| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2004 01:16:46 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Personally, I wasn't completely sure whether or not I could find some technical grounds within the "letter" of the rules to DQ the photo, but it really didn't matter. By my reading of the photographer's comments, it was immediately apparent that the photographer had violated both the rule regarding "photographic integrity" (I think the photographer needs to have it), and the site TOS against activities blatantly designed "to manipulate the vote."
|
My POV is based on an assumption there was an honest attempt to enter the challenge and follow the rules as stated. I didn't read the photographer comments so if they somehow implied that he thought he was doing something wrong and did it anyway please ignore everything I've previously written on the subject. |
e301 did say in his notes (at least the original ones) that he felt he was legal within the rules but not within the spirit of the rules. I don't remember exact wording, but it was something like that. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:16:53 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think "spirit of the rules" means using the tools/rules within the guidlines we all know were intended when we changed the rules to allow more editing capability. |
Very well stated, I like that definition. |
I don't agree because not everyone was part of the discussion, read the discussion, or were even around for that discussion. As time goes by this will only become more true. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:18:10 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
I don't agree because not everyone was part of the discussion, read the discussion, or were even around for that discussion. As time goes by this will only become more true. |
As you'll see, that doesn't apply in this situation. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:24:04 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sent you a PM with some additional info ... |
Yes, well, I will be silent now. :) |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:26:18 AM · #55 |
| Not at all meant to silence you, just to enable you to speak more knowledgably. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:27:38 AM · #56 |
Now you've got some side information passing. Care to share with the rest of us, GeneralE?
(pssst...or at least send me the info, too! I wanna keep abreast...)
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 01:28:21 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Not at all meant to silence you, just to enable you to speak more knowledgably. |
No, I mean my argument has become mute to me so there isn't anything more for me to say. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:06:32 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
Ed,
I personally agree you did not break any of the rules you listed. However, you mentioned that if the site council or admin expect to be able to make subjective decisions about the spirit of the site, then it needs to be explicitly stated in the rules. I agree that they do need to spell that out more explicitly, but you have ignored this part of the rules:
"Members are reminded to hold photographic integrity in the highest regard when both submitting and voting."
This is not in the "suggestions" portion of the rules. It states that your shot must hold up to photographic integrity. I believe that this implies that the site council (the rules judges) hold the power to decide when this is broken. If you photo does not stand up to "photographic integrity," then it deserves to be DQ'd. I think you have a great photo, but I would have DQ'd it on this basis, as well. |
I just hope the new rules include a definition of what consitutes photographic integrity. Sure it is something each individual will determine for themselves, as all integrity is; but it really needs a clear and concise definition of what it means for the challenges. Without that definition (clarification), I do not see how the new rules will be anything more than a (not-so-) quick ;) fix.
David |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 02:27:53 AM · #59 |
My original notes (which I don't have now) said something along the lines of my being fully aware that the image was against the spirit of the rules, and that in that sense I was sorry to submit it. If any Site Council would care to post my original comments on this thread please feel free to do so ... I'm guessing that the contents of that PM are pretty much that.
I was fully aware, and I think had participated in the discussion prior to entering that shot. I suppose I to some extent entered to give things a further push in the editing debate. But I remain ambivalent about that shot - largely because of the votes it receieved I think.
Something no-one has mentioned is that it is taken with a 2MP camera, not with my Nikon. I also partly wanted to push against the asssumption that vast expense is needed to do well here.
Ed
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 03:22:46 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by e301 Original Notes:
Er ... it's fake, to a certain extent. Though I was up and out at before 7:00a.m. to get the shot. In that it ain't taken through window, at least, it's fake.
The processing is this: select an area the shape of the balck part of the frame. Darken it absolutely, to all black. Select an area to represent the lighter part of the frame, the bit that reflects light. Darken it about 30 points. Gaussian Blur it with a radius of around 40. Select an area on that new layer that represents the underside of the horizontal section of frame. Shift the colour temperature towards orange quite a lot, so that it appears to reflect the sunrise portion of the sky. Next - the killer bit - select the frame area again, but this time feathered about 4 pixels. Gaussian blur that with a radius of 2 or so, so that the frame looks slightly out of focus (only slightly). This also blurs the very hard edges between selected areas.
Clone out some of the halo effects around the horizon from the in-camera sharpening. The 2800Z rocks but it's limited on that kind of front.
