'Best of 2012' Challenge Results Recalculated

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

02/14/2013 08:33:53 AM · #76

Originally posted by Stagolee:

It was a blue ribbon winning image from three years ago....surely it would have been validated.

That would be the FIRST image, not the second one that Neil mentioned. The border area in the first one was not resized or moved.

Message edited by author 2013-02-14 08:34:21.

tate

Apple iPhone 14 Pro

02/14/2013 09:25:19 AM · #77

moves me up to 271st ! WOOT!

Pascal

Pentax K-3 II

Sigma 18-300mm f3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM

02/14/2013 12:21:19 PM · #78

"The border area in the first one was not resized or moved."

Ha! Really? Now, this is getting funny as it is going on!
The SC made a judgment for my image and I wouldn�t stay more (or less) on it even if it would be at the 1st place. I am glad with the acceptance of the image and this happiness can�t be disqualified. As things for me continue not to be clear and the thread is going on, I write again my opinion but unfortunately this time without any expectations of solving the disagreement.
The undesired element was just cropped, this is apparently legal and the border was made by blurring (and adjusting brightness and contrast) too much a resized copy of the whole cropped image, no use of just a specific element for creating the border, no addition or illegal removal of an element to the active image. The border also is perfectly distinguishable from the active image. Here of course arise the multi-question, who is a typical viewer, who is not (and why) and what defines then the non-typical viewer?
The intention of using the border was just to make the image look better, more impressive, more artistic let�s say.
But this is history now. The rules in this case are interpreted with a different way.
More important is that, as Judi once and for all pointed, older same-styled images within the same restrictions of the rules didn�t disqualify. This is obviously and beyond any doubts not fair for my image. Or should I think that my image was "purposefully" disqualified?
Or, to express this with another way, if under the processing details I had written from the first time (submission time), �I was not 100% certain if the border applied is legal, until I saw accidentally an older image, this one

, with a similar styled-border that took the blue ribbon�, would then my image be validated positively?
In this point, I note that banishment under such conditions of any member (as mentioned above) is a penalty for DPC itself not for the member. We discuss here for quite a long time and still many respectable people have different opinions!
I believe that until a very specific rule for making borders only is written, this image shouldn�t be disqualified.
All that said, I will continue to send from time to time images in DPChallenges, as usual. My intention was only to create something nice and not to cheat as scalvert implied cleverly. And I strongly support that intention of all members here is to create within absolutely clear rules for all, and not being objects for the application of �military� penalties, not to spend hours reading threads like this.
My best regards to all

Message edited by author 2013-02-14 12:46:02.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/14/2013 12:47:04 PM · #79

it would be nice to see a reversal, but i don't think it will happen.

and as far as banning for editing omissions, the way i see it, if you cant tell someone cheated the system, then either they didn't do anything wrong or someone else needs to do the judging. They shouldn't have to tip you off to a violation. If a rule worth having isn't clearly noticeable in the final product, it shouldn't be banned.

the point should be the final outcome not how it got there.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/14/2013 12:55:46 PM · #80

Pascal, as you yourself have described your work, you did the following:

1. Cropped and otherwise processed an image.
2. Made a new copy of that image, processed it differently (blurring, mostly), and enlarged it.
3. Made the smaller version a layer on top of the larger version.

In other words, you used two copies of an image and superimposed them, creating a composite image. This is never legal. Drawing the white line and calling half the composite a "border" doesn't change this.

We understand that you did this believing it was OK, and nobody's called you a cheater or implied that you are one.

02/14/2013 01:00:29 PM · #81

If border wasn't resized as specified your notes, then it's no different from image area blurred in place and an inline... with a very major element removed. The only way you could legally remove those prominent foreground reeds is by cropping them out, but you put the cropped area back in (and extended it) to make the border. You also created a gradient to suggest sky and water in a previously featureless background. Either of those edits are straightforward DQs no matter who you are or where the entry placed. It's an appealing approach, but not legal in Advanced Editing.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

02/14/2013 01:06:44 PM · #82

It seems like this whole discussion is going down the rabbit hole. To me, this (speaking of the current DQ) is very simple:
Postulate 1: This is a border is readily recognizable as such, and wouldn't fool anyone into thinking it's part of the image
Postulate 2: This is Advanced Editing, and the methods don't matter, only the end result

If we accept postulate 1, and I don't see how we cannot, then only the rules for borders apply. A gradient is legal, as has been stated by the SC in this very thread. There is *no* prohibition in the rules about what kind of gradient is acceptable or unacceptable, or what method may or may not be used to generate it. If we accept postulate 1, then no further analysis is necessary, period. the border is legal.
Postulate 2 puts the exclamation point on this. Even if we incorrectly try to apply image editing rules to the border, we have to agree that what's in the border is a gradient (legal), and given that Advanced Rules are results-based, the method of creation does not matter. In reality, though, Postulate 2 should never enter consideration, as this is a border, not image area.

