DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Major Element?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 18 of 18, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/28/2006 03:46:48 AM · #1
Check out this effect //www.atncentral.com/Pages/Lensblur.htm

Would that be a major element?
 05/28/2006 03:48:55 AM · #2
heck ya!
 05/28/2006 03:58:40 AM · #3
I would hope so, but...

I just can't predict 'major element' rulings. :(

David
 05/28/2006 07:07:55 AM · #4
Yeah, I think I can safely say major element. :)

Rule of thumb is this:

1) The more pixels you move, the more "major" the effect becomes.

2) If a person looking at the photo will describe the thing you remove as a key factor in the photo, then it's potentially a major element.

If you hit these two criteria, contact SC before you submit the image. It's an easy way to get quick feedback on your image before you submit it.

I know SC is working on better ways to define major elements, but to be honest it's really not that easy. Finding the balance between artistic interpritation and easy to enforce rule is tricky.

05/28/2006 08:31:00 AM · #5
Originally posted by blemt:
... I know SC is working on better ways to define major elements, but to be honest it's really not that easy. Finding the balance between artistic interpritation and easy to enforce rule is tricky.
Personally, I'm satisfied with the way SC has interpreted the major elements rule. It will always be a "tricky" interpretation for them. Just because some people have kicked up a stink in the forums when it is applied in a way they don't like, or because SC is seldom unanimous in decisions about it, doesn't mean it has to be changed.
05/28/2006 09:22:03 AM · #6
Well, there's precedent to support either way which is why I think there's an issue with the major element clause.
 05/28/2006 09:55:59 AM · #7
In my "hero" entry a year ago, I used a slight radial blur to create a subtle effect:



The actual display is a museum attraction so the helicopter and soldier are obviously not in motion.

I did this with some trepidation but my photo didn't finish high enough to be validated and I doubt that most people would think the slight blur was a "major element" but it goes to show you have to be careful adding effects to a photo that are not present when shot.
 05/28/2006 10:28:12 AM · #8
This would definitely get a big ole DQ vote from me.
 05/28/2006 10:37:57 AM · #9
Originally posted by alanfreed:
This would definitely get a big ole DQ vote from me.

Since there was zero lens blur to start this seems a no-brainer. You added something that was not there before.

However, if there were some lens blur in the beginning then it gets tougher. How much additional added lens blur then becomes to much? Would any and all be acceptable if it already exists?

And why is it that literally ANY color manipulation, no matter how bizzare and outragiously it completely transforms an image into something else is always acceptable?

Message edited by author 2006-05-28 10:38:34.
 05/28/2006 11:07:03 AM · #10
if this one just passed a couple of weeks ago, I would imagine you'd be ok...


05/28/2006 11:21:29 AM · #11
Originally posted by deapee:
if this one just passed a couple of weeks ago, I would imagine you'd be ok...



I believe gausian blur is allowed, but other types (lens, radial, etc if done in PS or such)of blur are not.
 05/28/2006 11:54:17 AM · #12
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by deapee:
if this one just passed a couple of weeks ago, I would imagine you'd be ok...



I believe gausian blur is allowed, but other types (lens, radial, etc if done in PS or such)of blur are not.

Actually, for the most part I do not think it is what you use in advanced editing that is at issue; it is to what extent it is used and how it fundamentally changes the image that is.

The exact same effects filter may be perfectly acceptable when used one way but completely unacceptable when used another dependant upon what constitutes a major element. That isn't always an easy, clear cut decision.
 05/28/2006 12:06:07 PM · #13
Originally posted by Digital Quixote:
Originally posted by deapee:
if this one just passed a couple of weeks ago, I would imagine you'd be ok...



I believe gausian blur is allowed, but other types (lens, radial, etc if done in PS or such)of blur are not.


You don't know that he used gaussian blur. In fact he didn't, but that's all irrelevant...was just trying to say that if you can blur it that much, you would be fine with the thing posted above.
 05/28/2006 12:17:11 PM · #14
Originally posted by deapee:

You don't know that he used gaussian blur. In fact he didn't, but that's all irrelevant...was just trying to say that if you can blur it that much, you would be fine with the thing posted above.


??? ΓΆ€” from Arty's comments: "There were some comments on the background blurring, and yah.. I admit, I did it a little stronger than I'd normally go, but sometimes you have to play the game. I made sure to get it approved before-hand though, cause I didn't want to risk any possibilities.. and thank *PETE* I did that."

R.
 05/28/2006 12:47:29 PM · #15
Originally posted by stdavidson:

And why is it that literally ANY color manipulation, no matter how bizzare and outragiously it completely transforms an image into something else is always acceptable?


Because there is no good way to limit it that doesn't involve eliminating hue shifts in general. This seems like a good idea on one level. On the other hand, it means eliminating the ability of folks to push color saturation and to otherwise express themselves artistically.

It's been argued back and forth a great deal. :)
 05/28/2006 01:29:11 PM · #16
Originally posted by deapee:
if this one just passed a couple of weeks ago, I would imagine you'd be ok...



Ok since this was brought up. The major part of the composition is the window hence the challenge. Almost 80% of the image was blurred directing one's eye to the main subject. How can this be not a major element? I know this was shown to SC prior to entering so I'm just wondering so if some of us would do this, we won't get a pink band on our images :)
 05/28/2006 02:51:13 PM · #17
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by deapee:

You don't know that he used gaussian blur. In fact he didn't, but that's all irrelevant...was just trying to say that if you can blur it that much, you would be fine with the thing posted above.


??? ΓΆ€” from Arty's comments: "There were some comments on the background blurring, and yah.. I admit, I did it a little stronger than I'd normally go, but sometimes you have to play the game. I made sure to get it approved before-hand though, cause I didn't want to risk any possibilities.. and thank *PETE* I did that."

R.


Robert, I never said he didn't blur...I said that he didn't gaussian blur (as someone above mentioned gaussian blur was legal). He didn't use Filter, Blur, Gaussian Blur...he used another method -- that is NOT my point and I'm not trying to argue semantics with anyone. Gaussian blur is lens blur is radial blur ... they all BLUR the pixels, no matter which 'method' was used.

Rikki, I dunno.
 05/28/2006 05:24:15 PM · #18
Over the history of the site, I've noted that general blurring (be it gaussian/lens/smart, etc.) is generally allowed to a certain extent.

I came as close to the line as one could possibly come, and was warned not to do it so close in the future as they couldn't guarantee it would pass again.

However, *RADIAL* blurs.. whether they are zoom or otherwise, are generally *NOT* allowed and usually don't pass, especially when done to that extent. I think what really brought that on was Joey Lawrence's ribbon winner in which he used a slightly heavy zoom blur. Since that point, zoom blurs have generally not been allowed.
I think my ribbon winner will be looked on in the future as being an image which made the SC say.. ok, wait.. this time maybe, but in the future, no damn way.

So that's just a warning. If you do something that makes you question yourself, just contact SC privately and get them to preview it. They can't guarantee getting back to you or being able to pre-validate it, but sometimes they have time and can, and it's better in the long run if you do so.

All I know is that I'll never go that heavy handed ever again. It was a nerve-wracking week.

*EDIT* For the record, Advanced Editing rules makes no mention of what kind of blur filters are legal or not, so whoever suggested that only guassian blur is legal, it is *not* true.

Message edited by author 2006-05-28 17:46:53.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 01:22:22 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 01:22:22 AM EDT.