Recalculation in the Green IV challenge

03/28/2014 03:34:07 PM · #5

I like the "legal" one better, myself. I mostly don't respond well to images with featureless backgrounds anyway: I like to see a little context, generally.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/28/2014 03:29:45 PM · #6

I am posting this an example for future reference. I tried my best to get the exact same edit on the face for both images, and have the background different (the point is to study the background, not the re-edit on the face). I know there was a reference/question in this thread to provide an example so we can learn where that 'line' is. The first image would have been validated, and the second image was DQ'd for going beyond what is acceptable according to the SC.

Message edited by author 2014-03-28 18:14:19.

tanguera

Nikon D750

03/28/2014 03:18:07 PM · #7

It's really not a fair comparison, Jen, since in the "legal" background version, the face also has a different edit on it. It is somehow paler, glowy-er. I happen to like seeing a bit of the bg because it gives it some context. But I don't like the more recent edit on the face.

03/28/2014 03:13:02 PM · #8

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by njsabs:
So my next question goes out to everyone, does the re-edit compared to the submitted entry, " change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color or crop)".

That's not the issue. There's a continuum between unedited and as-submitted for this image, and there is, in fact *someplace* on the continuum where the edit is acceptable. How close that point is to the as-submitted image is irrelevant. Show me a guy with no hair, and I'll say he's bald. A million hairs, I'll say not-bald. 2 hairs? Bald. 20 Hairs? Bald. at some point "n", not-bald. N-1 is bald, n+1 is not-bald, but the difference between them is insignificant. This is a common problem in metrics of measurement. We have to live with it whenever we are dealing with subjective evaluations.

Either that or tell my neighbor he's NOT bald because bald is an absolute condition of zero-hair. He'll be delighted :-)

Yes, yes, I know that is not the issue.....I am asking on my behalf, I understand the DQ, and accept it. However, would the image have done as well scoring wise, with the background visible? Not sure, and we will never know, but was looking for some opinions on what some members viewed it now, with the re-edit, if there is a difference on their perspective.

03/28/2014 01:29:56 PM · #9

Originally posted by njsabs:

So my next question goes out to everyone, does the re-edit compared to the submitted entry, " change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color or crop)".

That's not the issue. There's a continuum between unedited and as-submitted for this image, and there is, in fact *someplace* on the continuum where the edit is acceptable. How close that point is to the as-submitted image is irrelevant. Show me a guy with no hair, and I'll say he's bald. A million hairs, I'll say not-bald. 2 hairs? Bald. 20 Hairs? Bald. at some point "n", not-bald. N-1 is bald, n+1 is not-bald, but the difference between them is insignificant. This is a common problem in metrics of measurement. We have to live with it whenever we are dealing with subjective evaluations.

Either that or tell my neighbor he's NOT bald because bald is an absolute condition of zero-hair. He'll be delighted :-)

Mike

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

03/28/2014 01:16:28 PM · #10

Originally posted by njsabs:

So my next question goes out to everyone, does the re-edit compared to the submitted entry, " change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color or crop)".

very curious to hear some of your comments.

between images no, but i can see a line between the original and reedit.

03/28/2014 01:12:40 PM · #11

03/28/2014 12:52:54 PM · #12

Originally posted by njsabs:

I have a feeling this re-edit would have been legal:

Absolutely. You haven't crossed the line there.

Google Glass Google Glass

03/28/2014 12:24:16 PM · #13

Originally posted by ambaker:

As a no talent, non ribbon winning hack, I probably am not qualified to post an opinion...

I understand pushing the envelope for art. But it seems the discussion has become how far can a rule be pushed before it breaks?

I understand that the photographer has an idea of the finished image, prior to pressing the shutter. At leat you good ones seem to...

My question becomes, why not set the scene that way in the first place? A house, or a power line may not be feasible to move, but lighting in a set scene is.

Yes you are correct. And that is what I was doing....intentionally using that large unmovable cabinet as a background for the tones of it....along with the north facing window light, that I knew would be soft, and flattering. I was not planning on having anything moved from the backdrop.

