| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2006 01:10:01 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I suggest you use this as the new rules set... It will do away with the need for disqualificaitons completely and make your job a lot easier.
1. State your objective with the challenges.
2. Ask the voters to decide if those objectives have been met by having them 'vote accordingly'.
Pass the burden of determining if the rules have been broken to the voter and keep things less complicated for the SC. |
I really like this idea the best for the "Advanced" challenges. Let the voters decide.
I would like to see it required to post all editing steps for a challenge photo. Not to be seen during voting, but for learning purposes following the challenge. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:12:38 PM · #102 |
As to rule set-ups, there really needs to be an entire section devoted to blur. Some cameras cannot do shallow dof. Spot blurring should be allowed at least in advanced editing to blur backgrounds to create shallow dof. I believe that the gaussian blur rule in basic is a good one, because it states you can apply to whole image, so I wouldn't change that one. As to motion blur, I agree that it creates a major element and should not be allowed. Selective gaussian blur would be similar to spot blurring. In advanced editing, we should be able to apply selective gaussian blur using layers. I am hoping that blurring of lines and wrinkles is allowed in advanced, but the blur issue is really very unclear as the rules stand right now. That is why I would like to see a section devoted to it, perhaps using bullets to keep it simple.
I think cloning and removal of background elements also need to be addressed. What is cloning, how do you use it, is using paintbrush to change a line from brown to black to match a background allowed? Is taking a sky color, then brushing over a power line to match the sky and hide the power line acceptable?
I am also at odds with duotone, monochrome, sepia, etc. I have used these in both basic and advanced, hoping that I am not breaking any rules, but am unsure. I have the ability to use sepia toning in duotone mode and actually change the two colors to anything I want. That is what I did in Silhouette and Saffron in Off Center challenge, but was it legal? What is acceptable in duotone? Some have stated they are unable to change their duotone to two colors, where one does not have to stay white. So we might need to draw the line on this one. If duotone is disallowed using two colors of your choice, then I will not be able to enter my Silhouette and Saffron as I did it.
I know that the rules need to be changed in such a way as to not give unfair advantages to those who can afford it. Equalizing the playing field will change the appearances of future challenges, but it might create a better photo community, where the issue is photo technique with camera and light and added lenses and filters. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:12:40 PM · #103 |
What's needed is a set of rules that covers what effects or filters that are legal.
You'll never keep up with what ones aren't, because new ones come out all the time.
You can't set an amount of how much you can use the effect because the more judgement calls you have to make, the more trouble you'll have. If the effect is too much for people's tastes it will get voted down.
Simplify.... Make it easier on everyone, including SC.
And if you decide to create a Masters Challenge, don't put rules on it, make it just a photocontest. Except that I think a description of how things were done would be greatly helpful to those trying to learn. I'd make that manditory.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:23:00 PM · #104 |
As far as the watermark issue goes - if we were to use one i would suggest some standard,unobtrusive mark, downloaded from the site. It would be uniform in size, shape etc for everyone (wanting to use it) and placed in the same postion (say the right hand corner) by everyone - so not to interfer with the image unnessecarily.
Visual example - 
The option would be to use it and only it in the allocated position, or nothing at all. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:26:04 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
As far as the watermark issue goes - if we were to use one i would suggest some standard,unobtrusive mark, downloaded from the site. It would be uniform in size, shape etc for everyone (wanting to use it) and placed in the same postion (say the right hand corner) by everyone - so not to interfer with the image unnessecarily.
Visual example -
The option would be to use it and only it in the allocated position, or nothing at all. |
I would think it would need to be bigger than that in order to be at all effective.
The other difficulty is going to be that people use different editing software and we may therefore get inconsistent use.
However I do agree that a standard watermark should be acceptable in both basic and advanced
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:33:05 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
As far as the watermark issue goes - if we were to use one i would suggest some standard,unobtrusive mark, downloaded from the site. It would be uniform in size, shape etc for everyone (wanting to use it) and placed in the same postion (say the right hand corner) by everyone - so not to interfer with the image unnessecarily.
Visual example -
The option would be to use it and only it in the allocated position, or nothing at all. |
The problem is that if I wanted to steal that and repost it, it would take me about 5 seconds to remove it?
The fact is that any watermark that doesn't overlap a significant portion of the "content" of the image is going to be a breeze to remove.
If you really want to do this and prevent theft, you are going to have to go for something very very very faint, and encompassing a "major element" size.
It's kind of like not allowing nail clippers on an airliner. Boy did I feel safer flying after they did that.
