DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> The New Rules are in Place!
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 87, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/21/2016 09:50:19 AM · #51
When is the next minimal challenge? And can we please have a minimal free study too?
04/21/2016 10:00:07 AM · #52
Originally posted by PennyStreet:

When is the next minimal challenge? And can we please have a minimal free study too?


Yes that would be good and only fair, a free study for every ruleset, it would seem odd not having one for minimal.
04/21/2016 12:45:54 PM · #53
Yes come on, let's have some fairness.

This can be the only way to go.

04/21/2016 04:18:59 PM · #54
I'm sure I must be missing something in the "Standard" rule set, but I do not understand how these allow the construction of panoramic images when the individual shots are required to be of a "single scene (defined as a scene whose overall composition/framing does not change)".

Apologies if this has already been addressed and I have overlooked it.
04/21/2016 04:33:45 PM · #55
Originally posted by Warby:

I'm sure I must be missing something in the "Standard" rule set, but I do not understand how these allow the construction of panoramic images when the individual shots are required to be of a "single scene (defined as a scene whose overall composition/framing does not change)".

Apologies if this has already been addressed and I have overlooked it.
The idea is that when merged the components form a single scene ... maybe think of it as what you would get if you were far away and could crop-in on a super high-resolution photo, and then think of the large photo as being broken into "tiles" for printing on smaller paper -- each of your source images for the panorama is like one of those tiles.

Message edited by author 2016-04-21 16:34:10.
04/21/2016 04:53:41 PM · #56
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Warby:

I'm sure I must be missing something in the "Standard" rule set, but I do not understand how these allow the construction of panoramic images when the individual shots are required to be of a "single scene (defined as a scene whose overall composition/framing does not change)".

Apologies if this has already been addressed and I have overlooked it.
The idea is that when merged the components form a single scene ... maybe think of it as what you would get if you were far away and could crop-in on a super high-resolution photo, and then think of the large photo as being broken into "tiles" for printing on smaller paper -- each of your source images for the panorama is like one of those tiles.


Ok. Perhaps I was reading the rules too literally, but there does seem to be a level of ambiguity in the new rules if we are defining the "single scene" as the finished image, rather than the starting images.

I shoot 360x180 panoramas which are usually stitched from 9 images, including zenith and nadir shots. I would certainly consider each of these to be of different composition/framing. Am I right to assume that your interpretation of the rules would allow inclusion of images of this type?

Example:
//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10000-14999/13891/1200/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1146781.jpg

Message edited by author 2016-04-21 16:55:28.
04/21/2016 05:45:59 PM · #57
Originally posted by Warby:

I shoot 360x180 panoramas which are usually stitched from 9 images, including zenith and nadir shots. I would certainly consider each of these to be of different composition/framing. Am I right to assume that your interpretation of the rules would allow inclusion of images of this type?

Example:
//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10000-14999/13891/1200/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1146781.jpg

Images like that will be just fine. We (meaning SC) don't really see any ambiguity in the "single scene" requirement; you stand there, wherever you are, and you are literally surrounded by a "scene". In the normal run of things, when you frame up a photograph you are essentially cropping from that scene a portion you wish to display. All that's changed here is that DPCers may now "construct" their rendering of the single scene from contiguous images. So "Joe", for example, might have a true horizon-to-horizon fisheye lens with which he can photograph the whole "dome" of the scene, as it were, and you, Warby, might choose tyo accomplish the same thing by stitching a multitude of carefully spaced images. Look at it this way: I can "compete" with a super-tele lens, although I don't own one, by cropping. Now I can compete with a fisheye, should I choose to, by expanding... As long as the images I use are contiguous and captured within a contiguous time frame, I'm good to go.

What we're specifically NOT allowing, what remains the province of Extended Editing, is the combining of different, or non-contiguous, images into a manufactured "scene". So, for example, we won't let you merge the grass from the park "behind" you with the building facade in "front" of you so that the grass replaces the street; those aren't contiguous images, it's like jamming pieces anywhere you feel like it in a jigsaw puzzle.

Hopefully, this is making sense :-)
04/21/2016 06:07:08 PM · #58
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Warby:

I shoot 360x180 panoramas which are usually stitched from 9 images, including zenith and nadir shots. I would certainly consider each of these to be of different composition/framing. Am I right to assume that your interpretation of the rules would allow inclusion of images of this type?

