| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/11/2013 04:04:24 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
If he had no border but just cropped it the way he did, would it still be DQ'ed? |
No, that's fine. The crop itself wasn't an issue– it was either putting back the same area supposedly cropped out (in effect NO crop with the reeds removed) or pasting a different part of the photo into the border. |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:07:36 PM · #27 |
| um... wasn't 4th also DQ'd? |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:11:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by mrchhas:
um... wasn't 4th also DQ'd? |
Yes, why do you ask? |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:13:19 PM · #29 |
No Shannon, although your answer and explanation is sophisticated, the image isn't extended with the border.. the border was produced by blurring the cropped image a lot (cropping a major element is not illegal), desaturate a bit, and adjust the brightness and contrast. The border is not an active continuation of the image, if you mean that. And yes, it could be easily made by a gradient as said. A typical viewer's point of view isn't changed. According to the rules that the SC used, it is still not clear the illegal point.
Message edited by author 2013-02-11 16:17:46. |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:16:31 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mrchhas:
um... wasn't 4th also DQ'd? |
Yes, why do you ask? |
I was confused myself, the OP was talking about the 4th place image, the entire rest of the tread is about the former 8th place image. I was looking for border issues on the 4th place image at first. |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:20:02 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Pascal:
No Shannon, although your answer and explanation is sophisticated, the image isn't extended with the border.. the border was produced by blurring the cropped image a lot |
Ah, I understand. Unfortunately, that doesn't really help you since the border was literally part of the image that now extends beyond the original capture for a better composition. "You may not use ANY editing technique to create new image area." |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:21:57 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mrchhas:
um... wasn't 4th also DQ'd? |
Yes, why do you ask? |
I was confused myself, the OP was talking about the 4th place image, the entire rest of the tread is about the former 8th place image. I was looking for border issues on the 4th place image at first. |
Now that you mention it, this thread was supposed to be about the 4th place image.
So, was it all the "dust" in Katie's image that caused the DQ? |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:22:34 PM · #33 |
| Perhaps the difference is it's not a border that changes an existing area of an image and makes it look like a "border". It's that the border artificially extends the canvas(on the left side) to makes it look like it was part of the image? If you look closely it does look like it was added because the bit of tail is clipped out. It's a very close call. If it wasn't as tightly cropped and a bit of reed was there, so there's some empty space on the left, that bit of reed could've been cloned out, I presume. (as I've been DQed for one, which I agree to and have come to terms with... adding a black border space to an image that had a black background which in turn increased the negative space which affects how the image is viewed). In any case, the image discussed is very fine and one should be happy to have shot it. |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:24:01 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
So, was it all the "dust" in Katie's image that caused the DQ? |
Yep. No dust in the original, just a clear shot of the gates with people watching. |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:26:44 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Techo:
Perhaps the difference is it's not a border that changes an existing area of an image and makes it look like a "border". It's that the border artificially extends the canvas(on the left side) to makes it look like it was part of the image? If you look closely it does look like it was added because the bit of tail is clipped out. It's a very close call. If it wasn't as tightly cropped and a bit of reed was there, so there's some empty space on the left, that bit of reed could've been cloned out, I presume. (as I've been DQed for one, which I agree to and have come to terms with... adding a black border space to an image that had a black background which in turn increased the negative space which affects how the image is viewed). |
Bingo. I think we cross-posted. |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:28:11 PM · #36 |
| finally an explanation there wasn't even a single comment on her image about the reason! (that's why I asked) |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:29:28 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Techo:
Perhaps the difference is it's not a border that changes an existing area of an image and makes it look like a "border". It's that the border artificially extends the canvas(on the left side) to makes it look like it was part of the image? If you look closely it does look like it was added because the bit of tail is clipped out. It's a very close call. If it wasn't as tightly cropped and a bit of reed was there, so there's some empty space on the left, that bit of reed could've been cloned out, I presume. (as I've been DQed for one, which I agree to and have come to terms with... adding a black border space to an image that had a black background which in turn increased the negative space which affects how the image is viewed). In any case, the image discussed is very fine and one should be happy to have shot it. |
i must say that this image is absolutely ROCKING for any other purpose than a dpc challenge. |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:31:48 PM · #38 |
OK Shannon, you are a winner. I mean that although you didn't vote on this DQ, you are with the opinion that won. For me, this border is not image area, it is and acts like a border and I am at least a typical viewer. And by the way, I don't search for anything to help me. It's not a big deal that my image is disqualified. The big deal is to understand the violation of the rules, so we (the members) will know what to avoid in the future.