Personally, I'm working on carefully manipulating my camera during lens changes so that the dust on my sensor forms a DPC logo and provides a natural, legal watermark. ;)
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:36:12 PM · #107 |
| I have not read the entire thread so this may have been mentioned. After fine tuning the Advanced rules, I suggest there be a additional set of rules for Unlimited. Anything goes! Just limit it to proper dates and using only one image. This will satisfy those who really know there programs better than others. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:37:12 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Personally, I'm working on carefully manipulating my camera during lens changes so that the dust on my sensor forms a DPC logo and provides a natural, legal watermark. ;) |
 |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:39:55 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Change the rules to consistantly reflect "real" photography today and the emergence of post-processing image editing.
|
See, this is something that I agree with...today's photography isn't necessarily the photography of 20 years ago. What is easily accesible now wasn't so in the past.
Things are changing among the photographic industry -- those with great skills in post processing are making the grade, and those without those skills are starting to get left behind in the dust.
I would, personally, like to see an advanced editing ruleset that gave more freedom. Instead of trying to restrict and make the rules harder to follow, give more freedom instead. Let those who want to journey further into the post-processing take that journey. If a person doesn't want to take part in that or doesn't agree with that, they're more than welcome to stick with one of the two basic editing challenges each week, or to simply stick with their 'definition' of what is and what isn't 'photographically acceptable' -- by their standards.
--
Basically, instead of saying 'oh well this blur isn't allowed if it's applied to a specific part of the image that could possibly be considered a major element with no previous blur', we should say blur away to your heart's desire. If you want to crop out a light, crop the light out. If you want to move this or that major element over an inch or two, then go ahead and do it...if your post-processing is good enough, then more power to you.
Now I understand that the defense is that this is a 'photographic' challenge and not post-processing, but as far as any top professional photographer is concerened these days, post-processing is just as an important part of the 'photographic process' as opening the shutter in the first place. Certainly all the post-processing in the world isn't going to turn an improperly exposed, poorly composed photo and turn it into a ribbon-winner, you most certainly still have to start with something presentable in the first place...
--
Anyway, maybe a ruleset like that mentioned above would be something to consider for the future. But like I said, post-processing is just as big a part (as far as any top professional is concerened) as taking the photo in the first place. Times are changing...let's allow a new ruleset to reflect the changing times...accept, adapt, and grow.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:40:53 PM · #110 |
Here's a quick stab at a much simpler pair of rulesets. It certainly would need to be tuned up, but it eliminates such issues as "major elements" altogether and tries to focus on the distinction between objects and attributes. Go ahead and tear me up :-)
(There's a lot of legalese appended to the current rules that has nothing to do with editing per se, and I have not touched that portion; this is just a "mission statement" and a proposed approach to a simpler set of editing rules.)
****************
PURPOSE OF THESE RULES
DPC as a community is committed to the process of "photography", as distinct from "digital art". DPC challenges are intended to identify and reward excellence in photography. We recognize that post-processing is a part of photography, and we wish to encourage growth in our members' post-processing skills. The purpose of these rules is to provide a level playing field in DPC challenges by arbitrarily restricting the degree to which a photograph may be manipulated after exposure.
In order to accommodate varying degrees of skill in post-processing of images, two sets of rules have been created: "Basic" and "Advanced". Both rulesets are intended to encourage/promote the process of photography and prohibit excursions into the realm of digital art. The Advanced ruleset differs from the Basic ruleset in that it allows the use of more difficult/complex post-processing techniques, but the ultimate goal is the same ΓΆ€” to identify photographic excellence.
DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of these rules, images are considered to consist of "objects" that have particular "attributes":
OBJECT: any particular grouping of pixels. The sky is an object, the water is an object, light rays piercing clouds are objects, leaves are objects, and so forth. An image, as a whole, is the conglomeration of all the objects in it.
ATTRIBUTE: the condition or status of any object within the image. Color is an attribute, tone is an attribute, sharpness is an attribute, contrast is an attribute, and so forth.
FUNDAMENTAL RULE
The line between "photography" and "digital art" lies in how objects are manipulated, not in how the attributes of an object are changed. In this regard, the fundamental difference between the Basic and Advanced rulesets is the degree to which the attributes of selected objects or portions of the image may be manipulated. In both rulesets the photographer is free to manipulate the attributes of objects with few restrictions, but in the Basic ruleset the manipulation must be global (applied to all objects in the image as a whole), while in the Advanced ruleset the manipulation may be applied locally (to selected portions of the image).