Example:
//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10000-14999/13891/1200/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1146781.jpg

Images like that will be just fine. We (meaning SC) don't really see any ambiguity in the "single scene" requirement; you stand there, wherever you are, and you are literally surrounded by a "scene". In the normal run of things, when you frame up a photograph you are essentially cropping from that scene a portion you wish to display. All that's changed here is that DPCers may now "construct" their rendering of the single scene from contiguous images. So "Joe", for example, might have a true horizon-to-horizon fisheye lens with which he can photograph the whole "dome" of the scene, as it were, and you, Warby, might choose tyo accomplish the same thing by stitching a multitude of carefully spaced images. Look at it this way: I can "compete" with a super-tele lens, although I don't own one, by cropping. Now I can compete with a fisheye, should I choose to, by expanding... As long as the images I use are contiguous and captured within a contiguous time frame, I'm good to go.

What we're specifically NOT allowing, what remains the province of Extended Editing, is the combining of different, or non-contiguous, images into a manufactured "scene". So, for example, we won't let you merge the grass from the park "behind" you with the building facade in "front" of you so that the grass replaces the street; those aren't contiguous images, it's like jamming pieces anywhere you feel like it in a jigsaw puzzle.

Hopefully, this is making sense :-)


Thanks General & Bear, Those responses clarify the rule perfectly.

The ambiguity that I was referring to arises from my understanding of the terms "composition" and "framing". I had interpreted those as meaning what I see through the viewfinder, although I acknowledge that they can be applied equally to a constructed image.
04/21/2016 08:31:50 PM · #59
Originally posted by Bear_Music:



What we're specifically NOT allowing, what remains the province of Extended Editing, is the combining of different, or non-contiguous, images into a manufactured "scene". So, for example, we won't let you merge the grass from the park "behind" you with the building facade in "front" of you so that the grass replaces the street; those aren't contiguous images, it's like jamming pieces anywhere you feel like it in a jigsaw puzzle.

Hopefully, this is making sense :-)


Thanks! This clarifies things.
04/21/2016 09:00:26 PM · #60
New Rules! Well I'll be hornswoggled!

Time to put on my best blue shirt.
04/21/2016 09:51:11 PM · #61
Originally posted by ambaker:

New Rules! Well I'll be hornswoggled!

Time to put on my best blue shirt.

You never did look your best in that dull gray shirt anyway :-) It's been almost a year since you entered a challenge... Welcome back aboard!
04/21/2016 11:49:44 PM · #62
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by ambaker:

New Rules! Well I'll be hornswoggled!

Time to put on my best blue shirt.

You never did look your best in that dull gray shirt anyway :-) It's been almost a year since you entered a challenge... Welcome back aboard!


Those 4.x scores take it out of you after awhile. But, when good things happen at DPC I try to support them. I wasn't boycotting. Just adjusting the budget to the realities of retirement. I originally planned to go a few more years, but decided that free time trumped (no not in that way) paid time.
04/22/2016 12:01:49 AM · #63
Originally posted by ambaker:

New Rules! Well I'll be hornswoggled!

Time to put on my best blue shirt.


Hi "Ann"!!

*waves wildly*
04/22/2016 11:44:42 AM · #64
The principles of some of my favorite street photographers, insteps, jagar, bvy, work very well as ars poetica for them, but I disagree with them as a definition of photography. Photography is the instant swallowing of a matrix of light, which is then manipulated at will. Photography is no more "real" than any other art form. Just because photography is used by journalists and lawyers doesn't mean it's "real" when it's used by artists.

The joy of street photography, as with all the arts, is the discovery of an artistic reality behind or to the side of the reality we normally discern. Their challenge is to discover this reality through angle, framing, exposure, shutter speed, etc., all of which are manipulations. To add a couple more manipulations does not preclude the act from being photography. Until you are moving a brush across a blank canvas, you are still well within the realm of photography.

As someone who has struggled with a blank canvas, I actually find it insulting when people say Photoshop is more like painting than photography. These are clearly people who've never painted.
04/22/2016 12:10:20 PM · #65
Originally posted by posthumous:

As someone who has struggled with a blank canvas, I actually find it insulting when people say Photoshop is more like painting than photography. These are clearly people who've never painted.

Amen to that. In the late 60's I attended the New York Studio School and studied with some actual master contemporary painters, and of course was painting myself. A friend came by on his way home from a trip to South Africa and loaned me his Nikon F1. That was my revelation-period, let me tell you :-) I realized how poorly paint-on-canvas suited me (or perhaps how unfit I was for it) and how much photography resonated *in* me, and that was that...

For me, they are not even closely related, being similar only in the sense that "the art of seeing is the beginning of art", something Avedon said once.
04/22/2016 01:40:53 PM · #66
Fair enough. I'm not looking to define photography or insult painters. And I don't have a problem with manipulations if you’re the likes of gyaban whose work is obviously based on it. For my own part, I consider myself a documentarian and the camera is my tool. Cloning this out because it's distracting and moving that over there to better balance the composition -- that runs totally counter to the reason I make pictures. It also plays a part in how I connect with other people's photographs. For that reason, I like the boundaries laid out by the rulesets as they were before.
04/22/2016 01:49:06 PM · #67
I think it takes a special effort to move beyond what we personally like and deem to be photography /art/documentation in order to appreciate, like, or even embrace someone else's vision of those things.

