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

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Reconsidering a DQ
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 146, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/09/2006 02:26:41 PM · #1
This image should have never been disqualified and I hope that the s/c may reconsider.

This DQ has bothered me drom the very start but I was unable to put up a solid defense, yet a solid defense does exist and it hit me just recently. It is a legal image according to the rules. The end can be had in two different ways, so the means was penalized. Sometimes the obvious escapes us.

We shoot images which may contain a vast expanse and by cropping we can select an area within the original.

What DrJones did was to clone out the light. It was said that the light constituted a major element and while this makes sense, it is only the means. There is another legal way to achieve the same end and now the question looms: What is so radical from either procedure? They both end up with an identical end result. Please think this out carefully. In other words if you can do it one way why not the other?

Anyway, your comments will be appreciated. Here is the other way to do it:

A: You simply crop the image below the light. This leaves you part of the light stand to clone out.
B: You then exrend the canvas to the size you want and fill in the rest of the non-descript background.

The end result is the same and while one can argue that cloning removed a major element then the same argument applies to cropping under the light and then extending the canvas.

My original argument was that the light is not a major object because it is the tools of the trade in the image. That is a nude challenge has the nude as the paramount object. I was simply unable to articulate the alternate way of editing. Here are the images:

I believe this will serve as an education to all members addressing advance editing. All comments from the S/C will be highly appreciated because in my mind this image and its treatment will affect how we handle the daily rasks of a.e.

225512.jpg 225513.jpg

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 14:31:38.
01/09/2006 02:31:32 PM · #2
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

A: You simply crop the image below the light. This leaves you part of the light stand to clone out.
B: You then exrend the canvas to the size you want and fill in the rest of the non-descript background.

The means by which a major element is removed isn't the issue, it's the end result (ie a major compositional feature of the original scene was removed) that was deemed to break the 'major element' rule.
01/09/2006 02:33:28 PM · #3
Extending the canvas is in itself adding an element isn't it? I've asked before about adding a border that was substantially larger on one side than the other and was told by SC members asked that it wouldn't be legal. The border in question was black and would have matched the adjacent image background, in essence allowing me to reposition the subject in the photo.

To increase the canvas in the example posted would also include some other additions to match the gradient that is there now. Yes/No?
01/09/2006 02:34:53 PM · #4
Well, you know what? That is a major element to me. It takes up a huge amount of the photo. I wanted to clone or airbrush out a stool that a subject was standing on once to make it seem they were levitating, and it was against the rules. I think it is just the rules of this site - keeping the integrity of the orginal, yadda yadda.

If it is fishing line, or a bit of a rope, etc, than that is different, but that is a HUGE light. Maybe you should have cropped it, but even if you had, removing the stand would still have been a major element I think.

Rose

01/09/2006 02:35:07 PM · #5
Irregardless, the issue at hand was "there was a big light"...now it's gone. The means do not justify the ends.

01/09/2006 02:36:21 PM · #6
Originally posted by Manic:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

A: You simply crop the image below the light. This leaves you part of the light stand to clone out.
B: You then exrend the canvas to the size you want and fill in the rest of the non-descript background.

The means by which a major element is removed isn't the issue, it's the end result (ie a major compositional feature of the original scene was removed) that was deemed to break the 'major element' rule.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Very well. But please explain what if this image was treated by cropping as explained above. Here is one example: you set the camera and you drop metallic sprinkles against a black background. Your hand is just above the the metallic sparay. You crop under the hand and then expand the canvass up and make the new area black, like the rest of the background. Is this illegal?
01/09/2006 02:38:03 PM · #7
I agree with Manic...

What is being proposed here is a major rule change. Selective use of existing rules is not the way to go.

From a photographers point of view, I prefer the way the editing rules are concerning eliminating objects or moving stuff around. Once we cross the bridge of complete freedom to cloning and moving stuff around...why take a photo? I have my graphic designers do this all the time...they are graphic designers..not photographers.