BASIC RULES
1) Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, or graphics such as multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images, or elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week). A photograph may only be used in one challenge, even if it is cropped or altered differently to fit another challenge. Duplicate photos will be disqualified.
2) With 2 exceptions, the use of any form of selection or any tool that is applied to a portion of the image (spot editing) is forbidden. The removal or modification of any objects in the image is forbidden. Exceptions:
a) The cropping tool may be used without restriction.
b) Cloning and healing tools may be used to remove sensor dust, hairs, and other such external flaws in images.
3) The use of any effects filters or their non-Photoshop equivalent is forbidden, with the following exceptions:
a) Filters or standalone utilities designed to preserve or restore the integrity of the image are allowed as long as they are applied to the entire image uniformly. Examples include (but are not restricted to) Neat Image, Noise Ninja, sharpening tools or processes, and dust/scratch removal filters.
b) Blur and noise may be added to your image as long as they are added uniformly. Radial blur and motion blur are specifically prohibited because they alter the nature of objects, not just their attributes.
4) NO text, including copyright statements, may be added to your image.
ADVANCED RULES
1) Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, or graphics such as multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images, or elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week). A photograph may only be used in one challenge, even if it is cropped or altered differently to fit another challenge. Duplicate photos will be disqualified.
2) The use of selection tools to isolate any portion of the image for manipulation of its attributes is specifically permitted. Objects themselves may not be altered with the following exceptions:
a) Perspective and skew tools may be used to remove distortion from the image, but it is forbidden to ADD distortion.
b) Objects within the image may be removed as long as they are replaced with what would otherwise be present if the object were not there.
3) The use of filters is unrestricted as long as they affect only the attributes of objects, and do not modify the object itself. Examples:
a) Filters that warp or distort the image or any portions of it are forbidden, except as allowed in section 2.
b) Filters such as posterization, glow, and others are specifically allowed because they alter the attributes of objects, not the objects themselves.
4) NO text, including copyright statements, may be added to your image.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 13:42:39.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:51:24 PM · #111 |
Elli, I hope you don't mind me borrowing your original shot to prove a point...
But the problem with mandating a particular placement for a watermark is that there's no way to pick one place that will never be in the way.
If for example you had wanted to submit this shot: 
Suddenly the watermark is more in the way, no? |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:53:00 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by Falc:
and what about this sort of image - no different really. This sort of thing is perfectly acceptable in my book and has been for a very long time
 |
Exactly, another perfect example of what i would DISALLOW, although printouts would be slightly harder to enforce. Here is a way of dodging editing rules by simply editing a portion of a shot how you'd like, and incorporating it into your final photograph. |
How about shooting a portrait with a backdrop that looks like, for example, a bookshelf or an outdoor scene? Such backdrops are available commercially, and are used by professional portrait photographers all the time.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 01:59:13 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by angela_packard:
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
Third-party filters and Actions
I would like to see an area pertaining to third-party filters and actions. Listing what is legal, not legal, or maybe legal. Some filters edit pictures where the photographer cannot explain the process and we don't know if any major elements have been moved or removed.
Borders
A clearer understanding on borders such as feathering, triptych, etc. Also if adding to the canvas size to create a border, when legal or not legal. |
I too would like to see what filters are legal and are not. I am having a hard time understanding what I can and cannot use! |
There are literally thousands of third-party filters and tools in existence. To find them all, let alone evaluate them, would be an impossible task, and this says nothing of the expense to purchase the commercial ones for evaluation. This is why, within the Basic Rules, we base the rules on the purpose and use of the filter.
Our current draft does improve the standard for borders, though.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:00:32 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by Falc:
and what about this sort of image - no different really. This sort of thing is perfectly acceptable in my book and has been for a very long time
|
Exactly, another perfect example of what i would DISALLOW, although printouts would be slightly harder to enforce. Here is a way of dodging editing rules by simply editing a portion of a shot how you'd like, and incorporating it into your final photograph. |
How about shooting a portrait with a backdrop that looks like, for example, a bookshelf or an outdoor scene? Such backdrops are available commercially, and are used by professional portrait photographers all the time.
~Terry |
There's a difference between using a backdrop as the background of the image and having the backdrop be the subject of your image.
I don't have a problem with using backdrops and print out etc and a background, personally I don't think they should be the subject though. Otherwise it blends in with the rule against photographing other works of art IMO. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:05:01 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by angela_packard:
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
Third-party filters and Actions
I would like to see an area pertaining to third-party filters and actions. Listing what is legal, not legal, or maybe legal. Some filters edit pictures where the photographer cannot explain the process and we don't know if any major elements have been moved or removed.
