Reconsidering a DQ - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

01/09/2006 08:54:57 PM · #101

Originally posted by TooCool:

Originally posted by dpaull:
I think it should not have been DQ'd either...ridiculous...it's like a popularity contest. If certain people entered it, it would have been voted upon, and held up...it's all a conspiracy to keep the Nikons out of ribbon-territory I think.

Stupidist comment I've heard in a long time...

He is just kidding...c'mon now :-)

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

01/09/2006 09:19:26 PM · #102

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
In my opinion, that light fixture had no relevance to the subject of the photo, so removing it would be OK.

What if the light fixture had been a boulder? How about a tree or a piano? Judging relevance or the photographer's intentions is a cure that's potentially worse than the disease.

I don't know. We aren't talking about worst case scenarios. We are talking about this specific photo.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/09/2006 09:24:24 PM · #103

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by TooCool:

Originally posted by dpaull:
I think it should not have been DQ'd either...ridiculous...it's like a popularity contest. If certain people entered it, it would have been voted upon, and held up...it's all a conspiracy to keep the Nikons out of ribbon-territory I think.

Stupidist comment I've heard in a long time...

He is just kidding...c'mon now :-)

at least someone got the joke heh

fotodude

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

01/09/2006 09:55:41 PM · #104

its as simple as this....(as far as i see it)-

you CAN crop the image. and not be DQed
however once u enlarge the canvis u have created the same affect as cloning out the light in the 1st place.

the advanced rules are susposed to give us full control with in the "leagle" rule based "digital darkroom" now i think the point here is that... u aren't so much elimintating a major element as much as u are moving 1....

it still stands that the backround is a major element now if u remove the light (by way of cropping) but do not enlarge the canvis and fill the enlarged area it is leagle but upon the fill u have moved a major element of the photo-the backround-...it is exactly the same as if u had cloned it out....or say the camera did the cropping by way of a tighter framing (more zoom/tele.) then he enlarged the canvis he moves a major element still. there is no way around it the way the SC set the rules up doesn't allow him to do anything but a re shoot with the light box further out of the frame.....

now i don't really agree with it being a major element but if it were film and he didn't have PS it would be the "duh" thing to do to drag the light a little further out of the frame....

it would just be 2 much of a hassel to do it all in the darkroom...and that is what we have to keep in mind... also the SC is the rulling power i don't always agree with everything they do and some stuff they have done has confused the hell out of me bu i see there point here...

an prehaps if they were of a different opinion it would not be considered a major element...its more the photoediting restriction they have was pushed just a tad 2 far....

_bran(IMHO)do_

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 21:58:54.

Niten

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/09/2006 10:38:44 PM · #105

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

If there were two girls in the photo, I believe that removing one of them would be considered removing a major element.

That would just be so wrong on so many levels.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/09/2006 10:41:52 PM · #106

Well, if the fellow didn't want the light in the picture he should have moved it before he opened the shutter. Don't that make sense? Seems simple to me and you would have thought it would to him. After all, he is a pretty good photographer. :)
IMO...it is a nice photo with the light.....without, it's just another 'necked' lady with her butt in the air.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 22:53:52.

01/09/2006 10:46:53 PM · #107

My 2cents...

There is no way in HE double hockey sticks that this sould have been DQed

The sofftboxes are not a "element" they are a tool to get the shot...

sorry folks ...
"After futher review the call on the field is overturned"

01/09/2006 10:52:47 PM · #108

I think graphicfunk makes a good point with the photo that had ropes suspending people in the air not being a DQ and a light highlighting a subject being a DQ.

Both instances these are elements that are tools to complete the photo. I just don't see one passing and another one not. What happens if the ropes become apple picker cranes...So now the tool holding someone in the air has passed a magical pixel limit and cannot be digitized out?

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 22:53:12.

01/09/2006 10:54:57 PM · #109

Originally posted by nomad469:

The sofftboxes are not a "element" they are a tool to get the shot...

Where in the rules do you find an exemption for the photographer's tools? Does this mean I could have two more softboxes, assorted reflectors and an assistant standing in the background that somehow don't count?

Sorry, but even if it's necessary or intentional, that light is a significant part of the original. IMO you can crop it out or leave it in, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/09/2006 10:56:20 PM · #110

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sorry, but even if it's necessary or intentional, that light is a significant part of the original. IMO you can crop it out or leave it in, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Like ropes hanging people in the air?

David Ey

Nikon D80

01/09/2006 10:56:28 PM · #111

and the same applies to strings and ropes.

01/09/2006 10:59:59 PM · #112

Originally posted by hokie:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sorry, but even if it's necessary or intentional, that light is a significant part of the original. IMO you can crop it out or leave it in, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist.

Like ropes hanging people in the air?

Sure, if they're significant. What's the difference visually between cloning out a string and cloning out a power line? Fishing line is darn near invisible, but a cherry picker is a whole different animal.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

01/09/2006 11:01:05 PM · #113

Originally posted by David Ey:

and the same applies to strings and ropes.

It must not because I have seen quite a few shots using these methods.

