Voting results on validations - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

07/01/2008 12:48:11 PM · #4

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What was left off the image for the viewer to infer was the dead mother wearing red stiletto heels who had been strangled to death with her own apron!

THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITHOUT PHOTOS!! :P

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

07/01/2008 12:44:45 PM · #5

Originally posted by BeeCee:

Originally posted by raish:

Heh. I voted it 2 on account of children taking food from the kitchen of the house where they live is definitely not a crime. Cheating on dpc isn't a crime either.

This is a crime scene. The house has been broken into and ransacked, valuables stolen. On the way out the thief grabbed a cookie. The children are in shock, the incident too vast for their comprehension. Hence they focus on the one aspect of the crime that they CAN connect to; a missing cookie.
I don't see any shoehorn, I see a story!

What was left off the image for the viewer to infer was the dead mother wearing red stiletto heels who had been strangled to death with her own apron!

BeeCee

Nikon D40

07/01/2008 12:41:48 PM · #6

Originally posted by raish:

Heh. I voted it 2 on account of children taking food from the kitchen of the house where they live is definitely not a crime. Cheating on dpc isn't a crime either.

This is a crime scene. The house has been broken into and ransacked, valuables stolen. On the way out the thief grabbed a cookie. The children are in shock, the incident too vast for their comprehension. Hence they focus on the one aspect of the crime that they CAN connect to; a missing cookie.
I don't see any shoehorn, I see a story!

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

07/01/2008 12:24:32 PM · #7

We all know you are a pro Louis. Don't deny it...

Louis

Nikon D800

07/01/2008 12:16:22 PM · #8

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No amount of setup would have allowed me that large a solid white background without a large paper backdrop. Those are the domain of professionals.

A small point, but an important one. Paper rolls aren't the domain of pros. I'm not a pro and use paper rolls fairly regularly (as do many here I would think).
[thumb]396043[/thumb] [thumb]473250[/thumb] [thumb]493046[/thumb]

Edit: oops, should have continued reading. :P

Message edited by author 2008-07-01 12:18:36.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

07/01/2008 11:47:32 AM · #9

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I made a blank 640 x 480 pixel image, filled it entirely with black, then created the graphic image using only selections and levels adjustments. Wouldn�t you call this a drawing?

I get the feeling Mick will say yes but I doubt actual illustrators would agree. :P

Those are Mick's words thrown back at him.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/01/2008 11:46:47 AM · #10

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

I made a blank 640 x 480 pixel image, filled it entirely with black, then created the graphic image using only selections and levels adjustments. Wouldn�t you call this a drawing?

I get the feeling Mick will say yes but I doubt actual illustrators would agree. :P

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

07/01/2008 11:44:29 AM · #11

Don't make us pull out your Oregon postcard Mick... :P

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

07/01/2008 11:38:53 AM · #12

Originally posted by Mick:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Of course that would be a drawing. It didn't even have one small bit that was even remotely part of a photograph.

Are you sure? How do you know that I didn't simply photograph a black and white drawing? I did draw it, just as I said, but I assure you that I could easily create the exact same image by photographing an existing drawing. What's the difference? Only one would be a photo.

Yes. Unless what you described isn't what was done. ;oP

Originally posted by Mick:

I made a blank 640 x 480 pixel image, filled it entirely with black, then created the graphic image using only selections and levels adjustments. Wouldn�t you call this a drawing?

Edited to emphasize Mick's words.

Message edited by author 2008-07-01 11:48:09.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/01/2008 11:36:37 AM · #13

Originally posted by krnodil:

Sorry Shannon, but I don't care much for your mocking attitude regarding this issue...

See my first posts then. I do try to be polite, but I sometimes get annoyed by the nature of the replies. I dedicate the mighty wet noodle of sarcasm to those who have over-dramatized the issue. Cloning out wrinkles in Advanced is as common as cloning out power lines and stray hairs, yet despite several explanations, you'd think from subsequent posts that the entire entry was drawn with a paint brush. Like Muckpond and some others, the biggest concern for me was the sign. The background was a non-issue to me.

Originally posted by krnodil:

..it is a picture of kids in front of blinding white space, not in any way identifiable as the background it was before.

If the sheet had been perfectly flat and evenly lit, you wouldn't know if it was a backdrop, white wall, cloudy sky or a giant soft box. They're all blank white nothings. This one was essentially blank, too, but had some minor imperfections, and cloning out imperfections in Advanced is nothing new.

07/01/2008 11:18:33 AM · #14

People keep using "clone", but the truth, like mentioned by some, is that 90% of the wrinkles etc were removed by simply using a levels adjustment layer. It's not like I painstakingly cloned out everything. That would have been impossible as there would be no pure white source material to use in the first place.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/01/2008 11:00:52 AM · #15

Originally posted by ZeppKash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ZeppKash:
I think the problem here is how MUCH is cloned out.

All molehills, no mountains. It started and finished with an empty white background.

