| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2007 11:26:27 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by DowseDesigns:
Funny you should say that... I would imagine the background would've added to the image for me. It would seem less "staged". Some subtle dodge/burn could've easily kept the background intact AND added emphasis to the main subject. |
Yep! You might be correct. It sure would be nice to see the original. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 10:02:27 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by LanceW:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
There is still the table with glasses and plates on it, the other parts of the restaurant are of zero importance for a photo like this. |
I would disagree with this statement. I imagine the background is probably quite distracting and would reduce my vote given on this image if it had been left there according to the rules. |
Funny you should say that... I would imagine the background would've added to the image for me. It would seem less "staged". Some subtle dodge/burn could've easily kept the background intact AND added emphasis to the main subject.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:57:15 AM · #3 |
Well said Shannon.
ETA: I haven't read through this entire thread, but I must say that when I first saw the photo in question, it seemed very "staged" in a studio environment and black backdrop. The removal of the background certainly did change how I "perceived" the image.
For the record, I agree with the DQ.
Message edited by author 2007-06-12 10:00:37.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:55:08 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
There is still the table with glasses and plates on it, the other parts of the restaurant are of zero importance for a photo like this. |
I would disagree with this statement. I imagine the background is probably quite distracting and would reduce my vote given on this image if it had been left there according to the rules. |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:54:24 AM · #5 |
there have been lots of awesome photos DQ'd. The quality of the image has nothing to do with the compliance to the rules.
What if this great shot was done outside the date range of the challenge? Would people be as upset?
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:48:13 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I had thought that the rule change was intended to make a change from these examples and permit object removal where that does not affect a reasonable interpretation of the subject matter. |
The *real* goal in my personal opinion was simply to try another way to communicate the Major Element rule. The rule hasn't really been changed, only reworded. The big complaint used to be, "What is "major" and what is an "element'"? If we said it was the important features, then people wanted to know what a "feature" was and what qualified as "important." Same deal with "prominent," "significant," "object," whatever. You can't define the important parts of *all* photos with concrete measurements or intent. A portrait of a model looking cross-eyed at a gnat on her nose makes the gnat a prominent feature, yet an even bigger gnat in another context might be trivial and nobody would notice its removal. A small tree trunk along the ouside edge of the frame may be a distraction, while the same tree smack dab in the center of the frame is a prominent feature.
Backgrounds are considered important because they provide context for the scene. If the background is largely blank it should stay blank, and if it's full of detail, then it should stay visible. This should be common sense, but some people (and I'm not referring to jj) just can't use that as a guide. They want to look in the manual and find on page 24, section 5, paragraph 3, item 6.22b that an elm or maple tree branch (but not oak) measuring no more than .08% of the overall image area in a photo of a forest may be cloned out unless a narrow ray of light highlights that branch. Sheeesh!
Anyway... we had always defined major elements behind the scenes as those things a typical viewer might mention if describing the image, so we thought we'd try putting that internal criteria down in the rules. In addition, we tried to emphasize that the things you CAN edit out are limited to minor distractions (a stray hair or dust speck, etc.). Changes in color or tone on existing objects are generally exempt from consideration as long as those objects aren't removed in the process. I suspect that no matter how it's described, though, some people will complain. Of course, if we removed the rule and somebody cloned out the top of the Eiffel Tower, people would complain about that, too! :-/ |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 08:53:19 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
[..... I do not see a change of a typical viewer's description of the photograph...... |
How can you say that there is not change without having seen the original. That's like saying gold & silver are the same thing when you've never seen the gold. WE (the voters) cannot say WHAT was removed unless we are privy to the original image.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 08:49:11 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by e301:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
 e301, it all comes down to: "If you don't like the rules, the people, or the photos... find somewhere you do." |
brilliant move. chase off one of the best photographers on this site. sigh... |
i agree that he is one of the best on the site but many comments like his and some of yours in the past seem like you guys think you are better than the rest of us. It seems (to me) like a few of you want to chase off those that don't live up to your emotional value. |
No, don't want to chase off anyone. What I don't want is for the photographers I find interesting to be chased off. Which is happening. And yes, they are finding somewhere else to go. |
so you think that they should be exempt from the rules everyone else has to follow just to keep them here? |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 08:44:28 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Jammur:
From JJ's comment: "Next door table at a Chinese restaurant. Stolen moment... "
It seems rather straight forward where the line is..... where's the restaurant?
