| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/15/2020 05:00:53 PM · #1 |
The former 2nd-Place image in the "Abstract: Black and White V" challenge has been disqualified. The context of this image has been absolutely obliterated in post-processing: effectively the photographer cut out the interesting elements and pasted them on a new BG. That this was done by modifying the BG around the retained elements into something it never was doesn't change anything conceptually.
Congrats to our new ribboner and HM.
Message edited by author 2020-08-15 17:34:45.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 05:07:06 PM · #2 |
This is simply not true.
I did not "cut out the interesting elements and" paste them on a new background.
I used Liquify to an extreme, I'll say that. BUT, I've seen many times where SC says you can Liquify as much as you like and it's "up to the voters" to decide if it's been used too much.
I didn't cut and paste anything.
I liquified.
I did clone out some buttons, but that's also legal in Standard Editing.
Please reconsider this in view of the facts.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 05:41:10 PM · #3 |
You need to read the message more carefully, Lydia. We said "EFFECTIVELY, the photographer cut out..." and we acknowledged that this was done by modifying the BG around the retained elements. This is true.
Remember, Standard Editing is a results-based ruleset, not a tool-based ruleset. Yes, we have repeatedly said the liquify tool is legal (all tools are legal basically) and yes, we have said "Let the voters decide when toom much is too much", but THAT presumes that something has been obviously distorted and the voters can tell you if they like it. You didn't distort anything, you obliterated everything around your objects of interest and turned the entire surround into a featureless bit of nothing.
Granted, it's one of those gray-area things, but in our opinion you've gone way too far. Fell free to post your original here if you'd like others to see what we're talking about.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 05:42:53 PM · #4 |
06/12/2018 04:04:11 AM · · #1 Originally posted by Sisto:
you all know that the easy way to have a good plastiface is to use the dedicated photoshop filter; is it allowed in a standard editing? Often I can't comprehend what is borderline, allowed or prohibited
Thanks |
06/12/2018 07:49:02 AM · #4 Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Sisto:
Often I can't comprehend what is borderline, allowed or prohibited ... |
That's for the voters to decide. |
06/12/2018 08:41:26 AM · #9Originally posted by kirbic:
1.) Almost *anything* is allowed in Standard Editing, as long as you don't move or create things wholesale, and as long as the source images are shot in the required timeframe. There's literally no restrictions on any specific tools - none. ... |
06/13/2018 03:23:38 PM · #29 Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Sisto:
I love you all but i didn't understand anything about what is permitted as filter in this challenge.
But I still love you :) ... in any case :) |
Just about anything, Sisto. Just about any filter is permissible in Standard Editing. We leave it up to the voters to decide if the manipulation has gone too far, and I suspect in this case there's no such thing as "too far" for the voters :-) Let your hair down and get silly. Liquify away! |
Here is the thread in its entirety: Liquify thread
I liquified.
Are we, or are we not allowed to "Liquify away!"?
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 05:54:44 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You need to read the message more carefully, Lydia. We said "EFFECTIVELY, the photographer cut out..." and we acknowledged that this was done by modifying the BG around the retained elements. This is true.
Remember, Standard Editing is a results-based ruleset, not a tool-based ruleset. Yes, we have repeatedly said the liquify tool is legal (all tools are legal basically) and yes, we have said "Let the voters decide when toom much is too much", but THAT presumes that something has been obviously distorted and the voters can tell you if they like it. You didn't distort anything, you obliterated everything around your objects of interest and turned the entire surround into a featureless bit of nothing.
Granted, it's one of those gray-area things, but in our opinion you've gone way too far. Fell free to post your original here if you'd like others to see what we're talking about. |
I basically ONLY distorted the image!
I did clone out the buttons.
But, now you're saying that I have to show the voters that I Liquified? I can't just Liquify? Where was that in the rules, please?
If I hadn't read... many times... that we're allowed to Liquify AS MUCH AS WE WANT, then I'd have just cropped and been finished. I could have cloned the edges out, but I thought that that would not have been legal. So I made SURE to use the tools that I'd been told are legal.
Here is the original, but it doesn't change why I edited as I did... Because I'd been told it was legal. Several times.
If you want to retract what SC has said several times, then that would be totally fine with me. But, you shouldn't DQ an image under the current statements.
Cropping would have been fine ... maybe with a little perspective correction to widen the top... but using Liquify as much as we want was totally legal at the time of my entry. In fact, I believe it still is.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 06:19:15 PM · #6 |
Lydia, it's NOT about the tool. It's about what happened to your image. You took a cluttered up photo of an object then obliterated every part of the picture that didn't suit you. In the process of doing that, you "created" a surface that didn't exist in reality. If you'd cropped off the bottom and the top it would have been OK, but you didn't do that: you used a tool to extend the plane of the object in two directions. That's just going too far.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 06:25:39 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
. . .
I basically ONLY distorted the image!
I did clone out the buttons.
. . .