My best regards and thanks again everyone for your time. |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:52:00 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Techo:
Perhaps the difference is it's not a border that changes an existing area of an image and makes it look like a "border". It's that the border artificially extends the canvas(on the left side) to makes it look like it was part of the image? If you look closely it does look like it was added because the bit of tail is clipped out. It's a very close call. |
To beat the horse further (not the actual horse this thread's about, mind you...), there's a distinct line that separates the photo from the border, so the area isn't extended. There's a bit of a visual illusion that makes your mind think the scene extends, but the fact that there is a line there should be enough for you to realize that it's not part of the photo.
The actual problem as I see it is that pixels from the original photo were used again in the border, so in essence it's a composite using the same original capture, which isn't legal in advanced... unless you want to debate the fact that since there is a distinct line between photo and border, what was used to create the border is irrelevant, as it's not actually part of the photo. |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 04:55:51 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If you crop out the reeds, then blur and paste back in the same area you cropped out, then you didn't really crop it. If you paste in a different part of the photo, then that's not legal either. If the border looks like part of the image, then that image area is subject to the same rules as any other part of the entry, including removal of major elements. |
Shannon, to me the question here is "would a typical viewer regard this as clearly a border?" I can't answer for others, only for myself. I can't really view it as anything else, set off as it is by the white line. Now, given the assumption that it is considered a border, is the gradient legal? I believe that the answer there is yes. It should not matter one iota how the border was created, only that A.) It *is* a border, and B.) It complies with the rules for borders.
I believe that both A and B are true here, and therefore I conclude that the border should be judged legal. It's very unfortunate, IMO, that we are applying rules for image area to something that is clearly a border.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2013 05:31:38 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's very unfortunate, IMO, that we are applying rules for image area to something that is clearly a border. |
We need a motion to rescind the DQ. Has anyone seen the Supreme Dictator? |
|
|
|
02/11/2013 10:23:11 PM · #42 |
Perhaps this is a dead issue, and I'm not trying to stir the pot or cause any acrimony, but the one rule for borders is: "You may: add a border to the outside edge of your entry. Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border."
For starters, the border exists outside the entry, so it would seem it should not be subject to any rule set, nor has any other rule been made for the composition or treatment of borders beyond that it must be "clearly recognizable."
Is there really any question that this is or is not a border?
The white line is either a clear illustration of a border or an illegal addition of a graphic.
The simultaneous change in texture is either a clear illustration of the border or an illegal editing move.
The simultaneous change in tone and coloration is either a clear illustration of the border or an illegal editing move.
The obvious cropping of the subject of the photo is either a clear illustration of the border or an illegal editing move.
Seems to me the SC got caught up in all the illegal-looking evidence and failed to recognize that it all actually worked to create a clearly recognizable border.
Again, I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, but I think Pascal's entry deserves a longer look from the SC. It's not just another challenge. It's the best of 2012, and a great achievement is being wiped out by what seems like a rush to judgement. |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 04:48:12 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Perhaps this is a dead issue, and I'm not trying to stir the pot or cause any acrimony, but the one rule for borders is: "You may: add a border to the outside edge of your entry. Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border." |
Let's stir the pot of dead horses a bit more. It says it must be *distinct*. To me it looks more like an extension of the image, as it's using the same colours.