His subjects are completely out of context now, he has turned what was a candid into something that appears to be a studio shot. |
And after deliberation, that was the opinion that the SC had to come to as well. :( |
There is still the table with glasses and plates on it, the other parts of the restaurant are of zero importance for a photo like this. The title and ambiance of the photo also hint at that. It was about the moment, not about the restaurant. Saying it is out of context is rubbish. I do not see a change of a typical viewer's description of the photograph.
And I do not care if it is JJ's or shot by the latest brown ribbon winner.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 05:42:21 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If this shot had been validated, then SandyP, KDO, Cutter, and anybody else with a similar situation would be rightfully outraged that they were DQ'd. |
I must admit - I had thought that the rule change was intended to make a change from these examples and permit object removal where that does not affect a reasonable interpretation of the subject matter.
There were a few arguments over the typical viewer rule at the time of its introduction: it was criticised for introducing an unfamiliar subjective test. I suppose that with a few decisions like this we'll get used to knowing how the rule is being applied in practice.
I still think that my suggestion at the time could help: introduce a purpose or theme to the rules. The other rules should be interpreted in order to give effect to that purpose. Given that absolute clarity/objectivity is not attainable, the purposive element at least gives guidance on how the rules should be interpreted.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 05:29:00 AM · #11 |
Opppps, I guess we forgot it is "Site Council Appreciation Month".
The site council does a good job, not that anyone agrees 100% with every decision they make. They are extremely fair and conscientious with their decision and in my time here have never seen anything flippant or careless in their decision making.
It does not mean that every decision is one I would make, but it does mean that every decision I can support.
JJ is a great photographer and one of the all time favorites here and some one I try to emulate- the question is not even about his photography or his person - it is about the rules.
Happy "Site Council Appreciation Month".
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 03:49:51 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
e301, it all comes down to: "If you don't like the rules, the people, or the photos... find somewhere you do." |
brilliant move. chase off one of the best photographers on this site. sigh... |
i agree that he is one of the best on the site but many comments like his and some of yours in the past seem like you guys think you are better than the rest of us. It seems (to me) like a few of you want to chase off those that don't live up to your emotional value. |
No, don't want to chase off anyone. What I don't want is for the photographers I find interesting to be chased off. Which is happening. And yes, they are finding somewhere else to go. |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 02:33:18 AM · #13 |
That's what I feel: a certain neurosis creeps in when I see a great image DQ'd and wonder what the transgression was. Would love to see the original JJ...
But thanks for the expalaination Shannon.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do wish somehow we could see originals that have been DQ'd to get a feel for what is over the line and what isn't. On the other hand it may lead to those long threads of bickering, but whenever I see a DQ for burning or cloning, I always want to see the original so I can gauge my own work against it and see how close to the line I'm running. |
Message edited by author 2007-06-12 02:36:04. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:52:35 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:50:41 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Removal of anything short of a triple breasted stripper hanging upside down in the background with a candle in her butt would not have changed the typcial viewers impression of this image. Old man and someone who cares about him. That was the shot. |
as I said to someone earlier in the thread, "I assume you've seen the original, then?" |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:45:42 PM · #16 |
like he said in his photog's comments, he had to turn a snap shot into a good photo... that pretty much says "changed the average users description" to me
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:24:57 PM · #17 |
Looks like there's a lot of picking at straws here when we should be looking at the haystack. What difference does it make if this is an art site or not? You can create plenty of art within the rules. Yes, dodging and burning are a common darkroom technique in film photography. So what? Multi-image composites and overlays are also common darkroom fare and we don't allow those either. Yes, you can legally dodge & burn, clone and edit selections in Advanced, but there are limits. If there had been a circus elephant seated on the opposite side of that table in the original, some people would probably still argue that we should be allowed to remove it, but I believe most would agree that burning it out is going too far.