Cropping would have been fine ... maybe with a little perspective correction to widen the top... but using Liquify as much as we want was totally legal at the time of my entry. In fact, I believe it still is. |
If I'd looked at this original file, I'd have thought  Lydia 1) maybe used the perspective correction to widen the top; 2) cropped; and 3) cloned out the buttons. Provided it would have been fine in the opinion of SC to clone out the buttons, I don't see the problem with "liquifying" them out. In fact, I'm not even sure how to go about doing that . . . but that's for another thread. Was the problem in the fact that she removed the buttons and lettering and not in the fact that she used the liquify tool to do so? Or was the problem in the fact that in her description of how she went about editing this, she told you she used the liquify tool (rather than the clone tool or the healing brush tool)?
Edit to add: I just saw Bear's response as I posted this, so my question comes after the answer. I'll leave it for now while I go back and read Bear's response slowly.
Message edited by author 2020-08-15 18:26:57. |
|
|
|
08/15/2020 06:34:34 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Lydia, it's NOT about the tool. It's about what happened to your image. You took a cluttered up photo of an object then obliterated every part of the picture that didn't suit you. In the process of doing that, you "created" a surface that didn't exist in reality. If you'd cropped off the bottom and the top it would have been OK, but you didn't do that: you used a tool to extend the plane of the object in two directions. That's just going too far. |
I hear what you're saying now, but... this is what I heard before I entered:
1.) Almost *anything* is allowed in Standard Editing, as long as you don't move or create things wholesale, and as long as the source images are shot in the required timeframe. There's literally no restrictions on any specific tools - none.
Liquify is a tool. I used it without restriction as told was legal.
Change the rules now, if you like. But, currently what I did was what I was told was legal.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 06:36:04 PM · #9 |
I respectfully request that my image be reconsidered by Site Council... keeping in mind what I was told was legal.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 06:42:31 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
... this is what I heard before I entered:
1.) Almost *anything* is allowed in Standard Editing, as long as you don't move or create things wholesale ... |
I think your cleverly-constructed background represents the "wholesale creation" of a new element, rather than a visible distortion of elements already present.
Perhaps you could create a step-by-step "How'd They Do That" article so people can apply the technique in Extended editing challenges. :-) |
|
|
|
08/15/2020 06:46:24 PM · #11 |
Lydia, there are NO restrictions on the tools. Any tool can be used as long as its used in a legal way. But you can't just obliterate all context from your image no matter what tool you are using. And GeneralE correctly points out the relevant phrase in the rules: "as long as you don't...create things wholesale".
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 07:38:07 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Lydia, there are NO restrictions on the tools. Any tool can be used as long as its used in a legal way. But you can't just obliterate all context from your image no matter what tool you are using. And GeneralE correctly points out the relevant phrase in the rules: "as long as you don't...create things wholesale". |
I agree, but... I didn't create ANYTHING. I stretched what was already there with a legal tool: Liquify.
Message edited by author 2020-08-15 19:38:51. |
|
|
|
08/15/2020 07:52:33 PM · #13 |
Following this thread :(
My wife and I we loved that image and she is standing next to me and asking questions to me on why was it got DQ :(
just for my understanding here the point that we are discussing is about the red circle in the below image that is removed (kind of but not really removed because of cloning but using liquify) and all green ones were stretched to fit in the entire frame again using liquify. so in here, we are saying that using liquify the entire image actually got a new look except the center piece of the image, is that what it is?
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 09:27:03 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
08/15/2020 10:57:08 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Lydia, there are NO restrictions on the tools. Any tool can be used as long as its used in a legal way. But you can't just obliterate all context from your image no matter what tool you are using. And GeneralE correctly points out the relevant phrase in the rules: "as long as you don't...create things wholesale". |
I agree, but... I didn't create ANYTHING. I stretched what was already there with a legal tool: Liquify. |
Let me come at it from a slightly different direction: suppose, instead, you had used the clone tools and perhaps the content-aware fill tool to extend the top surface of the object down and cover the unsightly (to you, apparently) front edge and whatever all that is. Can you understand that this would NOT have passed muster because you'd be cloning stuff OUT but not replacing it with stuff that would be there if it weren't visible in the first place. In the same sense that if you had a bush in a meadow that looked silly you can replace it with meadow, but not with a tree brought from elsewhere because it "looks better", even if the tree exists elsewhere in the photo? That's been specifically discussed several times.
Now in this case, you decided that you didn't like the look of the bottom edge of this image so, one way or another (liquify this time) you decided to bring something that was NOT there (the virgin surface) to cover up what you wished WASN'T there (the messy bottom edge). Does that make sense? Since we are results-based (there are some *things* you can't do) rather than tool-based (there are no *tools* you can't use), we have to be sure not to allow loopholes that would permit doing something with one tool that we wouldn't allow with another tool.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2020 09:26:29 AM · #16 |
Surprised by this dq. Seems very 2006.
Liquify and warp let you stretch selectively. If her main subject had shown distortion from the stretch, would it then be legal because it no longer looked like cut and paste to judges?
