shot of a "nude & lightbox"; after cloning, it's a shot of a nude. To me that more-or-less defines "major"; the lightbox cannot be overlooked or ignored in the original.

Robt.

09/04/2005 12:04:22 AM · #38

Originally posted by scalvert:

I think we'd be better served by clarifying the rules for more consensus than get wishy-washy with what's allowed.

Exactly!

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/04/2005 12:05:44 AM · #39

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
How the SC runs their camp is none of my business. However, I did post elsewhere that a DQ is a very big deal and excepting the obvious infringements...

What is not obvious about this?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You are expressing one point of view. Personally, I shoot for an image that can pass in Basic Editing and I have tried to alter the rules to disallow any cloning out of objects. If you go through the archives and follow threads you will discover that cloning out parts of an image that are not crucial has always been allowed. I would not even allow the selection and dropping in of an any gradient background. In my thinking this is big.

With the current image, the subject is the nude and suppose the actual softbox was higher and only the tripod showed, much like the white triangle on the right. Would cloning the tripod and the triangle invite the dq? Yes, with some it will but with others it won't. And in addition suppose a small part of the box showed? Would its removal be considered a major alteration. Again, to some it would but to others it won't. My answer is based on past s/c decisions I have seen.

Understand my argument is based on past images and what the site has allowed. Consider this: you take an image and then you make a selection to create a halo around a head or a body. You then darken the outside. here you have placed a halo where there was none. Instead of making such a selection simply dodge and burn to get the same effect. here you made no such selection but have achieved the halo with burning. The most famous of these examples is the Heida image. There is also the EddieG image to create the RGB smoke where the colors are simply added in succession. I do not criticize these images but they have been approved by the s/c and as such have allowed important elements to have been added. I for one have observed almost every image in the DPC site and have read comments wherever available.

I for one, have always said that if I ever get DQ for any reason, I would not ever submit another entry. Therefore I try to bring my image as close to the original, but the s/c has accepted many images and therefore has set a precedent. It is on this basis that I am approaching this debate.

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/04/2005 12:17:23 AM · #40

That was my favourite shot too!! He should of put the camera where the softbox was! Mwuhahahaha.....

09/04/2005 12:21:59 AM · #41

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
How the SC runs their camp is none of my business. However, I did post elsewhere that a DQ is a very big deal and excepting the obvious infringements...

What is not obvious about this?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You are expressing one point of view. Personally, I shoot for an image that can pass in Basic Editing and I have tried to alter the rules to disallow any cloning out of objects. If you go through the archives and follow threads you will discover that cloning out parts of an image that are not crucial has always been allowed. I would not even allow the selection and dropping in of an any gradient background. In my thinking this is big.

With the current image, the subject is the nude and suppose the actual softbox was higher and only the tripod showed, much like the white triangle on the right. Would cloning the tripod and the triangle invite the dq? Yes, with some it will but with others it won't. And in addition suppose a small part of the box showed? Would its removal be considered a major alteration. Again, to some it would but to others it won't. My answer is based on past s/c decisions I have seen.

Understand my argument is based on past images and what the site has allowed. Consider this: you take an image and then you make a selection to create a halo around a head or a body. You then darken the outside. here you have placed a halo where there was none. Instead of making such a selection simply dodge and burn to get the same effect. here you made no such selection but have achieved the halo with burning. The most famous of these examples is the Heida image. There is also the EddieG image to create the RGB smoke where the colors are simply added in succession. I do not criticize these images but they have been approved by the s/c and as such have allowed important elements to have been added. I for one have observed almost every image in the DPC site and have read comments wherever available.

I for one, have always said that if I ever get DQ for any reason, I would not ever submit another entry. Therefore I try to bring my image as close to the original, but the s/c has accepted many images and therefore has set a precedent. It is on this basis that I am approaching this debate.

What's wrong with shooting the image right to begin with. We seem to have strayed so far from that notion here on DPC that it has almost become a mindset with many members to want to "fix" every image in PS. PS is a great tool, but it is not a cure all. I got bitched out on "How do I fix this" thread earlier today for suggesting someone re-shoot a poorly composed photo as opposed to doing major surgery.

There has to be something to doing it right to start with. Look at DrJone's image. The girl looks good, the lighting looks good, but the background looks fake as hell. How it made 7th place is beyond my vote. I gave it a five.

severin

Sony DSC-R1

09/04/2005 12:22:50 AM · #42

So what have we learned from this discussion?
**The rule about what is significant and what is not significant is subjective.
**Don't mention anything specific in how it was done when posting.

ie "I cloned out a minor distracting element" or leave this statement out all together. Although I do believe it is best to shoot as if shooting for a basic editing challenge. It results in a better thought out photograph.

09/04/2005 12:33:00 AM · #43

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

...suppose a small part of the box showed? Would its removal be considered a major alteration. Again, to some it would but to others it won't.

Correct- and as the cropped softbox becomes less prominent, more SC members would switch to the validation side. The legs alone (and maybe a bit of the box) would have passed as minor elements, but that massive light is just so darn imposing as-is that I can't simply ignore it as a minor distraction. Honestly, I'm surprised that anyone could.

09/04/2005 12:35:43 AM · #44

nsbca7 posted:
What's wrong with shooting the image right to begin with. We seem to have strayed so far from that notion here on DPC that it has almost become a mindset with many members to want to "fix" every image in PS. PS is a great tool, but it is not a cure all. I got bitched out on "How do I fix this" thread earlier today for suggesting someone re-shoot a poorly composed photo as opposed to doing major surgery.

There has to be something to doing it right to start with. Look at DrJone's image. The girl looks good, the lighting looks good, but the background looks fake as hell. How it made 7th place is beyond my vote. I gave it a five.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am not arguing your point of view. I agree with you and BearMusic. What I am saying is that the s/c has already ruled on many images and therefore has established precedent. I have always tried to alter the rules and have been held in check because there is a desire to keep many editing avenues open. Any such avenues are always subject to abuse.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

About your 5 vote that is your personal opinion. Note that the majority of voters differed with you and placed the image higher.

Message edited by author 2005-09-04 00:39:12.

09/04/2005 12:37:49 AM · #45

Originally posted by severin:

The rule about what is significant and what is not significant is subjective.

Necessarily so. A simple test that describes "major" for every image is probably impossible.

Originally posted by severin:

Don't mention anything specific in how it was done when posting.

"See no evil" won't get you off the hook. A high placement or validation request for any reason would have the same results even without photographer's comments.

09/04/2005 01:02:43 AM · #46

Originally posted by scalvert:

Necessarily so. A simple test that describes "major" for every image is probably impossible.

Why? Why can't a set percentage of pixels from one spot on the image be used as a benchmark?

CorySmith

09/04/2005 01:03:27 AM · #47

to complicated

09/04/2005 01:07:35 AM · #48

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Why can't a set percentage of pixels from one spot on the image be used as a benchmark?

Significance isn't a measure of size alone. A tiny bug could be a major element if the subject is looking cross-eyed at it on his nose, but a blurry elephant occupying most of the background might not be.