| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2008 11:14:20 AM · #76 |
Iâm gong to make one more try at this âcloning-out-of-propsâ DQ problem before the dead horsie comes out.
Presently, it seems that a little cloning (fishing line) is okay; more cloning (tripod part) is not. This is a matter of degree, of course.
Now. What would happen if NO cloning out of props was permitted. How about allowing the photographer all the ingenuity at his or her disposal to disguise the prop, but not to surgically remove it.
Magicians do this all the time in their presentations. Why not photographers.
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 12:35:50 PM · #77 |
| cos it is easier to clone them out. less work invovled =\ |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 09:04:25 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Now. What would happen if NO cloning out of props was permitted. How about allowing the photographer all the ingenuity at his or her disposal to disguise the prop, but not to surgically remove it.
Magicians do this all the time in their presentations. Why not photographers. |
Our magic is cloning, allowed in advanced, not in basic. Basic editing is what you are proposing is it not?
|
|
|
|
04/05/2008 10:47:41 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Iâm gong to make one more try at this âcloning-out-of-propsâ DQ problem before the dead horsie comes out.
Presently, it seems that a little cloning (fishing line) is okay; more cloning (tripod part) is not. This is a matter of degree, of course.
Now. What would happen if NO cloning out of props was permitted. How about allowing the photographer all the ingenuity at his or her disposal to disguise the prop, but not to surgically remove it.
Magicians do this all the time in their presentations. Why not photographers. |
Shouldn't we just encourage getting the best possible result in the most efficient manner? If it's quicker to hide the prop before shooting then by all means hide the prop. If it's easier to clone it out then allow that. Unlike in magic the viewer could care less about the prop being used. They are just concerned with the final product as presented so why make cloning out to be a big deal? Cloning isn't any different than say makeup on a model. Both conceal the truth. If you're not after the truth then why should it matter? |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:04:35 PM · #80 |
I agree here with Yanko's above post. Basic Editing should in no way allow the removal of the thread line or the tripod (Scalv vs Gator), however in Advanced Editing, I would like to see either item removable assuming that the cloning used is done in such a way as to fill in an already present background. It could not be used to ADD some element to the image.
These types of setups are used for creative license in photography and frankly, could be easily removed if one had a darkroom and enlarger. That for me is the cultural difference between basic and advanced editing. Aside from dust spots or minor highlights, basic should be the shot you would get if you brought your film to a shop that might color correct and possibly sharpen for you, while advanced should be what you could achieve with one image (well, now up to ten shots...) and a good grasp on the entire darkroom process.
JMO.
Message edited by author 2008-04-05 23:05:08. |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:14:55 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by Arcanist:
I agree here with Yanko's above post. Basic Editing should in no way allow the removal of the thread line or the tripod (Scalv vs Gator), however in Advanced Editing, I would like to see either item removable assuming that the cloning used is done in such a way as to fill in an already present background. It could not be used to ADD some element to the image. |
Great, let's just put the Peeps on a boulder or table and clone it out in PS. Replace the background you see peeking around the edges and you're all set. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:18:00 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by ShutterHack:
I guess you considered all the cloning you did on the audience peeps, which was quite a bit as just minor inperfections? Hmm, It looks like there was a substantial amount of cloning going on... |
Aside from the faint fishing line, no objects were cloned out. I don't think anyone's ever been DQ'd for clearing up skin flaws in Advanced. ;-) |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:18:53 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Arcanist:
I agree here with Yanko's above post. Basic Editing should in no way allow the removal of the thread line or the tripod (Scalv vs Gator), however in Advanced Editing, I would like to see either item removable assuming that the cloning used is done in such a way as to fill in an already present background. It could not be used to ADD some element to the image. |
Great, let's just put the Peeps on a boulder or table and clone it out in PS. Replace the background you see peeking around the edges and you're all set. :-/ |
Replacing a background peeking around the edge is grounds for dq? |
|
|
|
04/05/2008 11:37:20 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by k4ffy:
Whats wrong with teamwork? |
I could see an issue if people were collaborating to get ideas, processing tips and setup help for individual entries, but I think the current team threads are pretty much limited to "ra, ra ra... go team." |
Shannon, I'll just put this right out there in public: Team Critical Mass does everything you listed on a regular basis. It was such a wonderful opportunity during DPL that we've carried on ever since.
We discuss ideas and setups for shots, share versions of our images, gather processing tips, etc. We then make our own final decisions about what to use and what not to use, and we don't vote on photos we've discussed.
I'm saying this so bluntly for two reasons:
1) I think it's perfectly allowed by the rules. I feel no shame about it, nor do I think anyone else should. In fact, I think we're darn lucky to have found each other.
2) If it's not legal, I want to know. I have no interest in carrying on such discussions if it's not allowed.
Incidentally, "collaborating to get ideas" is what happens on every challenge, in the thread discussing the challenge during submissions. Not DPL team threads, but public ones under the "Current Challenge" forum. One recent example.