02/14/2013 01:07:58 PM · #83

Originally posted by mike_311:

They shouldn't have to tip you off to a violation... the point should be the final outcome not how it got there.

Um, no... the point is to enter legally edited photos. There shouldn't be a violation to tip off, and intentionally failing to disclose editing steps in order to hide one would be willful cheating.

02/14/2013 02:06:55 PM · #84

Originally posted by kirbic:

Postulate 1: This is a border is readily recognizable as such, and wouldn't fool anyone into thinking it's part of the image.

The border here, while clearly recognizable, is also part of the image� no different than an inline on a non-blurred photo. If the area had not been blurred, there would be a large stand of reeds in the foreground which could not be removed with any editing tool, and limited image area that could not be extended to help the composition. Merely placing an inline on the image area does not change this.

Originally posted by kirbic:

Postulate 2: This is Advanced Editing, and the methods don't matter, only the end result

Indeed, there are multiple places in the Advanced Editing rules that say you can't use ANY method to achieve a particular end result, and the result of the major element removal here is a DQ regardless of the method. In addition, the gradient created on the previously featureless background would likely be a DQ all by itself for the same reason we routinely DQ complete background removal.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

02/14/2013 02:32:52 PM · #85

I can almost wrap my mind around the flamingo DQ. I do understand the concept it looks like expanded area even though it also looks clearly like a border. However, the ant shot in basic editing throws a wrench into the works. How could one consider that border to be in any way legal unless you consider the "rules" not applicable to a border? You can't make selections in basic editing and there is no way to make that border without a selection tool of some sort. So either we say "editing rules don't apply to borders" (in which case we're back in trouble with the flamingo shot) or we say the ant border was illegal.

The two rulings are conflicting. I know we have lots of rulings that are conflicting (and that's fine, it is gonna happen after 10 years), but I don't like the gymnastic legalese that is sometimes undertaken in an attempt to make it all look harmonious.

Message edited by author 2013-02-14 14:33:51.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/14/2013 02:35:36 PM · #86

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You can't make selections in basic editing and there is no way to make that border without a selection tool of some sort.

Wrong:

Originally posted by basic editing rules:

You may NOT: use any selection tool, including but not limited to the marquee, lasso, layer masks, quick masks, or any similar tool to select a portion of your image for any reason other than cropping or creating a border.

Message edited by author 2013-02-14 14:36:00.

Pascal

Pentax K-3 II

Sigma 18-300mm f3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM

02/14/2013 02:38:16 PM · #87

"If the area had not been blurred, there would be a large stand of reeds in the foreground..."

Wrong! The backround (duplicated then resized image) was a copy of the cropped image. So no reeds would appear if the image was not blurred, just the left bird (a little magnified because of the resize). Yes it can be said that I added technically more space to the tight left crop but...
I have another version, here

, where everything was done with the same way, except there was an additional darkened (85%)of the border. This could be even higher, say 95%, almost black... Now the technique is the same, is this time the border part of the image? If not (as I believe), where is the limit of legal and not legal?
Thank you again, all of you, for the explanations

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

02/14/2013 03:10:41 PM · #88

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by mike_311:
They shouldn't have to tip you off to a violation... the point should be the final outcome not how it got there.

Um, no... the point is to enter legally edited photos. There shouldn't be a violation to tip off, and intentionally failing to disclose editing steps in order to hide one would be willful cheating.

I agree, but what is the point is disallowing certain edits? as well know there are many means to an end in Photoshop, it should matter how you got there, only that you got there, if the final product look alter with a given ruleset it should be legal. its only willful cheating if you it don't disclose it for that reason, if you do it and don't know its illegal and it passes, is it still illegal?

my point is if Pascal had just said, "created a border" and not disclosed how it was created, would you have dq'd (assuming that the only reason it got dq'd) or is it because you now know how it was created and that violates a rule.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

02/14/2013 03:22:46 PM · #89

Originally posted by scalvert:

Is it a border, or is it part of the image? It's one or the other. If it's a border, then the gradient is legal.

Originally posted by scalvert:

That's like saying that applying a gradient ND effect to a sky will be DQ'd. This is where y'all are on a slippery slope. I understand that we don't want folks drawing smiley-faces in red on a blue sky, but applying a gradient color-shift is a different thing. If it's not allowed, then pretty much *any* gradient shifting of tone is going to be illegal. Down the slippery slope and into the rabbit hole.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5