Once you start cloning out any intentionally placed objects in photos that helped to assist in the photo..you have crossd the line originally intended to allow cleaning out "noise" in photos like dust, stray power lines or a pimple on a butt.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 23:02:09.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

01/09/2006 11:04:29 PM · #114

i will continue to keep the position of my lights in mind when setting up a photo... whether or not cloning them out is legal.

snackwells

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/09/2006 11:11:41 PM · #115

If I may interject, I firmly believe that the entry in question should not have been DQ'ed since he could have easily achieved the resulting end composition had he simply repositioned the light out of the frame. It's a softbox....hard to justify calling it a major element.

As Daniel began this thread, let me borrow a famous image from his portfolio:

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=127346

If this image can be legal (as it should be), then there's no justification for DQ'ing Dr. Jones.

01/09/2006 11:24:57 PM · #116

If we are hanging on what an element is then I want to see the original of this

If the cables have been cloned out then that is a major element and this image must be DQed...

(sorry Joey ... great shot ... I love it but fair is fair )

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 23:25:35.

01/09/2006 11:25:27 PM · #117

Originally posted by snackwells:

I firmly believe that the entry in question should not have been DQ'ed since he could have easily achieved the resulting end composition had he simply repositioned the light out of the frame.

If he had, then it wouldn't have been a problem. You could also claim that a hypothetical second person or Winnebago in the photo shouldn't count because they could have easily been moved, and were only there to hold a reflector or shade the sun.

What does GraphicFunk's photo have to do with anything? The final is pretty much how the original looked, which isn't true of the softbox.

01/09/2006 11:28:22 PM · #118

Originally posted by nomad469:

If we are hanging on what an element is then I want to see the original of this

If the cables have been cloned out then that is a major element and this image must be DQed...

(sorry Joey ... great shot ... I love it but fair is fair )

I agree that if we DQ Dr. Jones we should DQ shots like this.

My preference would be to allow any cloning out..just no adding of elements or moving an element. Only subtractive edits.

But I think that would be like asking the IRS to change the tax code :-/

01/09/2006 11:38:20 PM · #119

Originally posted by nomad469:

If the cables have been cloned out then that is a major element and this image must be DQed...

Why do you assume the cables were major elements? Power lines are cables too, and those are routinely edited out. There were only two very thin lines supporting that ladder, and they were quite insignificant in the original (you might not even notice them at a glance). It's worth noting that another of Joey's shots was recently DQ'd for cloning out a MUCH more substantial pole and ladder used as supports.

I've seen several people suggest that because the softbox was just the photographer's own light it's OK, while others seem to think that ANYTHING that isn't power lines or sensor dust is major. It's really pretty basic: compare the entry to the cropped original. If the objects shown are reasonably the same in both, then it's OK. If something substantial is in one that's not in the other regardless of any assumed intent then it's probably major.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 23:41:14.

01/09/2006 11:51:48 PM · #120

Because Shannon... they ARE. They were removed for astecic reasons...

The cables are a part of the image ... you cannot dispute that. they are as major an element as the ladder...

That being said... they were tools to get the shot ... They were PLANNED to be removed in post... as was the lightbox... that was a tool to get the shot with the full expectation to REMOVE it in post... I see no difference between the two... sorry but I stick to my guns on this (and not being a jerk) but as I said before fair is fair ...

my preference is that the rules be amended to allow removal of structial items used in preparation of the shot.

01/09/2006 11:55:53 PM · #121

I repeat:

Originally posted by scalvert:

If something substantial is in one that's not in the other regardless of any assumed intent then it's probably major.

All that matters is what's visible in the original vs. the entry. WHY it's there is completely irrelevant.

01/09/2006 11:57:09 PM · #122

I think what is being argued is what is considered a substantial element.

No question a Camper or people are major elements..but as the elements get smaller or thinner the line gets fuzzier.

Once again..elements added by the photographer to the photo then edited out feel to me to be different than stray power lines that cross in front of a beautiful landscape with only one angle on a setting sun or mountain.

One of my first shots is a good example of uncontrolled elements..

The telephone pole line behind the umpire is something I would take out today..and the angle I have is the only place on the ballfield I was allowed that worked the setting sun. I think this is a different scenario than removing support wires holding people or objects in air.

01/10/2006 12:08:00 AM · #123

I've always liked that pic, and the telephone wire is a perfect example of a distracting element. The lines supporting the ladder were even less visible than that- certainly no more than a minor visual distraction. How the lines got there or what they're for is not an issue.

It wouldn't make an iota of difference if the line in your shot was a telephone wire or a string you intentionally used to make the umpire's jacket flare out. It's hard enough to judge borderline cases of signifigance without the additional subjectivity of assumed intent.

Message edited by author 2006-01-10 00:10:16.

01/10/2006 12:11:28 AM · #124

Originally posted by scalvert:

I repeat:

Originally posted by scalvert:
If something substantial is in one that's not in the other regardless of any assumed intent then it's probably major.

All that matters is what's visible in the original vs. the entry. WHY it's there is completely irrelevant.

Well then you just shot down the powerline "defense" also, right???

Look... my point is this ... as I usually (99.95% of the time ) agree with the calls made on DQs ... this one rubs me the wrong way... There was NO INTENT by the photographer to have the box in the final work... there is no dispute there (I dont think) and by "the letter of the law" the DQ was valid... BUT the rules as applied around here does have exceptions (the powerlines ... cables holding a ladder) so why was this not considered one of those exceptions? ... I dont get it ...