The whole thing is then darkened a touch, and the contrast lifted a little, to add some drama to the sky.
Personally, I hate this kind of deception ... it's a lot like one of the ribboning shots in the recent shadows challenge. but it's absolutely within the rules for the members' challenges. It is, however, and in my opinion, against the spirit of the rules. In that sense, I'm sorry to submit it.
Neatimage with the algorithm to lose heavy compression and sharpening artefacts to finish ... this that slight sense of long exposure about it.
Oh, and somewhere in that process I cloned out various assorted cranes on the skyline ... which is within the spirit of the rules. After reading dsidwell's comments on his March Free Study shot, I went back and worked on the area around the sun a little, with the smudge and soften tools. Hell, if he can shoot into the sun, so can I.
All of which will be incidental when it comes in around halfway with a 5.5, of course :-) I think the give-away is in the under-side of the frame: it either isn't dark enough, or isn't bright enough, but I can't make it work either way so have settled for this.
A couple of final points. This is actually taken from Hungerford Bridge, facing the opposite direction to my Urban Lanscapes shot, and it is looking thother way along the Thames and at the other end of the day, from the shot that formed the basis of my Matrix shot ... so it has pleasant connections of other entries, too. |
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 03:53:54 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by e301:
I did not add anything to my photograph, I merely darkened, blurred and changed colour temperature on selected areas. All of which processes are entirely what the advanced rules were instituted to allow. The result just happens to look like a window frame. |
I have to say, that is a terribly lawyerly response. You obviously added something designed to look like a windowframe.
Hell, ANY photo manipulation could be talked away by your logic. "I didn't add that elephant, all I did was alter the colour values of some of the pixels. The result just happens to look like an elephant". |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 04:15:11 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Hell... |
Stop cussing dear, and do some work!
:o)
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 05:36:19 AM · #63 |
| I guess you should have called it a border! |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 07:25:50 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'd have to agree with TechnoShroom on this one. While the "spirit" of the site might not have been spelled out clearly, the grounds for disqualification are very specific. I know the frame was "created," but only as a result of using legal methods on one source file- not brought in from another photo. Is that really any different from these ribbon winners?
 
The brush strokes and horns weren't part of the original photos. Sure, the window frame forms the basis for meeting the Challenge in this case, but photos supposedly aren't disqualified for not meeting a Challenge. I'm totally in favor of photographic integrity, and the disqualification seems to be the will of the masses as much as the SC, but I can certainly understand e301's point about the the justification for his disqualification. I'm not arguing against photographic integrity, but I would have let that image stand as legal under the existing rules. The new rules under discussion will help prevent this issue in the future.
|
I knew right from the start that my Shadow submission was pushing the envelope somewhat. As I stated in my photographer's comments at the time, I used the clone tool to remove part of the shadow creating the brush strokes on the wall. And in some ways, it's no better than what e301 did by creating that make-believe window frame.
But, the shadow was there to begin with. Manipulating the shadow the way I did with the clone stamp is in no way different of techniques used by many of us here to clone out distracting elements such as trees, sun glare spots and the list goes on and on. But, it is completely different than adding a photo element that was nowhere near being in the photo to begin with, in this case e301's window frame.
To end, I didn't write this post to defend my image or to ensure that my only ribbon doesn't get revoked, but just to add a point of view to this constructive discussion.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 09:20:07 AM · #65 |
nm
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 09:23:20.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 09:44:04 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
the shadow was there to begin with. Manipulating the shadow the way I did with the clone stamp is in no way different of techniques used by many of us here to clone out distracting elements... But, it is completely different than adding a photo element that was nowhere near being in the photo to begin with, in this case e301's window frame. |
I agree that the window frame was more blatant, but the fact that you're painting the shadow WASN'T there to begin with, and that's what made the shot a winner. Take away the brush strokes that were cloned in and you take away a ribbon (I think Setzler was vocal about this at the time). Consider that e301 could have easily carried a window frame into the field and captured the same shot in-camera, but those brush strokes would be MUCH more difficult to produce without retouching. A sculptor might say that the window frame was there all along... he just dodged and burned to make it more obvious to others (no need to flame me- I know the logic is weak). I think you came up with a clever solution and I'm against retroactive disqualification, but I find it amusing that you received [mostly] contratulations for the creative use of allowed tools, while e301 got slammed. I agree that the Window image should have been disqualified on the basis of photo integrity, but I also believe that the current rules as written might not have been grounds to do so since they're very specific on why an image could be DQ'd. Kudos to the Site Council for attempting to steer us through this tangle.
