| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/17/2020 11:58:34 AM · #1 |
We're going in circles here. It's time to close this thread down. Thanks, all, for expressing your opinions.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2020 11:52:48 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
I EXTENDED the existing surface. I created no new surface. Liquify is a tool and any tool can be used to infinity and beyond.
Or, at least we were told it could be before this DQ. |
If we use your definition, I can essentially do single image extended editing in standard. With all the tools available in GIMP or PS, there's almost nothing I can't do with a single image if I stretch, liquify, distort, ..., to my hearts content. |
|
|
|
08/17/2020 11:45:09 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Lydia:
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. |
But you created a new surface around the entire image. You're arguing that you simply used a tool and expanded its boundary an extra five inches in all directions. From my perspective it's a new surface. Based on what Bear and General wrote it appears they thought so as well. You liquified the current surroundings of the image to infinity and beyond. |
I EXTENDED the existing surface. I created no new surface. Liquify is a tool and any tool can be used to infinity and beyond.
Or, at least we were told it could be before this DQ.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2020 11:24:34 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
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. |
But you created a new surface around the entire image. You're arguing that you simply used a tool and expanded its boundary an extra five inches in all directions. From my perspective it's a new surface. Based on what Bear and General wrote it appears they thought so as well. You liquified the current surroundings of the image to infinity and beyond.
|
|
|
|
08/17/2020 10:29:56 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
It just looks like she extended the background -- which is something you can't do. There's been many times where I would like to extend a background because I cropped too much in camera, but it's not legal. This was just liquefying to pull out that part of the photo. Which is basically extending the background. |
I didn't extend the background. The size of the image is the same. I used a tool to fill the existing space. I liquified an existing object (the flat part of the subject). The crop remained that same, the objects in it remained the same except for liquifying them (and cloning out the buttons). Using any tool is legal. It's up to the voters to determine if it's been used too much.
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,  Bear_Music , if I'd done a poorer job of my Liquify, so it showed streaks in the image, then it would have been legal? I really want to know this.
If this was not a unanimous vote by SC, what was the ratio, please?
|
|
|
|
|
08/17/2020 01:07:23 AM · #6 |
| I totally and absolutely obliterated the homemade cheesecake tonight! |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 11:02:25 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I have got to use the word obliterated more in my daily life. It's a good word. |
Combine it with "absolutely" for the most impact. |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 10:30:36 PM · #8 |
| I have got to use the word obliterated more in my daily life. It's a good word. |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 10:26:38 PM · #9 |
| It just looks like she extended the background -- which is something you can't do. There's been many times where I would like to extend a background because I cropped too much in camera, but it's not legal. This was just liquefying to pull out that part of the photo. Which is basically extending the background. |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 10:17:35 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We don't MIND the manipulation, honestly. Go wild! In all those examples the photographer went to town creating an obvious fantasy, legality was never in question. Lydia's DQ'd entry is completely different from these: she used a tool to obliterate unwanted elements and left us with no way of knowing that the surface was NOT, in fact, entirely a real and actual surface. We're surprised people don't seem to be understanding this: it's not how MUCH she used the tool, it's what she used it FOR :-( |
So, go wild, so long as you go completely wild and don't do hybrids? |
No! That's what THOSE entries did, but Liquify, for example, is frequently used when processing portraits to, say, get rid of double chins or other non-idealized sections of the human body or "enhance" the shape of lips, whatever.
Look, we have a long-established baseline in DPC where we don't allow (in standard editing) the replacement of backgrounds with something realistic that they are not, it's as simple as that. Or foregrounds, for that matter. The problem with Lydia's image has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOOL SHE USED: it's a matter of what she did with her image. She extended the featureless surface causing it to replace what was actually there. In the particular instance, it's maybe not that big of a "sin" -- but we'd be setting a precedent if we allowed it, whereby people could (for example) process a snapshot of their kid standing in the driveway and then eliminate the concrete, the street and houses in the BG, the telephone wires, everything, and replace it with an imaginary gradient to make it look like the snapshot was done in a studio. That's Extended Editing stuff.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2020 09:58:29 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We don't MIND the manipulation, honestly. Go wild! In all those examples the photographer went to town creating an obvious fantasy, legality was never in question. Lydia's DQ'd entry is completely different from these: she used a tool to obliterate unwanted elements and left us with no way of knowing that the surface was NOT, in fact, entirely a real and actual surface. We're surprised people don't seem to be understanding this: it's not how MUCH she used the tool, it's what she used it FOR :-( |
So, go wild, so long as you go completely wild and don't do hybrids? |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 09:54:50 PM · #12 |
We don't MIND the manipulation, honestly. Go wild! In all those examples the photographer went to town creating an obvious fantasy, legality was never in question. Lydia's DQ'd entry is completely different from these: she used a tool to obliterate unwanted elements and left us with no way of knowing that the surface was NOT, in fact, entirely a real and actual surface. We're surprised people don't seem to be understanding this: it's not how MUCH she used the tool, it's what she used it FOR :-(
|
|
|
|
08/16/2020 09:46:21 PM · #13 |
Okay, so I could have put it in and it would have been okay so long as it didn't reach top 5.
Just wondering what SC members think as they vote on these rather obviously manipulated entries. |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 06:55:58 PM · #14 |
Those didn't have to be checked. Not too 5. |
|
|
|
08/16/2020 06:49:32 PM · #15 |
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 04:13:06 PM · #16 |
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 01:46:15 PM · #17 |
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 01:23:13 PM · #18 |
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 01:00:01 PM · #19 |
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 12:41:33 PM · #20 |
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 12:30:55 PM · #21 |
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 09:58:11 AM · #22 |
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 09:26:29 AM · #23 |
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:
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 10:57:08 PM · #24 |
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.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2020 09:27:03 PM · #25 |
|
