| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2007 07:17:21 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by L2:
The only way to make it objective (that I see, and I'm totally open to more opinion) is to do as someone suggested and assign some sort of image area % - and the next question becomes is that a % of the cropped image or the original capture? |
The importance of an object isn't determined by image area. A glowing red nose on a reindeer might be a tiny part of the image compared to a foreground tree branch intruding on the edge of the photo. Such a rule would potentially force you to keep the branch, but allow cloning out the nose. :-/ |
An excellent counterpoint! But, one that brings us back to subjectivity on importance, which is where the real problem lies, right? :) |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:19:10 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Why is it a GIVEN that whatever's in, has to stay in? I'd say this is open for discussion... |
I take a shot of someone standing on the roof of a car. Should I be allowed to clone out the car and enter it in a "Levitation" challenge?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
After all, SC themselves decided just this week that it was absolutely OK to take the parking lot out of a Mustang shot and leave the impression it was shot in a studio... |
The SC decided it was OK to make an almost blank background completely blank, just as we've allowed many times before. |
In the first instance, of course you have a point. I am just being rhetorical. But int he second instance, you have a shot that is CLEARLY of a mustang in a parking lot and it has morphed into a mustang in a studio. I'd submit that's as egregious as levitating off a disappearing car roof...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 07:30:33 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
you have a shot that is CLEARLY of a mustang in a parking lot and it has morphed into a mustang in a studio. I'd submit that's as egregious as levitating off a disappearing car roof... |
We've allowed MANY entries that were obviously shot in front of a fabric background be rendered completely blank by cloning out a few wrinkles or nondescript texture. Wouldn't that be morphing from a fabric background to a wall or empty space?
What if the windows and dock hadn't been in Danny's original? It would still be a parking lot, but also basically blank. In this case, the few visible elements were deemed minor enough that it was still considered pretty much empty space.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 19:34:23. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 08:07:01 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I think the rules can be left as vague as they are and enforced as haphazardly as they are.
However all DQ'd images should be posted in an area of the site along with the text of the offending rule and clearly explained reason behind why the rule was deemed to have been broken. Clearly explained reason being more than a cut/paste of the rules as is the current practice.
Stupid errors like datestamps, lost originals, etc could be left out.
This would serve as a reference point both for contestants and for those who no doubt mean to apply the rules the same way in each and every case. |
Sometimes you make so much sense, it's scary :-)
Without turning that rule into a 500 page legal document, there will always remain a grey area that I'm happy to live with.
Beats the alternative of having nothing but expert editing digital art free studies without any rules (and before you bite me: I like those, too, just not exclusively). |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 08:32:40 PM · #55 |
Shannon had said something that I agree with. We should not be able to clone out a car and use the person for a levitation challenge, that is removing a serious major element that would really change the POV. I'm not really looking for things that stand out like that.
Let's try and stay on topic here, How can we pin point what is and is not allowed to be edited out of an image WITHOUT having to submit out images to the SC for review before a challenge. What wording can we use that would thicken the line that I crossed.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 20:33:19. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:23:28 PM · #56 |
Folks,
I think that we should leave the rule as is, even though it is intrinsically self-contradicting. It states that elements shall not be changed that affect the perception of the typical viewer, but we are performing the modification for that exact reason - to affect the perception - to make the photo more appealing.
No matter how we word the rule, except for the no edits or all is allowed, there will be loopholes and areas left for subjective interpretation.
So, for all of us: We shall make every effort to clean up our bg before the shoot, so that we do not have to go through the process of validation.
For those willing to try - go ahead, but then accept the consequences. (Even if those are unevenly distributed).
-Serge |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 07:14:05 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Folks,
I think that we should leave the rule as is, even though it is intrinsically self-contradicting. It states that elements shall not be changed that affect the perception of the typical viewer, but we are performing the modification for that exact reason - to affect the perception - to make the photo more appealing.
No matter how we word the rule, except for the no edits or all is allowed, there will be loopholes and areas left for subjective interpretation.
So, for all of us: We shall make every effort to clean up our bg before the shoot, so that we do not have to go through the process of validation.
For those willing to try - go ahead, but then accept the consequences. (Even if those are unevenly distributed).
-Serge |
Serge, I would like for you to tell me where that line is so I know okay. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 07:48:49 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Shannon had said something that I agree with. We should not be able to clone out a car and use the person for a levitation challenge, that is removing a serious major element that would really change the POV. I'm not really looking for things that stand out like that.
Let's try and stay on topic here, How can we pin point what is and is not allowed to be edited out of an image WITHOUT having to submit out images to the SC for review before a challenge. What wording can we use that would thicken the line that I crossed. |
I think this is close. I think the right word may be contex. If a car starts in a showroom, it should end up in a showroom after processing. If a person is laying on a table, he should not be levitating after processing. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 08:44:44 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What if the windows and dock hadn't been in Danny's original? It would still be a parking lot, but also basically blank. In this case, the few visible elements were deemed minor enough that it was still considered pretty much empty space. |
Let's turn it around: what if Danny had only cloned out the windows and dock? I think 95% or more of the users would have agreed that this was within the rules AND he would have had a background that is 'basically blank'.
