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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> DQ Shot original and submitted for discussion.
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 114, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/02/2005 08:22:19 PM · #76
The border that you added is distinct from the background color of the image, thus is actually a border. If you add a large border that is the same color as a main component (i.e. white background), in my opinion, this is the same as cloning a major element of the photograph.
04/02/2005 08:26:55 PM · #77
Originally posted by deapee:

ok...so why can i submit this... makes no sense, and that is apparently what he did, right?


No. Your shot has a white border. You have not changed the cropped original by adding it. TooCool's does not appear to have a border. He added pixels to extend the background of the image, not merely frame what was already there. You can't make something like this and claim that it's just a border:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/162540.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/162540.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Your white bordered image wouldn't be DQ'd but it would be hammered by the voters for making the image too small.

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 20:34:08.
04/02/2005 08:44:07 PM · #78
He added white pixels, which just so happened to be the same color as the surrounding snow (which was probably adjusted in levels).

ahh well...no biggie...I'm done with this one, it makes no sense and I see it from both sides of the field.

EDIT: so basically the rules should read something along the lines of...

NOTE: A solid white border may be added to your photograph as long as all of the surrounding pixels of the image are not white.

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 20:48:50.
04/02/2005 09:55:24 PM · #79
Originally posted by kirbic:

I must disagree with Heather on one point... the method is irrelevant. either the removed item is a major element or it is not. In the case of the swan shot, it was determined not to be a major element, by a majority vote.
That said, if something can be completely removed using curves/levels, it is very likely not a major element.


If you use levels or curves to remove elements, as long as it's done to the entire image...it's legal. Doesn't matter if it's a major element or not. As Tim says "You are free to adjust levels and curves to your heart's content even in an attempt to completely overexpose or underexpose details out of existence."
However, it does specifically state in the rules that you can not achieve that effect by dodging/burning or cloning. So the method does matter. For example, you have a portrait and 1/2 the face is blown out. You adjust brightness/contrast and that half of the face dissapears. Legal. But if you take that same photo and clone out that 1/2 of the face, it then becomes not legal. If 1/2 a face isn't a major element then I don't know what is...but one way, it is legal...the other it is not.
04/02/2005 10:02:21 PM · #80
Originally posted by hbunch7187:

Originally posted by kirbic:

I must disagree with Heather on one point... the method is irrelevant. either the removed item is a major element or it is not. In the case of the swan shot, it was determined not to be a major element, by a majority vote.
That said, if something can be completely removed using curves/levels, it is very likely not a major element.


If you use levels or curves to remove elements, as long as it's done to the entire image...it's legal. Doesn't matter if it's a major element or not. As Tim says "You are free to adjust levels and curves to your heart's content even in an attempt to completely overexpose or underexpose details out of existence."

So, in an Advanced rules challenge, the approved technique would be to create a mask to "protect" the subject, and apply Curves/Levels as Tim describes to obliterate the BG?
04/02/2005 10:25:42 PM · #81
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by hbunch7187:

Originally posted by kirbic:

I must disagree with Heather on one point... the method is irrelevant. either the removed item is a major element or it is not. In the case of the swan shot, it was determined not to be a major element, by a majority vote.
That said, if something can be completely removed using curves/levels, it is very likely not a major element.


If you use levels or curves to remove elements, as long as it's done to the entire image...it's legal. Doesn't matter if it's a major element or not. As Tim says "You are free to adjust levels and curves to your heart's content even in an attempt to completely overexpose or underexpose details out of existence."

So, in an Advanced rules challenge, the approved technique would be to create a mask to "protect" the subject, and apply Curves/Levels as Tim describes to obliterate the BG?


I guess maybe I should clarify that when I said "If you use levels or curves to remove elements, as long as it's done to the entire image...it's legal." I meant that as long as it's done to the entire image...it's legal. Which would probably rule out 'masking' or 'protecting' certain parts of an image. What I am describing is and has been legal in basic editing. Unless I'm missing something here...It's been done and we've validated it a million times.
04/02/2005 11:10:18 PM · #82
I understand that. But in an Advanced Editing challenge we are allowed to mask off part of the image to apply Curve/Levels effects selectively. My problem is there seems to be an inconsistency in how "major element" and "entire background" get interpreted or applied.