Isn't there a site called Deviant Art or something where you can get your ultra photoshopping "Jones" on..so to speak :-D
01/09/2006 02:38:19 PM · #8
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by Manic:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

A: You simply crop the image below the light. This leaves you part of the light stand to clone out.
B: You then exrend the canvas to the size you want and fill in the rest of the non-descript background.

The means by which a major element is removed isn't the issue, it's the end result (ie a major compositional feature of the original scene was removed) that was deemed to break the 'major element' rule.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Very well. But please explain what if this image was treated by cropping as explained above. Here is one example: you set the camera and you drop metallic sprinkles against a black background. Your hand is just above the the metallic sparay. You crop under the hand and then expand the canvass up and make the new area black, like the rest of the background. Is this illegal?


Yes.
01/09/2006 02:38:27 PM · #9
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

This image should have never been disqualified and I hope that the s/c may reconsider.



We considered, reconsidered, and considered again. This image was reviewed in great detail and with long discussions by the SC and in the public forums once or twice already. It was determined by the majority that the removal of the pretty huge light fixture was a major element.
01/09/2006 02:38:41 PM · #10
Originally posted by theSaj:

Irregardless


are you agreeing or disagreeing. lol

(Irregardless is not the right word - EVER. lol)

(sorry - back to your regularly scheduled post)
01/09/2006 02:39:51 PM · #11
So, is it my understanding that extending the canvas is illegal? You are adding no object. This point alone is worth a lesson for me.
01/09/2006 02:40:16 PM · #12
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Here is one example: you set the camera and you drop metallic sprinkles against a black background. Your hand is just above the the metallic sparay. You crop under the hand and then expand the canvass up and make the new area black, like the rest of the background. Is this illegal?


I don't know if that is illegal but it should be.
01/09/2006 02:42:06 PM · #13
Originally posted by HBunch:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

This image should have never been disqualified and I hope that the s/c may reconsider.



We considered, reconsidered, and considered again. This image was reviewed in great detail and with long discussions by the SC and in the public forums once or twice already. It was determined by the majority that the removal of the pretty huge light fixture was a major element.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fine: so does this means that cropping below the light and then extending the canvass and then cloning or using a gradient is illegal. Mostly is the extension of the canvas against the rule.
01/09/2006 02:43:27 PM · #14
The way it was explained to me in my infancy on this site, the "goal of the site" is to promote photographic skills, and the use of post-processing is to enhance the photograph, not manipulate it. As far as I'm concerned, any time you leave "junk" in an image knowing you will later remove it with skillful post-processing, you've moved away from that goal. Dr. Jones himself comments that he had other shots without the light in them, and that he had been advised by at least one person NOT to enter this altered shot, but he did it anyway.

I don't see how it's possible to look at the original and have the opinion that a "major element" was NOT removed. To allow that shot to stand would be to make a mockery of the major element rule and open a gigantic can of worms, IMO.

R.
01/09/2006 02:45:05 PM · #15
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Here is one example: you set the camera and you drop metallic sprinkles against a black background. Your hand is just above the the metallic sparay. You crop under the hand and then expand the canvass up and make the new area black, like the rest of the background. Is this illegal?


I think it should be legal.
01/09/2006 02:45:53 PM · #16
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The way it was explained to me in my infancy on this site, the "goal of the site" is to promote photographic skills, and the use of post-processing is to enhance the photograph, not manipulate it. As far as I'm concerned, any time you leave "junk" in an image knowing you will later remove it with skillful post-processing, you've moved away from that goal. Dr. Jones himself comments that he had other shots without the light in them, and that he had been advised by at least one person NOT to enter this altered shot, but he did it anyway.

I don't see how it's possible to look at the original and have the opinion that a "major element" was NOT removed. To allow that shot to stand would be to make a mockery of the major element rule and open a gigantic can of worms, IMO.