For those who prefer the telephone wires or the garbage cans in their images because they have meaning, there are others who fell they detract from the story they want to portray. There is merit in both approaches and I believe it is the author of the work who is in the best position to decide which approach works for them.
04/22/2016 02:26:47 PM · #68
Originally posted by bvy:

I'm not looking to define photography or insult painters.


Now that you're saying it, insulting painters sounds like fun, actually.
04/22/2016 02:59:29 PM · #69
Originally posted by bvy:

Cloning this out because it's distracting and moving that over there to better balance the composition -- that runs totally counter to the reason I make pictures. It also plays a part in how I connect with other people's photographs. For that reason, I like the boundaries laid out by the rulesets as they were before.

The bolded part is still not allowed. In the Standard Editing Rules, there's currently no restriction on what you can clone OUT but it has to be replaced with what would have been visible had the offending object not been there in the first place. So you can't, say, move a tree from "here" to "over there". Hopefully people understand that one of the primary motivations for this change is to get away, as much as humanly possible, from rules that are subjective in their application. The old "major element" aspect of the rules was hugely problematical, it caused a lot of trouble in the application of it; and you can see an evolution, over time, in what SC considered "cloneable" under the earlier iterations of the Advanced Rules. Let's see how this works. If folks start going carzy and the community agrees, we can always rein things back in.

It just seemed to us that giving a little more freedom a fair go was a good idea at this juncture.
11/08/2016 08:49:48 PM · #70
Bumping this because apparently some people are not aware that the rules were changes several months ago after much discussion -- maybe this will clarify the what/how/why of some of the changes.
11/09/2016 08:02:02 AM · #71
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Bumping this because apparently some people are not aware that the rules were changes several months ago after much discussion -- maybe this will clarify the what/how/why of some of the changes.

If you're going to bump this thread as an intentional misrepresentation of my otherwise clear post in the other thread, it would be fair to also inform readers that the rules (as stated in Bear's original post at the top of this thread) are not actually being enforced.
11/09/2016 08:18:11 AM · #72
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Bumping this because apparently some people are not aware that the rules were changes several months ago after much discussion -- maybe this will clarify the what/how/why of some of the changes.


I was perfectly aware that the rules had been changed, I can see that from the dates mentioned in the rules section of this website. What I was not aware of was the existence of forum posts where the rules have been interpreted by regulars, to become quite far removed from what is stated in the rules section.
11/09/2016 11:04:17 AM · #73
Originally posted by riot:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Bumping this because apparently some people are not aware that the rules were changes several months ago after much discussion -- maybe this will clarify the what/how/why of some of the changes.

If you're going to bump this thread as an intentional misrepresentation of my otherwise clear post in the other thread, it would be fair to also inform readers that the rules (as stated in Bear's original post at the top of this thread) are not actually being enforced.


There are a couple of inaccuracies about your interpretation. The portions of the rule you bolded refer to cloning out features from an image and replacing them "what would have been there" had the element not existed in the first place. Such as removing a garbage can on a lawn, and replacing it with the lawn "beneath" it. "Added features" has also been eliminated.

Filters have always been allowed. The new rules have moved us away from the gray areas where the burden of deciding where the "too much" line is on the shoulders of SC. It is now up to voters to decide what is and isn't "too much", and have your scores reflect that position.

The new rules were also rolled out with the caveat that if at any time membership felt the rules had become too lax, or other issues surfaced, that we would all discuss it and SC would make any amendments in the event the majority felt were needed.
11/09/2016 11:47:38 AM · #74
Okay, now I'm totally confused. I need a PDF manual to remember what is and what isn't accepted. I really and truly wish there could be clear set of rules. I hope I am not the only one who feels this way. If the SC would like I would be willing to work on something in PDF form we could go by that is clearly laid out.
11/09/2016 11:53:30 AM · #75
Originally posted by Cyrilda:

Okay, now I'm totally confused. I need a PDF manual to remember what is and what isn't accepted. I really and truly wish there could be clear set of rules. I hope I am not the only one who feels this way. If the SC would like I would be willing to work on something in PDF form we could go by that is clearly laid out.


Not sure why you're confused. The current editing rule sets are here. They have been greatly simplified are MUCH easier to understand than the ones immediately preceding them.

And there's no need for a PDF. You can print them out if you need to see them on paper.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 02:16:24 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 02:16:24 PM EDT.