It makes no sense to me to say it's OK to obliterate the entire background by one method but not another ...
04/02/2005 11:12:47 PM · #83
Originally posted by GeneralE:



It makes no sense to me to say it's OK to obliterate the entire background by one method but not another ...


I agree.
04/02/2005 11:24:52 PM · #84
It's not a matter of masking, cloning, borders, curves, levels, erasing, dodge, burn, paint, select, etc, etc, etc.....it's a matter of using any method to remove a major element from within the final composition of the photo (as opposed to simply cropping it out).

I think a tutorial consisting of 8 or 10 examples of the difference between major and minor elements may be a good idea.
04/02/2005 11:26:59 PM · #85
Again, to clarify to everyone...I was refering to basic editing. Where cloning is NOT allowed, but levels/curves (to the entire image) is.
I would have to say that 'protecting' an area of a photo and 'deleting' everything else by levels/curves would not be legal, as I believe you are saying. I agree with you there. But MY point was that no matter how you look at it, if it's done to the entire image...it's legal.
I'm on your side here.
04/02/2005 11:28:09 PM · #86
Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by GeneralE:



It makes no sense to me to say it's OK to obliterate the entire background by one method but not another ...


I agree.


This is why I, then KDO, and now TooCool get so agravated.....even the site council can't agree, but we still get DQ/d.
04/02/2005 11:29:33 PM · #87
Originally posted by TommyMoe21:

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by GeneralE:



It makes no sense to me to say it's OK to obliterate the entire background by one method but not another ...


I agree.


This is why I, then KDO, and now TooCool get so agravated.....even the site council can't agree, but we still get DQ/d.


I dont see that we are disagreeing on anything.
I just think that maybe my post was unclear as to what I was referring to. I'll blame it on the fact that I'm on drugs still recovering from surgery. lol

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 23:31:30.
04/02/2005 11:45:47 PM · #88
Originally posted by TommyMoe21:

This is why I, then KDO, and now TooCool get so agravated.....even the site council can't agree, but we still get DQ/d.


You have nothing to get aggravated about. It's a human system -- anything human will have error and differences in outcome -- that's science. If you read the rules, you will know that your entry is subject to human approval and a majority vote from the site council, and if you don't accept that, don't submit. If the site council agreed on everything, I'd say we had a problem. It's only natural -- and that's why there's numerous jurors at a trial and not just one.

Any arguement in this thread should be taken into consideration in the future -- what's done is done, the vote is passed. Maybe it should be held to a 'site council only' area of the forums so things look a bit more professional, but personally, I like seeing these discussions.
04/02/2005 11:54:05 PM · #89
To go back to this one, and bearing in mind the posts following that have addressed it:

Originally posted by timj351:

You are free to adjust levels and curves to your heart's content even in an attempt to completely overexpose or underexpose details out of existence. Many photographers do this either with their initial capture or in their photo editor. The thing is that it only works well with some images. TC's photo needed additional spot editing to completely remove the leaves and ground from the background. Those areas had significant detail and values that make them impossible to remove through global editing methods while keeping the desired parts of the image unaffected. T


It seems to me there's a real contradiction happening here. Here's KDO's image in the "Pink" Challenge, an advanced editing challenge:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/22384/thumb/145539.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/22384/thumb/145539.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This image was DQ'd because KDO rather dramatically changed the nature of her entire image from a rather heavy, dense shot with a very dark background into one of distinctly airy, ethereal substance by effectively removing an entire background, which was deemed to be "a major element".

Now, she may have done it by "dodging", I don't recall, but it could have been done easily with curves. I fail to see much distinction between dodging and curves, frankly, since for virtually every desired effect in PS there are multiple techniques of achieving the same effect, and for me the use of the dodge tool is pretty much exactly the same as the use of the levels or curves tools on a localized area; it's just something that takes less practice to work with. But I digress.