R.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Again: Very well. But please explain what if this image was treated by cropping as explained above. Here is one example: you set the camera and you drop metallic sprinkles against a black background. Your hand is just above the the metallic spray. You crop under the hand and then expand the canvass up and make the new area black, like the rest of the background. Is this illegal? This image has the hand missing and the other the light.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 14:46:42.
01/09/2006 02:46:25 PM · #17
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

So, is it my understanding that extending the canvas is illegal? You are adding no object. This point alone is worth a lesson for me.


There was an example of this quite a few months ago. Someone shot a gravestone against the snow with a lot of distracting elements in the frame. This person cropped toght to the gravestone then added white canvas asymmetrically to not only "float" the stone inw hat appeared to be a pure field of snow but to actually reposition it according to rule-of-thirds, if I recall correctly.

The image was DQ'd.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 14:47:02.
01/09/2006 02:46:34 PM · #18
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Very well. But please explain what if this image was treated by cropping as explained above. Here is one example: you set the camera and you drop metallic sprinkles against a black background. Your hand is just above the the metallic sparay. You crop under the hand and then expand the canvass up and make the new area black, like the rest of the background. Is this illegal?

To echo Robt, Yes.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 14:47:21.
01/09/2006 02:47:52 PM · #19
Originally posted by Manic:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Very well. But please explain what if this image was treated by cropping as explained above. Here is one example: you set the camera and you drop metallic sprinkles against a black background. Your hand is just above the the metallic sparay. You crop under the hand and then expand the canvass up and make the new area black, like the rest of the background. Is this illegal?

Yes.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Then why is this different from the Dr.Jones image? The hand and the light.
01/09/2006 02:49:02 PM · #20
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Then why is this different from the Dr.Jones image? The hand and the light.

It isn't different. They would be both DQ for the removal of major elements of the original composition (IMO).
01/09/2006 02:49:02 PM · #21
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Originally posted by Manic:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Very well. But please explain what if this image was treated by cropping as explained above. Here is one example: you set the camera and you drop metallic sprinkles against a black background. Your hand is just above the the metallic sparay. You crop under the hand and then expand the canvass up and make the new area black, like the rest of the background. Is this illegal?

Yes.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Then why is this different from the Dr.Jones image? The hand and the light.


It ISN'T different; both would be illegal.

R.
01/09/2006 02:50:23 PM · #22
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

So, is it my understanding that extending the canvas is illegal? You are adding no object. This point alone is worth a lesson for me.


When you extend the canvas, you must create image data (even if it's a nearly continuous tone) to fill the space. Creation of large areas of image data (as opposed to cloning in detail on a small defect) is something that is clearly outside the rules.
Also, the addition of the empty space changes the composition materially, thus even though the space is empty, it could be considered a major element... this is a thought exercise only, I've never seen a debate on it, basically because we have not allowed expanding of the canvas, with the notable exception of adding a border. To intercept the obvious next question, when a border is added it cannot masquerade as a part of the image.
01/09/2006 02:50:44 PM · #23
Originally posted by graphicfunk:

So, is it my understanding that extending the canvas is illegal?


Yes, it's illegal, and there have been DQs for exactly that. You can add a border, but not image area to your original. Adding solid black around a black background won't qualify as a border either (some have tried).
01/09/2006 02:51:05 PM · #24
Originally posted by Manic:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Then why is this different from the Dr.Jones image? The hand and the light.

It isn't different. They would be both DQ for the removal of major elements of the original composition (IMO).


This isn't his point; his point is, the hand can be legally cropped out, and an asymmetrical black border added to ectend the canvas substantially back up where the hand had been. His question is, is the asymmetrical boirder legal in this case, if it matches the BG precisely?

R.
01/09/2006 02:53:19 PM · #25
Thank you so this is illegal:

Again: Very well. But please explain what if this image was treated by cropping as explained above. Here is one example: you set the camera and you drop metallic sprinkles against a black background. Your hand is just above the the metallic spray. You crop under the hand and then expand the canvass up and make the new area black, like the rest of the background. Is this illegal? This image has the hand missing and the other the light.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/25/2019 05:28:59 AM

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 © 2001-2019 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: 03/25/2019 05:28:59 AM EDT.