Would all these edits be dq'd under advanced edit

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/30/2008 04:19:14 PM · #1

I have a question regarding what is acceptable for not receiving a dq. Here are three images of my dq'd image from best of 2007. The first is unedited, the second used cloning to get rid of the distracting white lattice (I thought we could clone out distractions as long as it didn't affect the general tone of the image) and the third is using the cloned image, then adjusting hue and sat to blue. Are the edited images illegal, and what would have been okay?

(unedited original image)

(cloned out the white lattice)

(cloned out lattice and adjusted hue and sat.

I would really like to know what is acceptable. Others might find your comments on this thread informative and useful.

krukvaext

Canon EOS-550D Rebel T2i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/30/2008 04:23:08 PM · #2

Well, for starters, I prefer the original above the others..

It might have had something to do with the pixelly 'aura' surrounding the bird in the final product, in which you seem to have coloured the background (atleast in the Best of 2007-version) which I'm hesitant about whether it's legal or not.

KarenNfld

01/30/2008 04:24:27 PM · #3

Well, the rules say you can clone out minor imperfections. I really don't consider the entire background to be minor.

Message edited by author 2008-01-30 16:24:35.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

01/30/2008 04:24:52 PM · #4

When you start chopping out backgrounds, or altering them from what was originally shot, it's gonna get a DQ vote from me. The rules allow for minor cloning -- not things that change the context of the shot.

Greetmir

Nikon D60

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Nikon

01/30/2008 05:03:29 PM · #5

Well here is your original cropped only ... I don't find the background that distracting but maybe only blurring further or cloning out the bottom left corner would not result in a DQ BUT taking the entire background to almost black would almost certainly get it DQ'ed by most SC, methinks.

[thumb]640345[/thumb]

01/30/2008 05:25:37 PM · #6

I obviously pushed it on my challenge edit. I actually ended up taking an image I had previously edited and posted it, without checking to see what was legal. Anyway, I am curious about the cloning of the lattice. As my second image shows, I cloned out the white lattice by using part of the brown background. I have to admit I have done this many times in the past, taken parts of images away through cloning to either even out a background or remove a bright highlight. Now I am concerned that those too are illegal. I also wonder if gaussian blur would be considered illegal, since it would have taken all the detail (as minor as it was) and created a somewhat marbled look to the background. I have also done gaussian blur on backgrounds which are not in focus (as this one) to create a smoother look. Is this also considered illegal?

Other things I have done. Adjusted brightness and contrast in backgrounds to either darken it substantially or lighten it substantially. This may also be illegal? I mean, not changing color like on my parrot image, just darkening or lightening, but maintaining the background color. These are the legal maneuvers that I have done, yet now I wonder when it is considered too much.

I know, contact the council when in doubt, but on my parrot, it was the fourth image I changed for Best of 2007, at 10:45 p.m on the due date, so didn't have time.

Message edited by author 2008-01-30 17:32:14.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

01/30/2008 05:34:15 PM · #7

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Okay, so does that mean that cloning out the lattice changes the context of the shot? I mean, even my crop did that. The crop cut out nearly the entire background. There is no way that anybody looking at the crop would even think that I shot it in a gazebo with lattice.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

01/30/2008 05:43:25 PM · #8

Originally posted by JunieMoon:

Originally posted by alanfreed:
When you start chopping out backgrounds, or altering them from what was originally shot, it's gonna get a DQ vote from me. The rules allow for minor cloning -- not things that change the context of the shot.

Okay, so does that mean that cloning out the lattice changes the context of the shot? I mean, even my crop did that. The crop cut out nearly the entire background. There is no way that anybody looking at the crop would even think that I shot it in a gazebo with lattice.

Cropping is different then chopping out pieces. With cropping you are actually changing the framing, in a sense, making a different shot. When you chop out stuff the framing isn't changing, you're just removing stuff from inside the frame. The latter is what leads to a DQ.

It's best to really look at your background before pressing the shutter rather than thinking of cloning out distracting objects after the fact. I know, it's not always possible but why not avoid it if you can?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/30/2008 05:50:02 PM · #9

About cloning, what is considered okay to clone out? Is it okay to clone out a blown out highlight, say? Is it okay to clone out, or at least color correct, splotches on somebodies skin, like maybe a birthmark or scap or acne?
In the case of the lattice with the parrot, the lattice was overexposed and the color was so off compared to the rest of the background. This bothers me because if cloning out that lattice is means for dq, then I would think that many others who have entered in adv editing might be just as guilty as me. It just seems like even burning in the lattice to darken it might have been means for dq.

Message edited by author 2008-01-30 17:53:26.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/30/2008 05:54:28 PM · #10

Originally posted by JunieMoon:

I always ask myself this: If I asked 10 different people to describe this photo, what would at least 8 of them include in the description, and would at least 8 of them leave out the (insert the part you want to clone away here)?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/30/2008 05:56:27 PM · #11

Originally posted by Beetle:

Originally posted by JunieMoon:
About cloning, what is considered okay to clone out? Is it okay to clone out a blown out highlight, say? Is it okay to clone out, or at least color correct, splotches on somebodies skin, like maybe a birthmark or scap or acne?

I always ask myself this: If I asked 10 different people to describe this photo, what would at least 8 of them include in the description, and would at least 8 of them leave out the (insert the part you want to clone away here)?

In the case of the parrot, I would bet that 8 out of ten people would have just said it was a portrait of a parrot with a brown background, especially with the crop, then they would ask me why don't I clone out the blown out highlight in the lower left? I guarantee that that would have been included in the comments if I had just posted the image as a crop with no background adjustment.
The blue background did take it too far, but as I said before it was a lazy mistake on my part. I should have reedited it for the challenge, rather than posting an old edit. However if I had reedited it Iwould have certainly cloned out the lattice, without a doubt. The color I might not have changed, but definitely would have thought cloning out the lattice would be considered a minor cloning.

Message edited by author 2008-01-30 17:58:40.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/30/2008 06:12:23 PM · #12

I'm sure 9 out of 10 would simply say, "it's a parrot".

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/30/2008 06:23:17 PM · #13

Thanks Beetle and Eclipsic for letting me know you liked the original version best. I prefer it too, but this is dp, and I figure everything has to be in your face close. You don't get a lot of happy viewers if you leave all that detail that actually makes your image unique because you placed it in a setting. They all want to look at the parrot feathers, eyeballs, and textured feet, which really doesn't make your image anymore unique than the other 100 close ups of parrots. That is why I cropped it so severely.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

01/30/2008 06:40:37 PM · #14

Originally posted by JunieMoon:

If they're asking about the blown highlight, then it seems to me that the blown highlight is part of the description of the image.

Personally, I don't think the highlight in Greetmir's version is that bad. If given the choice between the cropped unedited version and the cloned ones, I'd pick the one that was just cropped.