As the ensuing discussion after Tim's post shows, there's some debate between even SC members on how far one can go with this, but the key thing here is that KDO "removed" a background by lightening it, "blowing it out", and the background was deemed to be a major element. This is sort of in direct contradiction to what Tim's post is suggesting is entirely legal.

Understand, I don't think Tim's "wrong" or that anyone else who has commented is "wrong"; but I DO think that this is a huge gray area and that enorcement against this particular sort of (over?)manipulation is haphazard at best. So KDO's main point in her very long thread, that the rules were inconsistently applied, would seem to be more valid than perhaps we allowed credit for at the time...

It seems to me, in any case, that the REAL issue we're dealing with, with THIS image, is the "legality" of using a same-color border in such a way as to ADD pixels, effectively, to an image; and, in particular, whether it is allowable to use an ASYMMETRICAL border to dramatically alter the composition of the image.

Let me put it this way: I take an image of a flower absolutely centered on a pure, white background. No problem at all. Totally straight shot. I later decide, in post-processing, that I wish the flower were dramatically less-centered in the image area, so I add a "white border" that is indistinguishable from the background, and make it 100 pixels wider left and top, but only 4 pixels wider right and bottom. Is this legal?

It gets especially confusing when you consider that I could add a border of 100 pixels ALL AROUND and then CROP the resultant composite to remove 96 pixels from the left and the bottom, giving the exact same result as the asymmetrical border...

This is really muddy water we are wading in, here. I'm not sure what's the "best" way out of this sort of ambiguity, but it would be good to see it addressed. My first inclination had been to think that SC was correct in DQing both KDO's and TooCool's images, and now I'm not so sure. It may be that the DQ was in fact warranted in each case, but they both hinge on this very imprecise idea of what's a "major element" and how it may be handled legally. Plus, of course, the actually more troubling question of when a border stops being a "border" and becomes an addition to the composition. And if you go the route of saying a border can't be used to "add" an element to the composition, then the famous triptych picture by BradP could be a poster child for a border that ain't a "border" anymore, because it's actually INSIDE the composition...

Oy, Oyyyyyyyyyyy. Sorry for rambling...

Robt.

Edit to add: What DeaPee said; the SC has spoken, and that's the way it works. This discussion, at least on my part, is all in aid of trying to find a way to regularize these varying interpretations so people don't, with all good intehntions, make "illegal" errors.

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 23:57:12.
04/02/2005 11:58:58 PM · #90
Very well-written, Robert.
04/02/2005 11:59:22 PM · #91
Oh for the love of pete. This is the last time I'm going to say this. I think someone misunderstood me. We are not arguing, and we are not discussing. There is nothing to argue or discuss. The fact that cloning is not allowed in basic and levels/curves is, is no secret. That is ALL I was stating. I was not siding for or against anyone, not trying to make rule changes, not anything. I was stating a FACT. That's it. There is nothing to 'discuss in private', there is NO disagreement.
I don't understand why people keep responding to my comment like I have said something bad. Am I not correct when I say that cloning is illegal in basic and levels/curves (done to the entire image)is legal??? I think that when kirbic 'disagreed' with me...he thought I was referring to advanced editing, of which I was NOT.
04/03/2005 12:05:23 AM · #92
HB,

I wasn't even THINKING specifically about your comments regardong cloning, I didn't even mention cloning in my long-winded digression here. I'm sorry if you feel that way. I just thiunk, very strongly, that there's a huge area of confusion regarding wheteher it's ok to obliterate areas of a photo by darkening or lightening them until there's either black or white left. And there's also legitimate confusion on the issue of what, exactly, is allowed by way of borders.

I don't mean to be attacking SC at ALL, I totally admire what y'all do and it's a hard, hard job. But a LOT of us are interesting in discussing these gray areas, and only good can come out of these discussions, IMO, if they result in clarification for future generations of the rulesets.

peace, please? I love y'all.

Robt.
04/03/2005 12:16:42 AM · #93
...I think this horse is about dead...
04/03/2005 01:08:48 AM · #94
I dunno, let's kick the horse some more and see what happens. I don't think the "gray areas" discussed here are all that gray.