I was mistaken in using Pedro's image as an example since the rules didn't apply there, but I could find others easily enough. I'll be interested to see where the new rules draw the line and whether some of these legacy images would still stand. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:40:25 AM · #67 |
If we're going to talk about photographic integrity, I want to know where the integrity is in hauling a window pane out into the world, propping it up in a convenient place and taking a photo through it. In my mind there is little difference between that and creating it and I voted that way.
While we are on the subject of creating, and following the stated reasoning, I call for the DQ of ALL photos shown with borders, unless you hauled your border out into the field with you to shoot through. I think the DQ was unjustified.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:42:25 AM · #68 |
I support the SC's decision to DQ e301's Window View entry. I thought long and hard at the time about Beagleboy's Your Shadow entry and think the decision not to DQ it was also a correct one. We should all be very pleased to see SC considering photographic integrity and the spirit of the rules in their deliberations.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the SC does have the power to do retroactive DQs, and has done so in the past. The instances that I recall, rather vaguely, were on dates violations of photos from challenges 6 months or more in the past. I see no reason why the SC can't do similiar retroactive DQs for photographic integrity and spirit of the rules violations. I think they are duty bound to investigate, and DQ if warranted, whenever likely violations are brought to their attention.
As we look forward, eagerly, to a new and better rule set for Member challenges we need to acknowledge that the Site Council's interpretation of Photographic Integrity and the Spirit of the Rules is an integral part of applying the rules.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:48:11 AM · #69 |
Borders are legal, fabricating the subject of the photo is not (at least by the current results).
The challenge said to take a photo through a window and show part of the frame or glass. It explicitly DID NOT say that the window had to be permanently mounted in a wall, and in fact during the lead-up to the challenge, people openly discussed taking a window frame somewhere nice to shoot. That technique was perfectly legal for this challenge, as would have been (to me) using some naturally-occurring subject (like a cluster of branches) to form a "natural window."
I find people too ready to stifle creativity and impose their own limitations on others. Then they complain when, as in "Serendipity," the entry is so spot-on for the challenge that several people used the same/similar idea, so we're marked down for being "boring." I say pick one ... allow creative interpretations or expect to look at 150 photos of a red apple ... |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 11:07:46 AM · #70 |
I may be the new guy here and I may not have submitted any photos yet, but I have been paying attention to this issue since I saw the challenge finish up.
I didn't come here to be entering Photoshop contests.
Actually, I have a couple more things that would go here just fine, but I think the line above sums it up quite clearly. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:24:50 PM · #71 |
Hi Ed
I think it is extremely harsh for them to suddenly use your picture as an example. I see a few comments about the rules stating photographic integrity. I totally agree with this and I think they should be much less leaniant about digital editing, but there have been so many pictures before this that have payed no attention to "photographgic integrity" and have done really well and been praised by the administrators.For example "Final sunset" by rcrawford, not meaning to be rude about his/her picture but without the editing its nothing.If the site council had spent a little more time thinking about it, then they would have realised that they could have let you have your ribbon and change the rules afterwards. And if the reason is the fact that John Setzler threatened to get rid of his tutorials, well I think that is just extremely childish! You cant treat one user better than an other just because the fact they are well known and have a reputation!!
I totally support you on this issue
even though i disagree witrh your picture,
I think it is very noble of you to be ready to give over your ribbon, if you could just see the grounds for which you are being disqualified
thanks
TC
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:33:48 PM · #72 |
This has nothing to do with John's tutorials, which have already been removed.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:37:07 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Konador:
This has nothing to do with John's tutorials, which have already been removed. |
i used them too, oh well.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:41:50 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by hsteg:
Originally posted by Konador:
This has nothing to do with John's tutorials, which have already been removed. |
i used them too, oh well. |
You can find them on his website, //www.setzler.net
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 12:41:52 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Konador:
This has nothing to do with John's tutorials, which have already been removed. |
sorry i got the wrong impression, but i still think his threat was quite childish. |
|
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: 10/29/2025 07:26:49 PM EDT.