I'll also be upfront about the fact that I've mentored at least two people. Same concept - I discuss ideas and setups with them, processing tips, and opinions on various versions. Again, though, those people make their own final choices and I don't vote on those images.
Message edited by author 2008-04-05 23:41:35.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:16:47 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Replacing a background peeking around the edge is grounds for dq? |
Arcanist appeared to suggest that we should be able to clone OUT anything. Thus, if a Peep were placed on a large boulder, it should be OK to clone out the boulder as long as it's replaced with the background you see around the edges.
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 01:08:31. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:44:20 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
We discuss ideas and setups for shots, share versions of our images, gather processing tips, etc. We then make our own final decisions about what to use and what not to use, and we don't vote on photos we've discussed. |
That is apparently OK, and I'm sure many of us routinely ask a spouse or other DPCer for opinions, titles, etc. However, the rules (up to Advanced Editing IV) used to state that you needed permission from the Admins to collaborate with others when creating your entry. For that reason, I was surprised and a little uncomfortable when discussion of potential entries was allowed in the DPL threads. Because of that, the RibbonHogs thread was mostly limited to, "Which of these should I enter?" and title suggestions. This IS a site for learning, but take this example:
I shot this [lame] self portrait completely on my own- idea, setup, lighting, shutter release, processing and title. Now imagine if my wife happened to be a very good DPC photographer (a scary thought, but bear with me here). What if she thought of this cyborg idea and then suggested an LED light and electrical tape mask for the green eye? What if she suggested placing the light on one side to keep the other eye in shadow? Suppose she had a great thought for the title, too. Since I'm obviously the model, she would be the one to press the shutter and in a much better position to judge the composition and expression. As a competent photographer, she notices that the exposure is too hot and dials down the lights or changes the aperture. After a bunch of photos, I pick out the best one, process it and enter it. Now, who was really the photographer and, if it wasn't me, at what point did the collaboration go too far? While you wrestle with that thought, remember that there's really no way to police that process (we wouldn't even know if she did the processing, too). Now what? |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 01:19:45 AM · #87 |
Aside from the faint fishing line, no objects were cloned out. I don't think anyone's ever been DQ'd for clearing up skin flaws in Advanced. ;-)
I like how everything is subjective depending upon who the person is that is in question. Just minor skin flaws, o ok.
You may not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features that didn't already exist in your original capture.
The "skin" wasnt there in the first place is was healed in or clone stamped in not just a cleared up.
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 01:20:20. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 02:59:54 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
But isn't framing the image in such a way as to not include the setup part of getting the shot? |
Bingo...
 |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 07:38:32 AM · #89 |
Magicians do this all the time in their presentations. Why not photographers. [/quote]
images tell a story should be real not flake! Changing any items including power lines should be a crime |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 07:56:32 AM · #90 |
In the new advanced editing, the test in the rules for legality of cloning is a "typical viewers description" shouldn't be changed. I would have to say that any prop being cloned out would change my description of a photo. For example; before is a picture of a peep being held up by a crane or a string or sitting on a table, and after, here is a picture of a peep floating in air. There is no test for amount of cloning in our new rules, just how it changes your description of the photo. In my view, if the prop is visible, it has to stay.
In the old rules, the test for cloning was not removing a "major element". In my view, removing props under the old rules was legal. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:03:11 PM · #91 |
You know it's funny that no matter what SC member responds (usually Shannon) the results are still the same. When my car shot got DQ'd I felt like I was wrongfully DQ'd as did many others. I along with many others on the site see the same things over and over again, When a shot gets DQ'd there are 2 sides to it. 1 side says yes your should have been and the other side says no you shouldn't have. The problem I see with this is that people switch sides all the time.
How many people actually backed me up in my thread when I was DQ'd??? regardless of your thoughts on the person if you truly believe in something then damn it do it. I suggested that we do something about the wording to the rules and stop people from getting DQ's but who listened? I'm not saying that you have to drop everything you are doing to come up with something but something needs to be done about this because it drives many of us insane. People don't like hearing all the complaining, people don't think the site is fair, people don't even care that someone else gets DQ'd until it happens to them and then they start another thread about why they were DQ'd.
What is so hard about allowing props to be cloned out???
To all the SC member and admin, you asked us to give you new wording and we did. We can give you 10 pages of new wording, but you have to decide what is beneficial to the site from that.
Disclaimer* I'm not personally attacking anyone this morning but I (and some others) think that something should be done about the DQ's. We (the average user) need to be heard and stop being shot down by the voices that matter. All we need is 1 SC to see it our way and the rest will take care if itself.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:14:59 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
What is so hard about allowing props to be cloned out??? |
It's a question of definition/intention. If you say "You may clone out elements used to support your subject", for example, then there's nothing to keep the photographer from using massive, intrusive supports. There's a consensus on DPC that it is desirable that photographers, as much as possible, get it right in set-up and not rely on photoshop to do the dirty work. Using monofilament fishing line instead of quarter-inch clothesline (as per the recent examples, dancing peeps vs tethered balloon) follows this ethos.