So what can we remove? Little distractions. Things like "incidental power lines, twigs, dust specks, stray hairs, and similar minor imperfections." The original background was a very obvious restaurant scene. The entry is a much more intimate setting, maybe a house or nursing home... we can't really tell. That is a significant change for a typical viewer. Now, I can certainly understand and appreciate the desire to obscure the background. It was visual clutter that took away from the scene, and effective communication usually demands simplicity. The end result is beautiful, no question, but it's not legal. A detailed background is hardly a minor imperfection, and we've been pretty consistent at not allowing their removal. If this shot had been validated, then SandyP, KDO, Cutter, and anybody else with a similar situation would be rightfully outraged that they were DQ'd.
IMO, the argument that a major thing can be mostly obscured with global adjustments and then finished off selectively is just an excuse to do something you shouldn't be doing in the first place. For example, consider that adjusting the color or tone of an existing object is legal in Advanced. Now, using similar logic, could I selectively adjust each part of the wheelchair until they all match, and then claim that it's mostly gone anyway and finish removing it? I don't think so. If a prominent thing is there in your original, then it should be there in your entry, period. It can be darker, lighter, redder, sharper, blurrier, etc., but it should be THERE. On that note, it doesn't matter if an extreme levels adjustment shows that there's still detail hidden in the file. We look at the original context: a restaurant, and we look at the final context: nothing. That's a DQ. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:18:54 PM · #18 |
the rules are there. i mean, the SC is not saying this is not an amazing image. emotional, yes. wonderful, God yes. i'm sure they got the tear in their eyes the second they saw it too...and an even bigger tear when they had to DQ it. i thank the SC for this type of consistency in the rules. it does suck for this great photographer. but if someone in the past was DQ'd because of it, it's only fair.
being consistent is what's important here, and i feel the SC is doing a great job at this. think about it...i'm sure there are hundreds of entries that would have been burned like this to delete distracting elements, but they did not do it b/c it was a rules violation. it goes both ways. if this one was allowed, where does it all stop?
it just makes it that much harder when it's an inspirational and emotive image as this was. tough decision, but bravo SC for being consistent.
constistent, i said it again :D
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:16:33 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Removal of anything short of a triple breasted stripper hanging upside down in the background with a candle in her butt would not have changed the typcial viewers impression of this image. Old man and someone who cares about him. That was the shot. |
yeah. that was the shot. but was that the image?
i adore jjbequin's vision and the way he expresses it in his images. doesn't mean it passes dpc editing rules, though.
so, is that "bad"?
should all great images fit dpc rules?
should dpc rules provide for all great images?
in my opinion, no. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:14:46 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Removal of anything short of a triple breasted stripper hanging upside down in the background with a candle in her butt would not have changed the typcial viewers impression of this image. Old man and someone who cares about him. That was the shot. |
Which begs the question, if it doesn't change anything, why do it? ;) |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:13:59 PM · #21 |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:09:48 PM · #22 |
| Removal of anything short of a triple breasted stripper hanging upside down in the background with a candle in her butt would not have changed the typcial viewers impression of this image. Old man and someone who cares about him. That was the shot. |
|
|
|
06/11/2007 10:01:38 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by xianart:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
...This site is photography for competition, therefore it is not an "art site". |
i received marks for my work in university. was i not creating art then? |
Again, nobody is saying photography isn't art, they're saying this site wasn't created for the display of art, it was created for competition between photographers. "Art Sites" (there are dozens out there) generally are built for sharing and commenting on art - for art's sake. DPC is different from those.
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 09:52:41 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
...This site is photography for competition, therefore it is not an "art site". |
i received marks for my work in university. was i not creating art then?
|
|
|
|
06/11/2007 09:42:12 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by LuDeLush:
Ummmm...not an art site? since when? ok so it has rules, but that by no means removes the fact that photography, with or without rules is art! Don't diminish what i think alot of people are trying to do here, which is finding a creative outlet. everyone has diff. opinions, just cause its not the same as yours doesn't mean we have to chase them away.
"an artist is not a special type of person, every person is a special type of artist" Lee Krasner |
Yes, photography is art. DeviantArt (and many others were there are no rules for what can be done to submissions) is a site where the point is art for art's sake. This site is photography for competition, therefore it is not an "art site".
Typo
Message edited by author 2007-06-11 21:42:46. |
|