Borders
A clearer understanding on borders such as feathering, triptych, etc. Also if adding to the canvas size to create a border, when legal or not legal. |
I too would like to see what filters are legal and are not. I am having a hard time understanding what I can and cannot use! |
There are literally thousands of third-party filters and tools in existence. To find them all, let alone evaluate them, would be an impossible task, and this says nothing of the expense to purchase the commercial ones for evaluation. This is why, within the Basic Rules, we base the rules on the purpose and use of the filter.
Our current draft does improve the standard for borders, though.
|
A guide might be commonly used filters in traditional photography and their use on a real camera. That is not a long list. If it is commonly used on real cameras then perhaps it should be allowed in post processing as well. What is allowed or not allowed in basic and advanced rules would be set by the SC.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:07:28 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a quick stab at a much simpler pair of rulesets. |
Bear, sorry but I find these words even more confusing than the existing rules. Talk of attributes and objects almost sounds like a programming language.
Much too complex for a dumb amateur photographer, even if I do work in IT ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:07:30 PM · #117 |
I still don't get banning selective blurring in advance editing. To do so is just a personal preference and is not rooted in any logic whatsoever. At least I still haven't come across one yet.
As much as some would like to deny the minute you start using neatimage, dodge/burn, blur, saturation, desaturation, USM, or anything else that doesn't just try to fix things like white balance your photo becomes art.
The best solution is to just have two advance editing. Maybe called the other expert editing, or whatever as others have mentioned.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 14:11:27. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:08:40 PM · #118 |
I know this will probably sound out there (and may be off topic) but I don't think we should be allowed to discuss interpretations of challenges until they are over.
Inevitably when we have threads that talk about "what does xyz mean?" they turn into shoving matches between people who like the title or the description better or who have some other interpretation all together. This separates the community and causes "retaliation" voting in some cases.
Seems more fair to me because people would vote how they feel as opposed to being swayed one way or another during shooting and voting (thus causing people to second guess their entries and stifling creativity) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:11:18 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
A guide might be commonly used filters in traditional photography and their use on a real camera. That is not a long list. If it is commonly used on real cameras then perhaps it should be allowed in post processing as well. What is allowed or not allowed in basic and advanced rules would be set by the SC. |
you mean like Cokin Motion Blur filter
so its allowed then ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:11:32 PM · #120 |
No use of multiple exposures, even if this is an in camera function.
No people/objects/ect that affect the anonymity of the picture/voting process. - reconsidered my thoughts on this one. Hopefully no-one will ever notice... :)
Message edited by author 2006-02-15 16:23:30. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:12:32 PM · #121 |
Let's not ignore Bear's attempt at the rules. I think they were simple and well done. I agree with them.
The idea that there are thousands of third party filters and thus we cannot regulate them is a fallacy. Simply state what filters are allowed and disallow all the others. If there is a public outcry for a new filter and general acceptance, it can be added at the next rules revision. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:14:37 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I suggest you use this as the new rules set... It will do away with the need for disqualificaitons completely and make your job a lot easier.
1. State your objective with the challenges.
2. Ask the voters to decide if those objectives have been met by having them 'vote accordingly'.
Pass the burden of determining if the rules have been broken to the voter and keep things less complicated for the SC. |
This is the ONLY workable solution that I have seen in this thread
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:14:46 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a quick stab at a much simpler pair of rulesets. |
Bear, sorry but I find these words even more confusing than the existing rules. Talk of attributes and objects almost sounds like a programming language. |
I thought bear's initial draft was a great starting point. It was clear and concise. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:18:06 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
I thought bear's initial draft was a great starting point. It was clear and concise. |
Seconded! |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 02:18:42 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Falc:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
A guide might be commonly used filters in traditional photography and their use on a real camera. That is not a long list. If it is commonly used on real cameras then perhaps it should be allowed in post processing as well. What is allowed or not allowed in basic and advanced rules would be set by the SC. |
you mean like Cokin Motion Blur filter
so its allowed then ;-) |
Yeah, I guess. Why would you even base anything on traditional photography. This is a digital photography web site. The premise here is anything done in camera is ok, but why? What if in 2 years Adobe and some other company comes out with a product that attaches to the camera and allows for Photoshop software to run in camera? Then what? It's silly to base this on the film world. Screw on filters, in camera processing is no different then digital post processing. If film cameras had digital backs available at the dawn of photography we wouldn't be even having this discussion because everything would be accepted since the old school bias would not exist.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 14:21:05. |
|