Unfortunately writing on a forum can not distinguish the tone of my 'voice". I am writing this, not with anger, but to let you all know what went into the image and the thinking process behind it. I do realize there is a "line" for SC to either let the rule pass or result in a DQ. So at this point, this is a good discussion to educate all of us on the rules, and the thinking behind the site councils decision, as well as mine.

I, too, looked at the image on several different monitors (after the DQ), and I can see both horizontal and vertical lines on my 'most used' monitor, but my husband's screen, just vertical lines. Yes, they are muddy, and unclear, but distinguishable on my screen.

I have a feeling this re-edit would have been legal:

Message edited by author 2014-03-28 18:23:41.

ambaker

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

03/28/2014 11:47:03 AM · #14

Tiny

Apple iPad mini 4

03/28/2014 11:35:20 AM · #15

rules hey ?

03/28/2014 10:31:28 AM · #16

This can get really confusing....but I am asking this out of curiosity, and for further reference. What about if the lines were removed in the background, and I left the texture of the cabinet visible? In other words the horizontal and vertical lines were cloned out and the texture of the wood was left. Would of that been legal?

Message edited by author 2014-03-28 10:31:44.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/28/2014 10:30:12 AM · #17

Ditto

03/28/2014 10:23:16 AM · #18

Originally posted by Paul:

An opinion/answer to my question of 'Had the horizontal background elements been as discernible in the edit as the vertical elements, would this have been a DQ?' would help a great deal in informing our future editing choices.

In my case, if I could see that geometry I would probably have voted to validate. The difference between your "x marks" entry and this one is instructive, because that's EXACTLY where the line gets drawn, for me at least. Your draperies are darkened nearly to the point of being subliminal, but they are distinctly *there*. In the current image, the panel's just not there anymore as far as I'm concerned.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/28/2014 07:52:02 AM · #19

Originally posted by CEJ:

I remember the controversy when this image ribboned as well. And he definitely removed the entire background. This is a bridge in Central Park, NYC.

Surprisingly, no. The background was dark trees in that case, and the crop/exposure rendered the background all but black.

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

03/28/2014 06:17:37 AM · #20

I remember the controversy when this image ribboned as well. This is a bridge in Central Park, NYC.

Message edited by author 2014-03-29 07:59:08.

Tiny

Apple iPad mini 4

03/28/2014 05:01:30 AM · #21

Originally posted by Mike:

more reason to just ditch the rule sets altogether.

++ you da man

GregoryB

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

03/28/2014 04:11:24 AM · #22

For what it's worth Jen, I think you were ripped.

jomari

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

03/28/2014 03:35:37 AM · #23

I don't know what was originally visible Paul, but I have to really move my head around to discern any background at all on your validated entry. No wonder people don't know where 'the line' is.
What could be really helpful would be a gallery of DQs, and even more helpful if they were somehow categorized according to the transgressions that earned the DQs..

Paul

Leica SL

Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f/1.7 Aspherical MF Wide Angle - Black

03/28/2014 03:12:35 AM · #24

This ribboning image was successfully validated:

Like Jen, I made a conscious effort to keep some of the background in. In my shot there are only vertical folds in the curtain, in Jen's, the cabinet has vertical and horizontal lines in the original but in her edit I can only discern the vertical lines. So, as a learning question - is that a line not to cross? Had the horizontal elements been discernible would it have passed muster?

As I've said before, I think these autopsy conversations are really positive - such decisions are a SC judgement call (and so they should be), but these close-to-the-edge-of-the-envelope cases really help us (as precedents and guides) when we make our editing choices - and here it certainly was an editing choice - blur, don't remove - the 'has it been removed (through the use of excessive blur'? is the question that has been answered by the DQ. An opinion/answer to my question of 'Had the horizontal background elements been as discernible in the edit as the vertical elements, would this have been a DQ?' would help a great deal in informing our future editing choices.

As I say, I think the conversations are really useful in building clarity for us all and I really appreciate the time that the SC take to involve themselves in such conversations.

Thanks

Paul

bmatt17

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel