| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2013 05:29:55 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can't make selections in basic editing and there is no way to make that border without a selection tool of some sort. |
Wrong:
Originally posted by basic editing rules:
You may NOT: use any selection tool, including but not limited to the marquee, lasso, layer masks, quick masks, or any similar tool to select a portion of your image for any reason other than cropping or creating a border. |
|
Aha. Well, there goes my objection. I'm not sure how I made it 300+ challenges without a DQ... |
Nobody looks at your stuff.:€ |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 03:29:08 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can't make selections in basic editing and there is no way to make that border without a selection tool of some sort. |
Wrong:
Originally posted by basic editing rules:
You may NOT: use any selection tool, including but not limited to the marquee, lasso, layer masks, quick masks, or any similar tool to select a portion of your image for any reason other than cropping or creating a border. |
|
Aha. Well, there goes my objection. I'm not sure how I made it 300+ challenges without a DQ... |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 03:22:46 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The border here, while clearly recognizable, is also part of the image– no different than an inline on a non-blurred photo. If the area had not been blurred, there would be a large stand of reeds in the foreground which could not be removed with any editing tool, and limited image area that could not be extended to help the composition. Merely placing an inline on the image area does not change this. |
Is it a border, or is it part of the image? It's one or the other. If it's a border, then the gradient is legal.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Indeed, there are multiple places in the Advanced Editing rules that say you can't use ANY method to achieve a particular end result, and the result of the major element removal here is a DQ regardless of the method. In addition, the gradient created on the previously featureless background would likely be a DQ all by itself for the same reason we routinely DQ complete background removal. |
That's like saying that applying a gradient ND effect to a sky will be DQ'd. This is where y'all are on a slippery slope. I understand that we don't want folks drawing smiley-faces in red on a blue sky, but applying a gradient color-shift is a different thing. If it's not allowed, then pretty much *any* gradient shifting of tone is going to be illegal. Down the slippery slope and into the rabbit hole.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2013 03:10:41 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mike_311:
They shouldn't have to tip you off to a violation... the point should be the final outcome not how it got there. |
Um, no... the point is to enter legally edited photos. There shouldn't be a violation to tip off, and intentionally failing to disclose editing steps in order to hide one would be willful cheating. |
I agree, but what is the point is disallowing certain edits? as well know there are many means to an end in Photoshop, it should matter how you got there, only that you got there, if the final product look alter with a given ruleset it should be legal. its only willful cheating if you it don't disclose it for that reason, if you do it and don't know its illegal and it passes, is it still illegal?
my point is if Pascal had just said, "created a border" and not disclosed how it was created, would you have dq'd (assuming that the only reason it got dq'd) or is it because you now know how it was created and that violates a rule.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2013 02:38:16 PM · #5 |
"If the area had not been blurred, there would be a large stand of reeds in the foreground..."
Wrong! The backround (duplicated then resized image) was a copy of the cropped image. So no reeds would appear if the image was not blurred, just the left bird (a little magnified because of the resize). Yes it can be said that I added technically more space to the tight left crop but...
I have another version, here  , where everything was done with the same way, except there was an additional darkened (85%)of the border. This could be even higher, say 95%, almost black... Now the technique is the same, is this time the border part of the image? If not (as I believe), where is the limit of legal and not legal?
Thank you again, all of you, for the explanations |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 02:35:36 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You can't make selections in basic editing and there is no way to make that border without a selection tool of some sort. |
Wrong:
Originally posted by basic editing rules:
You may NOT: use any selection tool, including but not limited to the marquee, lasso, layer masks, quick masks, or any similar tool to select a portion of your image for any reason other than cropping or creating a border. |
Message edited by author 2013-02-14 14:36:00. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 02:32:52 PM · #7 |
I can almost wrap my mind around the flamingo DQ. I do understand the concept it looks like expanded area even though it also looks clearly like a border. However, the ant shot in basic editing throws a wrench into the works. How could one consider that border to be in any way legal unless you consider the "rules" not applicable to a border? You can't make selections in basic editing and there is no way to make that border without a selection tool of some sort. So either we say "editing rules don't apply to borders" (in which case we're back in trouble with the flamingo shot) or we say the ant border was illegal.
The two rulings are conflicting. I know we have lots of rulings that are conflicting (and that's fine, it is gonna happen after 10 years), but I don't like the gymnastic legalese that is sometimes undertaken in an attempt to make it all look harmonious.
Message edited by author 2013-02-14 14:33:51. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 02:06:55 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Postulate 1: This is a border is readily recognizable as such, and wouldn't fool anyone into thinking it's part of the image. |
The border here, while clearly recognizable, is also part of the image– no different than an inline on a non-blurred photo. If the area had not been blurred, there would be a large stand of reeds in the foreground which could not be removed with any editing tool, and limited image area that could not be extended to help the composition. Merely placing an inline on the image area does not change this.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Postulate 2: This is Advanced Editing, and the methods don't matter, only the end result |
Indeed, there are multiple places in the Advanced Editing rules that say you can't use ANY method to achieve a particular end result, and the result of the major element removal here is a DQ regardless of the method. In addition, the gradient created on the previously featureless background would likely be a DQ all by itself for the same reason we routinely DQ complete background removal. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 01:07:58 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
They shouldn't have to tip you off to a violation... the point should be the final outcome not how it got there. |
Um, no... the point is to enter legally edited photos. There shouldn't be a violation to tip off, and intentionally failing to disclose editing steps in order to hide one would be willful cheating. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 01:06:44 PM · #10 |
It seems like this whole discussion is going down the rabbit hole. To me, this (speaking of the current DQ) is very simple:
Postulate 1: This is a border is readily recognizable as such, and wouldn't fool anyone into thinking it's part of the image
Postulate 2: This is Advanced Editing, and the methods don't matter, only the end result
If we accept postulate 1, and I don't see how we cannot, then only the rules for borders apply. A gradient is legal, as has been stated by the SC in this very thread. There is *no* prohibition in the rules about what kind of gradient is acceptable or unacceptable, or what method may or may not be used to generate it. If we accept postulate 1, then no further analysis is necessary, period. the border is legal.
Postulate 2 puts the exclamation point on this. Even if we incorrectly try to apply image editing rules to the border, we have to agree that what's in the border is a gradient (legal), and given that Advanced Rules are results-based, the method of creation does not matter. In reality, though, Postulate 2 should never enter consideration, as this is a border, not image area.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2013 01:00:29 PM · #11 |
| If border wasn't resized as specified your notes, then it's no different from image area blurred in place and an inline... with a very major element removed. The only way you could legally remove those prominent foreground reeds is by cropping them out, but you put the cropped area back in (and extended it) to make the border. You also created a gradient to suggest sky and water in a previously featureless background. Either of those edits are straightforward DQs no matter who you are or where the entry placed. It's an appealing approach, but not legal in Advanced Editing. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 12:55:46 PM · #12 |
Pascal, as you yourself have described your work, you did the following:
1. Cropped and otherwise processed an image.
2. Made a new copy of that image, processed it differently (blurring, mostly), and enlarged it.
3. Made the smaller version a layer on top of the larger version.
In other words, you used two copies of an image and superimposed them, creating a composite image. This is never legal. Drawing the white line and calling half the composite a "border" doesn't change this.
We understand that you did this believing it was OK, and nobody's called you a cheater or implied that you are one. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 12:47:04 PM · #13 |
it would be nice to see a reversal, but i don't think it will happen.
and as far as banning for editing omissions, the way i see it, if you cant tell someone cheated the system, then either they didn't do anything wrong or someone else needs to do the judging. They shouldn't have to tip you off to a violation. If a rule worth having isn't clearly noticeable in the final product, it shouldn't be banned.
the point should be the final outcome not how it got there.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2013 12:21:19 PM · #14 |
"The border area in the first one was not resized or moved."
Ha! Really? Now, this is getting funny as it is going on!
The SC made a judgment for my image and I wouldn’t stay more (or less) on it even if it would be at the 1st place. I am glad with the acceptance of the image and this happiness can’t be disqualified. As things for me continue not to be clear and the thread is going on, I write again my opinion but unfortunately this time without any expectations of solving the disagreement.
The undesired element was just cropped, this is apparently legal and the border was made by blurring (and adjusting brightness and contrast) too much a resized copy of the whole cropped image, no use of just a specific element for creating the border, no addition or illegal removal of an element to the active image. The border also is perfectly distinguishable from the active image. Here of course arise the multi-question, who is a typical viewer, who is not (and why) and what defines then the non-typical viewer?
The intention of using the border was just to make the image look better, more impressive, more artistic let’s say.
But this is history now. The rules in this case are interpreted with a different way.
More important is that, as Judi once and for all pointed, older same-styled images within the same restrictions of the rules didn’t disqualify. This is obviously and beyond any doubts not fair for my image. Or should I think that my image was "purposefully" disqualified?
Or, to express this with another way, if under the processing details I had written from the first time (submission time), “I was not 100% certain if the border applied is legal, until I saw accidentally an older image, this one  , with a similar styled-border that took the blue ribbon”, would then my image be validated positively?
In this point, I note that banishment under such conditions of any member (as mentioned above) is a penalty for DPC itself not for the member. We discuss here for quite a long time and still many respectable people have different opinions!
I believe that until a very specific rule for making borders only is written, this image shouldn’t be disqualified.
All that said, I will continue to send from time to time images in DPChallenges, as usual. My intention was only to create something nice and not to cheat as scalvert implied cleverly. And I strongly support that intention of all members here is to create within absolutely clear rules for all, and not being objects for the application of “military” penalties, not to spend hours reading threads like this.
My best regards to all
Message edited by author 2013-02-14 12:46:02. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 09:25:19 AM · #15 |
| moves me up to 271st ! WOOT! |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 08:33:53 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Stagolee:
It was a blue ribbon winning image from three years ago....surely it would have been validated. |
That would be the FIRST image, not the second one that Neil mentioned. The border area in the first one was not resized or moved.
Message edited by author 2013-02-14 08:34:21. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 01:05:05 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Yes and in basic editing.
Per that, Roz's second image, if it went through validation (which it didn't, and it's old anyway), would be DQd because it looks like she did the same thing with her border.
|
It was a blue ribbon winning image from three years ago....surely it would have been validated. We can only assume that the rules are stricter now and the current SC team would have DQed it too. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 12:58:46 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
If he had not mentioned using the photo for the border, and instead used a gradient (with which you can easily create the identical effect), would it have been considered legal? |
A gradient in the border would have been legal (if it didn't look like added image area and wasn't pasted in from a photo). Note that purposefully failing to mention an illegal edit to avoid the consequences is a REALLY bad idea that can result in additional penalty or even banishment.
FWIW, the background on the entry in question was likely a DQ as well. Creating a gradient that suggests sky and water in a previously "blank" background isn't allowed. You could change the color of the background or add a vignette to the entire entry, but if the original sky is blank, then the end result can only be a different color of blank. |
|
|
|
02/14/2013 12:25:16 AM · #19 |
| If he had not mentioned using the photo for the border, and instead used a gradient (with which you can easily create the identical effect), would it have been considered legal? This seems important to know for future borders, as well as for understanding that we may be penalized for actions that don't result in illegal effects. |
|
|
|
02/13/2013 11:34:19 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by vawendy:
The question is: Are borders like this legal?
And have they been used in challenges before?
(ok -- yes, it's really ugly, but I needed an example to start the conversation. |
Yes and in basic editing.
And in Advanced.
 |
I guess then it looks like the canvas was extended. How can the SC tell the difference when the original photo was used so that the background matched? Where do you draw the line for an extension of canvas vs a border? Definitely an argument can be made for both cases.
I assume the intent was to make it look like the crop wasn't such a harsh crop, so to create a border that gave the illusion of the inline border? |
Well I don't have time for all the back and forth questions that commenting here will generate, which is one reason I've stayed out, but I'll jump in quickly and leave you with this.
You cannot selectively take parts of your picture, and copy them to your border. I think everyone would see that as illegal.
Likewise, you cannot copy your picture, enlarge it, or move it around, then paste that on a layer and make it your border. Even if it sort of looks like it matches.
This was exactly what was done in the photo in question. Manic said it way earlier in the thread.
Originally posted by Manic:
Yes, it's the border that was the issue.
Originally posted by Image notes:
Add border - produced by blurring a copy of the image, resize it and put it at the background |
Originally posted by DQ Reason:
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), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken. |
|
There are other aspects of it that I think are illegal, like the border extension. But there's no need to get into that in my opinion.
Per that, Roz's second image, if it went through validation (which it didn't, and it's old anyway), would be DQd because it looks like she did the same thing with her border.
Wendy's "ugly" border example, would be legal (at least on these grounds), because hers is basically an inset border on an original image (like putting a simple inset line on the photo).
Here's an example that's illegal, and was in fact DQ'd; it's less subtle, but it's not about subtlety.
DQ Reason: 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), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.
Message edited by author 2013-02-13 23:36:10. |
|
|
|
02/13/2013 10:25:45 PM · #21 |
|
|
|
02/13/2013 11:33:27 AM · #22 |
I don't know that there was any bickering. I think everyone pretty much agreed that this one was bizarre. We're just trying to figure out what can and can't be done.
I liked the option of doing away with borders. (unless, of course I want to use them, then they're legal. :) |
|
|
|
02/13/2013 08:50:29 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and here I told my friends in Québec that there was a thriving Francophone community in Australia and they did not believe me... I now have proof. :O)
Ray |
Francophone? Je ne parle pas français.
 |
|
|
|
02/13/2013 05:27:36 AM · #24 |
... and here I told my friends in Québec that there was a thriving Francophone community in Australia and they did not believe me... I now have proof. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 11:44:06 PM · #25 |
|