Here is when the wholesale argument went out the window for me:
 |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 09:58:11 AM · #17 |
looking at this, this was all twirl and I don't think the liquify was used.
Originally posted by skewsme:
Surprised by this dq. Seems very 2006.
Liquify and warp let you stretch selectively. If her main subject had shown distortion from the stretch, would it then be legal because it no longer looked like cut and paste to judges?
Here is when the wholesale argument went out the window for me:
|
|
|
|
|
08/16/2020 12:30:55 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Surprised by this dq. Seems very 2006.
Liquify and warp let you stretch selectively. If her main subject had shown distortion from the stretch, would it then be legal because it no longer looked like cut and paste to judges?
Here is when the wholesale argument went out the window for me:
|
I'd have to say this probably "flew" only because it was in a "style of Van Gogh" challenge. It might also have passed muster in a "paintings" challenge. We do have those kinds of challenges occasionally and it seems to me SC loosens their interpretation of rules that might otherwise be strictly enforced. So I'd say the comparison isn't particularly valid. |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 12:41:33 PM · #19 |
I see your point.
Originally posted by nam:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Surprised by this dq. Seems very 2006.
Liquify and warp let you stretch selectively. If her main subject had shown distortion from the stretch, would it then be legal because it no longer looked like cut and paste to judges?
Here is when the wholesale argument went out the window for me:
|
I'd have to say this probably "flew" only because it was in a "style of Van Gogh" challenge. It might also have passed muster in a "paintings" challenge. We do have those kinds of challenges occasionally and it seems to me SC loosens their interpretation of rules that might otherwise be strictly enforced. So I'd say the comparison isn't particularly valid. |
|
|
|
|
08/16/2020 01:00:01 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by nam:
I'd have to say this probably "flew" only because it was in a "style of Van Gogh" challenge. It might also have passed muster in a "paintings" challenge. We do have those kinds of challenges occasionally and it seems to me SC loosens their interpretation of rules that might otherwise be strictly enforced. So I'd say the comparison isn't particularly valid. |
If that is the case I'd say that's a poor precedent to set. The entry rules are the rules and should be enforced equally and fairly across the board regardless of the challenge subject, unless specifically called out in the challenge description as an exception. |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 01:23:13 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by nam:
I'd have to say this probably "flew" only because it was in a "style of Van Gogh" challenge. It might also have passed muster in a "paintings" challenge. We do have those kinds of challenges occasionally and it seems to me SC loosens their interpretation of rules that might otherwise be strictly enforced. So I'd say the comparison isn't particularly valid. |
If that is the case I'd say that's a poor precedent to set. The entry rules are the rules and should be enforced equally and fairly across the board regardless of the challenge subject, unless specifically called out in the challenge description as an exception. |
It's not specifically that one tool, Liquify. It's any tool.
It does appear to me that new objects were created by the swirl tool in this image.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2020 01:46:15 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by nam:
I'd have to say this probably "flew" only because it was in a "style of Van Gogh" challenge. It might also have passed muster in a "paintings" challenge. We do have those kinds of challenges occasionally and it seems to me SC loosens their interpretation of rules that might otherwise be strictly enforced. So I'd say the comparison isn't particularly valid. |
If that is the case I'd say that's a poor precedent to set. The entry rules are the rules and should be enforced equally and fairly across the board regardless of the challenge subject, unless specifically called out in the challenge description as an exception. |
It would be legal in any Standard Editing challenge. The real question would be, "How would the VOTERS have treated this image if it had been entered in, say, a Free Study instead of in a Van Gogh challenge?" The voters would decide how much they like the swirl effect and vote accordingly. From a "legality" point of view, however, there's a difference between using a tool to morph the sky and stars into a swirling shape while otherwise leaving them intact and using a tool to eliminate areas of the image you don't want to see by replacing them with something else.
THAT's the gray area we have to deal with, and Lydia fell on the wrong side of the line.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2020 04:13:06 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It would be legal in any Standard Editing challenge. The real question would be, "How would the VOTERS have treated this image if it had been entered in, say, a Free Study instead of in a Van Gogh challenge?" The voters would decide how much they like the swirl effect and vote accordingly. From a "legality" point of view, however, there's a difference between using a tool to morph the sky and stars into a swirling shape while otherwise leaving them intact and using a tool to eliminate areas of the image you don't want to see by replacing them with something else.
THAT's the gray area we have to deal with, and Lydia fell on the wrong side of the line. |
So, if I'd done a poorer job of my Liquify, so it showed streaks in the image, then it would have been legal?
|
|
|
|
08/16/2020 06:49:32 PM · #24 |
So, what about these? They were in an abstract challenge but the rule set was standard.
 
Because these two flew I considered putting this, or another related version which I won't show for the moment, in the Abstract in Black and White challenge.
Luckily I decided it was a step or two too far.I know that this bears little resemblance to the original image. However I have achieved this with filters - several of them.
So I agree that things are getting confusing and arbitrary.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2020 06:55:58 PM · #25 |
Those didn't have to be checked. Not too 5. |
|