Another question is the intent behind the placement of the border. The crop on the left after removing the reeds would be too tight, you could argue that the border was placed as a convenient way to remove the reeds and make it appear as if they weren't there to start with, thus removing a major element and changing the viewers description of the shot. |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 05:20:04 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by JH:
Another question is the intent behind the placement of the border. The crop on the left after removing the reeds would be too tight, you could argue that the border was placed as a convenient way to remove the reeds and make it appear as if they weren't there to start with, thus removing a major element and changing the viewers description of the shot. |
I was about to write the same thing. It is still a great image (and I'm sorry for the DQ, it's a painful thing - I experienced it) but try with a different border - it couldn't work. The problem is in the reed and if I use a blurred and wide border with the same color of the image it surely helps the viewer not to stop where is the last animal. |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 06:27:17 AM · #45 |
I rarely post regarding the interpretation of challenge editing rules as I find that often the discussion gets bogged down into technicalities .. however, to me that is certainly not the issue here - sure maybe if the white border wasn't in place one might argue it's a continuation or a clever way to increase the area of the image - but there is clearly a white border which prevents the suggestion that the photographer is trying to cleverly increase the image size. As has been stated, the same effect could be achieved using other, easier to carry out edits.
I applaud the photographer's restraint as I wouldn't be gracious - gracious is only applaud-able if warranted. |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 07:08:59 AM · #46 |
I am another person who never questions the decision made by SC as they do a great job, but had to weigh in here.
It's clearly distinguishable as a border. This DQ definitely surprised me. Even without the border it's an excellent image! |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 07:27:52 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by JH:
Another question is the intent behind the placement of the border. The crop on the left after removing the reeds would be too tight, you could argue that the border was placed as a convenient way to remove the reeds and make it appear as if they weren't there to start with, thus removing a major element and changing the viewers description of the shot. |
+1 |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 07:41:48 AM · #48 |
the point of a border is to complement the image, this clearly does, better than most.
Message edited by author 2013-02-12 07:42:03. |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 08:53:46 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by vikas:
I am another person who never questions the decision made by SC as they do a great job, but had to weigh in here.
It's clearly distinguishable as a border. This DQ definitely surprised me. Even without the border it's an excellent image! |
+1
|
|
|
|
02/12/2013 11:24:36 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by JH:
Another question is the intent behind the placement of the border. |
I think you've hit the heart of the matter with this statement.
[Since this is an Internet discussion forum I'm obligated to continue flogging the horse, use as many idioms as possible, and introduce conjecture. Please bear with me — this is not my wish, but rather the rules of the land.]
Pascal cleverly used a border to convey a greater sense of space, and for that he's been punished. There are so many differences between his photo and the border area that upon quick glance it is obviously not a continuation of the photo, but he certainly effectively conveyed the essence of extended space. This in itself is not illegal, and actually is practiced quite often when the extremities of a photo are either all black or all white; many have surrounded such photos with expanses of all-black or all-white canvases to increase the sense of isolation or weight, and have done it legally by using a thin, 1-pixel-wide, contrasting-colored line of demarcation and bingo, the border is clear and distinguishable. And legal.
Pascal introduced a clear and distinguishable white line to set off his border, but because his border was so effective at conveying a greater sense of space, he's been penalized, despite the fact that there's no reason it shouldn't be technically legal.
Many DQ threads are filled with comments about how while the DQ may be technically correct, the ruling does not fall within the spirit of the rule. I'd argue that this DQ is technically incorrect, but the SC felt as though his use of this border did violate the spirit of the rule (or lack thereof). So it wasn't what he actually did, but rather his intent that did his photo in.
[Conjecture over.]
It's all subjective anyway, and I'm sure the SC is tired of having their decisions analyzed time and time again. It's just something more interesting to talk about than the project I'm trying to put off. No offense to any interested/involved parties. |
|