Of course, the next step would be to find the right wording to turn this insight into an unambigious rule.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 11:51:40 AM · #60 |
So how do we sum up the fact that you can remove a background with a consecutive features and can not remove a background that lets say has a wall in it? The word is prominent as said by many but we need to sum it in to a rule.
And even though I mentioned it before about splitting up the rule and it was shot down I still think that is best for the new rules.
Here's why... The rule it self was at one time split up and then SC decided to merge it so they could add the typical viewer lines. Well we need to rewrite that rule so what better way to do that is if we split the rule back up?
What's wrong with having an extra line in rules?
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 03:07:34 PM · #61 |
Here is a copy of the bulleted rule clause in question:
"use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."
For Advanced editing, would it have been legal to do selective desaturation to the point of making the desk/partition, almost invisible?
It does make parallel sense to make an almost blank Bg into Blank. And it would probably been okay to make a more prominent Bg (that's not almost blank), almost blank.
Even the word "Prominent" seems to be more precise then then the So, so vague, "Typical viewer". What describes the "Nielson" viewer? A percentage CAN be calculated exactly, but Rudolph's nose is Prominent. The answer lies in a combination of clauses.
On one example here, it seems the wallpaper was changed, although I didn't see the original. |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 06:04:48 PM · #62 |
From what I noticed on the other related thread, the SC voting leaned on the following, most of the time.
The amount of "Promenence" seems to be determined by the Clarity/Detail and the Brightness (Light/Dark), along with it's pertinance to the main subject.
Except if pre-qualified, it's usually a harsher warning.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 08:01:42 PM · #63 |
| So should we say that if your BG image has more than 2 colors then you can't remove it? |
|
|
|
12/19/2007 10:55:59 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by L2:
Next, let's move on to the "just plain allow complete obliteration of the background" idea. How does that idea square with the preamble of the Advanced Editing ruleset: "Advanced Editing allows more freedom to correct flaws and make the most of your captured image. Selections, layers and selective editing tools are allowed for touch-up and enhancement only. You may not create new features or obscure significant parts of your original capture." |
It doesn't. "Complete obliteration" is something that should be left for the Expert Editing rule set.
That said, I'm afraid that I have to agree with Bear in that I don't really see how the subjectivity can be taken out of the rule.
I really don't think that the anomaly of the Mustang pictures can be explained by an objective application of the rule (sorry Shannon). That isn't to say that the SC's interpretation is wrong, however. If I had had a vote, I would have voted to DQ both, but that is my subjective interpretation of the rules, which is, of course, driven by my own subjective beliefs, interpretations, and desires as to what the purpose of this particular provision of the Advanced Editing rules is designed to serve. Each member of the SC has their own subjective interpretation of the photos in question and their own ideas about what the purpose of that provision is meant to serve, and some of them may be as confused as many of us here in this thread seem to be about how best to apply the rule in close situations.
None of the suggestions that have been put forth so far would do anything to make the exact location of the line objectively clearer. If such a clarification could be put forth, then I would applaud it's adoption, but I repeat that I am skeptical that such a solution is available.
Until then, it would seem that a pretty basic approach would be advisable: 1) if you don't want your photo DQ'd stay well away from the type of editing that might run afoul of the subjective interpretations of of the SC; 2) if you feel the need to "push the envelope" on the ruleset because you want your photo to look "just so", then be aware that the editing might result in your photo being DQ'd (if you have time, run it by the SC to be sure); and 3) if DQ'd, assume good faith on the part of the SC, take your lumps, and move on.
Message edited by author 2007-12-19 23:05:15. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:45:24 AM · #65 |
Well, I have some sympathy with the SC decision to DQ the one photo and allow the other.
The background to  Dirt_Diver's image has been edited to make it a 'feature' of the image - it's not just a case of removing the trash can, (which I would suggest looked untidy but didn't define the image nor would it have altered my description of the image if that had been all that had been removed), but rather the background has been removed except for the doors and their reflection. By doing this the doors and their reflection have become an integral part of the image description - which they weren't before, being just part of a cluttered background.
In  crabappl3's image it can be argued that though the background has been edited, it hasn't been done in such a way as to alter the basic concept of the image, it just emphasizes the concept that was already there.
I can see where the SC would make that decision and, subjective though it is, it seems to me to be consistent with the wording of the current rule set.
--------
Edit: Hmm sorry, this is slightly off-topic as the thread is about changing the current rule set. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure the current rule set needs changing - at least certainly not in light of the current specific objections that caused the topic to be raised.
As shutterpuppy advises, if you know you're pushing near the limits just run it by SC before submitting..
--------
Having said that, and because i have great difficulty in keeping a consistent argument in my head! I do find it frustrating that in the 'Advanced' rule set we aren't allowed to make full use of such basic darkroom techniques as dodging and burning - it's not as if the photographer is deliberately trying to mislead the viewer. When applied as vignets etc burning and dodging are very obvious and have always been accepted printing techniques. There have been some excellent images across many challenges that have fallen fowl of the DQ hammer for what I'd suggest is a widely accepted photographic practice.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 07:18:03. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 07:04:38 AM · #66 |
I would like to hear what an SC member has to say about this. Do they agree or disagree with it?
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 03:54:32 PM · #67 |
bump for anyone that would like to read or comment
|
|
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: 06/20/2025 11:39:12 PM EDT.