The problem is coming up with a wording that codifies this ethos, IMO. The "typical viewer" provision is certainly the closest I've seen to it yet.
R. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:19:15 PM · #93 |
 dirt_diver says: What is so hard about allowing props to be cloned out???
cloudsme says: In my view, if the prop is visible, it has to stay.
Both of these people make my point beautifully.
Yes, of course I have my preference in this discussion.
But.
Letâs decide. One way or another, sure, but decide!
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:25:28 PM · #94 |
One method I use in casting my vote is to look at the thumbnails. If I can't tell what was cloned out when comparing a thumbnail of the original to a thumbnail of the submission, I'm likely to give the photographer the no-DQ vote, even though this is, in some cases, more permissive than the strict wording of the rule.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 12:26:07.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 12:57:11 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
One method I use in casting my vote is to look at the thumbnails. If I can't tell what was cloned out when comparing a thumbnail of the original to a thumbnail of the submission, I'm likely to give the photographer the no-DQ vote, even though this is, in some cases, more permissive than the strict wording of the rule.
~Terry |
The thumbnail test sounds cool, and I think it might have been useful when the real test was "removal of major elements", but I don't think the thumbnail test has much of a place when the real test is "typical viewers description". This arguement should be fairly easy to settle, but you have to go back to the rules that we have. Does a prop change a typical viewers description of a photo? That is the only test in the rules that establish if the cloning done is legal. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 01:30:52 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Does a prop change a typical viewers description of a photo? |
Absofrigginlutely. |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 02:19:13 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Does a prop change a typical viewers description of a photo? |
Absofrigginlutely. |
Of course it does. How does the viewer know it's just a prop and not really part of the picture?
"Here's my latest picture of the flying carpet. Ignore the big crane and guy wires holding it up. They're just props. " ;oP |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 02:56:22 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
... Disclaimer* I'm not personally attacking anyone this morning but I (and some others) think that something should be done about the DQ's. We (the average user) need to be heard and stop being shot down by the voices that matter. All we need is 1 SC to see it our way and the rest will take care if itself. |
Hello. "Average user" here...I don't personally see a problem with the DQ system as it is. There's usually going to be someone that has a gripe, but for the majority I think the DQ/Validation process works very well. JMO of course. :-) |
|
|
|
04/06/2008 03:22:49 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
... Disclaimer* I'm not personally attacking anyone this morning but I (and some others) think that something should be done about the DQ's. We (the average user) need to be heard and stop being shot down by the voices that matter. All we need is 1 SC to see it our way and the rest will take care if itself. |
Hello. "Average user" here...I don't personally see a problem with the DQ system as it is. There's usually going to be someone that has a gripe, but for the majority I think the DQ/Validation process works very well. JMO of course. :-) |
You never do. You're happy as long as everything stays the same. We already know what you think and how you feel about the site. For a lot others it's different.
|
|
|
|
04/06/2008 03:23:14 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
We discuss ideas and setups for shots, share versions of our images, gather processing tips, etc. We then make our own final decisions about what to use and what not to use, and we don't vote on photos we've discussed. |
That is apparently OK, and I'm sure many of us routinely ask a spouse or other DPCer for opinions, titles, etc. However, the rules (up to Advanced Editing IV) used to state that you needed permission from the Admins to collaborate with others when creating your entry. For that reason, I was surprised and a little uncomfortable when discussion of potential entries was allowed in the DPL threads. Because of that, the RibbonHogs thread was mostly limited to, "Which of these should I enter?" and title suggestions. This IS a site for learning, but take this example:
I shot this [lame] self portrait completely on my own- idea, setup, lighting, shutter release, processing and title. Now imagine if my wife happened to be a very good DPC photographer (a scary thought, but bear with me here). What if she thought of this cyborg idea and then suggested an LED light and electrical tape mask for the green eye? What if she suggested placing the light on one side to keep the other eye in shadow? Suppose she had a great thought for the title, too. Since I'm obviously the model, she would be the one to press the shutter and in a much better position to judge the composition and expression. As a competent photographer, she notices that the exposure is too hot and dials down the lights or changes the aperture. After a bunch of photos, I pick out the best one, process it and enter it. Now, who was really the photographer and, if it wasn't me, at what point did the collaboration go too far? While you wrestle with that thought, remember that there's really no way to police that process (we wouldn't even know if she did the processing, too). Now what? |
That is what I was trying to get at earlier. What consistitutes collaboration or even ownership if someone else is doing many of the things you described? Taking advice/feedback is an important aspect to learning but when that advice/feedback turns into specific instructions and/or someone else is helping you execute it (post processing included) you're becoming the assistant to the process or at the very least engaged in a joint venture/collaboration in which case no one person owns the final product. My opinion of course.
Message edited by author 2008-04-06 15:29:23. |
|