And when does said molehill become a mountain? THAT is the question.
You say its a 'white' backdrop, but it looks kinda grey to me. Are we allowed to turn a black backdrop white? or vice versa?

Of course. Color changes are allowed as is the removal/addition of color, there's a specific exception for it in the rules (i.e. color isn't bound to the same restrictions like other aspects are). It can be done in basic (i.e. invert or curves applied to entire image) not to mention in advance. I think the problem is people try to analyze what the spirit of the rules mean (i.e. read between the lines) and then apply it to everything. Instead you should just take each rule and accept it at face value as it was intended.

Message edited by author 2008-07-01 11:14:01.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

07/01/2008 10:33:22 AM · #16

(full disclosure: i did not vote in the challenge or in the validation of DrAchoo's image in question.)

for me, a validation issue such as this one comes down to this portion of the advanced rules (emphasis mine):

Originally posted by advanced rules:

(You may not) use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer�s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.

simply put, the removal of the background didn't affect my overall description of the shot. personally, i have far more issues with removing the sign in front of the tray. this is just one person's opinion.

FWIW, the "major elements" clause was tossed out in November 2006 because of discussions just like this one. instead of debating if the background was a major element or not for every single image (which often resulted in acrimonious discussions and inconsistent DQs), we decided to step back and look at the image as a whole, which is how it should be.

had this photograph been taken in a kitchen, with cabinets and a sink and etc. behind it and turned into the final submission, it would have been disqualified without a doubt. not because the background was a major element, but because the original shot of "two kids in a kitchen" would have been changed into "two kids looking at cookies." the entire context of the shot would have been changed.

in this instance, however, the context of the shot remains the same from start to finish.

honestly, i think it's a much more simple (and much more fair) means of evaluating images. (and not just 'cause i wrote that rule...haha).

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

07/01/2008 10:27:34 AM · #17

Originally posted by scalvert:

... Must be a slow news day. :-/

I agree. :-)

A white bg just got a little whiter...no big deal, and not that difficult to do.

Ummm...what was this thread originally about?

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

07/01/2008 10:27:07 AM · #18

I once cloned a thin guide wire and was horribly worried that not only could everyone tell I'd cloned it, but that it was a "major element". If I can find the original, I'll edit this to show what I'm talking about. I do think the vast majority of us are far more conservative when it comes to cloning or editing things into oblivion than the masters.

Message edited by author 2008-07-01 10:34:26.

ZeppKash

Samsung Pro815

07/01/2008 10:26:49 AM · #19

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ZeppKash:
I think the problem here is how MUCH is cloned out.

All molehills, no mountains. It started and finished with an empty white background.

And when does said molehill become a mountain? THAT is the question.
You say its a 'white' backdrop, but it looks kinda grey to me. Are we allowed to turn a black backdrop white? or vice versa?

krnodil

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

07/01/2008 10:22:38 AM · #20

Originally posted by scalvert:

OMIGOSH! The very first muslin background ever used on DPC with cloned out wrinkles! Cover your children's eyes! Shield your monitor from this atrocity! After all, it's not like someone reduced a photograph to an illustrated mockery of the art by cloning out some faint jet contrails in an otherwise clear sky. Oh, wait... it is. Just like dozens of other muslin backgrounds on DPC. Must be a slow news day. :-/

Sorry Shannon, but I don't care much for your mocking attitude regarding this issue - everyone here has expressed what I think is legitimate surprise at what extent of editing had been allowed. You say it's "just" a muslin background - is it the fact that it's a sheet, and not say, a row of kitchen cabinets, that makes this ok for you? I was under the impression that removal of major elements in a photo to an extent that it alters one's typical description of the image was not allowed and I do consider that sheet to constitute a major element - before, it is a picture of kids in front of a sheet, after, it is a picture of kids in front of blinding white space, not in any way identifiable as the background it was before. When I think of all the shots I have not entered because I thought the editing was disallowed, even in Advanced, for this very point (using levels or some cloning to make the background more uniform)...

Not trying to say that such editing is "not photography" or any of that (I do horrible Photoshop-y things to my images all the time), but that such editing was ok for DPC submission guidelines, is the concern.

I'm surprised, is all, and so apparently are a good number of other people. You should respect that and not make a mockery of us.

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

07/01/2008 10:19:07 AM · #21

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by scalvert:
OMIGOSH! etc.

Shannon, your sarcasm is amusing, but it doesn't change the fact that this example of what is allowed is a revelation to some of us.

Ditto.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

07/01/2008 10:18:00 AM · #22

Given that muslin backgrounds have been edited like this since the DPC Stone Age, and that some of the people feigning shock have removed even more detailed backgrounds, I'll stick with the sarcasm, thanks.

citymars

Nikon D700

07/01/2008 10:13:18 AM · #23

Originally posted by scalvert:

OMIGOSH! etc.

Shannon, your sarcasm is amusing, but it doesn't change the fact that this example of what is allowed is a revelation to some of us.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III