The image of the swans had a uniform, mostly white background of light texture with no big THINGS to affect composition, so making that "white noise" go away didn't remove any major elements or alter the composition itself. It WAS a pair of swans on white, and now it's a pair of swans on whiter. The images from TooCool and KDO had significant objects in them- a couch, another tombstone, large patches of leaves and grass- things that change the composition significantly if moved or removed. Those originals would NOT have been described as a girl or single tombstone on white, now made whiter. I don't see any gray area here, and any tools or techniques used to remove such major elements are irrelevant.

As far as the border goes... WHAT border? Pixels were added to the photo to extend the image, plain and simple, and adding anything that wasn't in the original is a no-no by either ruleset. Discussions of asymmetry or border size are moot because that is NOT a border! If you showed that image to 1000 sane people and asked if it had a border, ALL of them would say no. That is borderless image with a white background, and the background includes areas not captured in the original. Again, there is no gray area, and whatever methods were used to arrive at the result are irrelevant.

People continue to post to this thread about the use of tools or techniques and that is NOT the issue here. Major elements were removed from the originals and some areas of TooCool's image were added. Neither is allowed by either set of rules.

As for Brad's triptych border, I'm sure the SC vote was far from unanimous, and the border rules were updated after that little uproar. I don't think there was anything in the rules at the time that said the border had to be a single frame. Note that it IS at least an obvious border- distinct and plainly separate from the image itself.

Message edited by author 2005-04-03 01:14:05.
04/03/2005 03:03:28 AM · #95
I thought I would add this to the MIX:
Filters:
The use of filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) is strictly limited. Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image and/or reduce the effects of noise, scratches, etc, are permitted. These include but are not limited to the Sharpen, Unsharp Mask, and Dust & Scratches filters, and standalone image cleanup utilities such as NeatImage. However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed. Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image. Selective application of any filter is prohibited.

Spot-Editing:
Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/burning tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.

Layers:
Only Adjustment Layers (or the non-Photoshop equivalent) may be used. An Adjustment Layer is one that does not contain any pixel data, but rather is a special, non-image layer that lets you experiment with color and tonal adjustments to an image without permanently modifying the pixels. Adjustment Layers must be applied in Normal mode. All other types of layers (including those that contain pixel data or masks) and all other blending methods (modes) are prohibited. Changing the opacity of an Adjustment Layer is permitted.

Borders:
It is suggested that if you decide to use a border, you should only use one or two solid colors around the outside of your photo. However, alternative borders are allowed, as long as they do not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork.
No text may be added to your submission. This includes copyright statements.

04/03/2005 04:19:28 AM · #96
(1)----------------------------------------------------------<

Originally posted by sofapez:

you should only use one or two solid colors around the outside of your photo


the border was not "around the outside" of the image, it became part of the image. it was not a border, but rather pixels added to the outside of the image to blend in with the image and make the original shot seem as if it were taken from a different distance

also, it was used to to remove the (very large) second tombstone and make it seem like empty space/snow

(2)----------------------------------------------------------<

the cloning of the leaves on the ground was not taking out defects but helping achieve a goal - "on white" - by taking out things that were way too big to be considered clone-able/dodge-able - they were too big to be called small, unimportant distractions. even if levels were used "selectively," it'd still be to take out large elements

>>----------------------------------------------------------<
of course, the second one is a matter of opinion. i think most of us would agree, though, that the leaves/tombstone are too big to be taken out as "distractions" should

personally, i wouldve found a better place/angle to take a pic and/or arranged the snow/taken out the leaves physically. then again, not all of us have the time and sometimes we make mistakes that cost us things like potentially-ribbon-worthy pics

ps: i really liked the image
pps: this took me over 10 mins to write
04/03/2005 04:23:59 AM · #97
Originally posted by scalvert:

The image of the swans had a uniform, mostly white background of light texture with no big THINGS to affect composition, so making that "white noise" go away didn't remove any major elements or alter the composition itself. It WAS a pair of swans on white, and now it's a pair of swans on whiter.


This is not actually completely true. If you read his description, the shot as displayed is less than 1/4th of the original shot and his original as posted in his portfolio is the same crop. The original that I saw once in a forum thread had other swans in it. These other swans are also elements...
04/03/2005 04:24:46 AM · #98
Originally posted by sofapez:

I thought I would add this to the MIX:
Filters:
The use of filters (or non-Photoshop equivalent) is strictly limited. Any filter or stand-alone utility designed and used to preserve the integrity of the image and/or reduce the effects of noise, scratches, etc, are permitted. These include but are not limited to the Sharpen, Unsharp Mask, and Dust & Scratches filters, and standalone image cleanup utilities such as NeatImage. However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed. Any filter permitted by this rule must be applied uniformly to the entire image. Selective application of any filter is prohibited.

Spot-Editing:
Absolutely no spot-editing is allowed. This includes, but is not limited to drawing tools, dodging/burning tools, and cloning tools. Additionally, the use of any type of selection tool is prohibited except to select a non-feathered, non-anti-aliased rectangular area for cropping.

Layers:
Only Adjustment Layers (or the non-Photoshop equivalent) may be used. An Adjustment Layer is one that does not contain any pixel data, but rather is a special, non-image layer that lets you experiment with color and tonal adjustments to an image without permanently modifying the pixels. Adjustment Layers must be applied in Normal mode. All other types of layers (including those that contain pixel data or masks) and all other blending methods (modes) are prohibited. Changing the opacity of an Adjustment Layer is permitted.

Borders:
It is suggested that if you decide to use a border, you should only use one or two solid colors around the outside of your photo. However, alternative borders are allowed, as long as they do not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork.
No text may be added to your submission. This includes copyright statements.


Basic editing rules... My shot was in advanced.
04/03/2005 04:31:05 AM · #99
Originally posted by TooCool:

These other swans are also elements...


yeah, but he cropped

he didnt:

1. clone the crap out of them
2. cover with white - which is pretty much what you did:

you cropped then added pixels the same color of the background IN ORDER TO extend the background in the direction from which you cropped a large element

theres two rules you broke there (one written, one unwritten) - #1 bad border, #2 IN ORDER TO take something out

reasons count, use common sense

as in, dont take the rules too literally...remember, theres other reasons to DQ, and SC is human too (though they can work their asses off like machines) - if they think you did something IN ORDER TO achieve an over-processed result, they can DQ

also remember that most of the people that replied to posts in this thread disagreed with you so try seeing it from our point of view

if you still think you shouldnt have been DQ'ed, send me a private message and we'll discuss it

Message edited by author 2005-04-03 04:32:28.
04/03/2005 04:37:43 AM · #100
First off: I did not intend in any way to push the bounderies with this shot. Everything I did, I believed to be legal. I don't even truly like the effect. It was an experiment to see how the voters would accept it. When it was DQ'ed I was recieving around a 5.5 which was slightly lower than I expected it to end up at. When the validation request was recieved, I truly believed it would not be DQ'ed.

Second: If the SC would have given me some more shot specific reasons for the DQ, we probably would not be having this discussion. This is the reason for the second part of my suggestion in this thread which recieved no debate. The generic reason that I got for my DQ did not clarify anything in my mind.

Third: I, as I have always stated, have the highest regard for the SC. Please do not take any of my statements in this matter personally as they were not intended to be.

I realize now that my downfall may have been to add the border and recrop. Outside of that, I still don't think that I did anything agains the spirit of the rules. After I cropped, then blew out the highlites using levels there were very few elements left to remove. These would, by most I'm sure, be considered minor elements. When I have more time, if anyone is still interested, I will recreate the stage in PS where I cloned out those items so you can see for yourself. Unfortunately, I'm the pizza guy and my weekend doesn't fall on the weekend. I've worked 15 hours today. Go MSU... Oh, never mind...
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/18/2020 01:01:44 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 © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/18/2020 01:01:44 PM EST.