| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/09/2006 02:53:26 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
How is it a border any longer if it provides no separation from the image? Would it not be an asymmetric extension of the background instead?
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:54:02 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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? |
The hand cropping then new background would have the end result of replacing a major element of the original composition with something else, thus would be DQd on those grounds. It doesnt matter if it's canvas expansions, fills, clones, or whatever tool you can think up, its the end result that we base our judgements on.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:55:57 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
So, is it my understanding that extending the canvas is illegal? You are adding no object. |
This is tough stuff to deal with when you love a shot so much isn't it. If you extend the canvas but put no pixels in it, then you're not adding any object = legal. Put pixels in it and you are = illegal.
The rules are really clear on this stuff. Your suggestion that if you'd cropped the image and then cloned the light stand out you would have been legal isn't supported by the rules either I'm afraid.
It's not how you do it, it's what you're doing that is the catch. You are removing a major element - plain, simple and illegal.
Brett |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:58:52 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
If you extend the canvas but put no pixels in it, then you're not adding any object = legal. Put pixels in it and you are = illegal. |
You can't extend an image without adding pixels. Even if they're white or black, they're still added pixels and illegal except in the case of a border (that actually functions as a border). |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:59:03 PM · #30 |
To echo Manic's post (and see my last post above) almost anything is legal in a border, but a border that masquerades as a part of an image is not a border. It is therefore subject to the rules governing the image, and those rules do not permit generating new image data at will, which is what adding the asymmetric-border-as-background does.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:59:10 PM · #31 |
Not to throw a monkey in the wrench-works, but...
If you have an image, say, with a barn on the left and a cow on the right and you crop the image to remove the barn (and do no other editing - this is just hypothetical), is that 'removing a major element'? |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 02:59:54 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what is the difference. You clone out the hand and the hand is not a major element. There are only two objects here a hand and sprinkles and both are considered major object, The hand from wrist down and sprinkles. Is there not an inconsistency as applied to the light in the DrJones?
Message edited by author 2006-01-09 15:04:36. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:02:17 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by saracat:
If you have an image, say, with a barn on the left and a cow on the right and you crop the image to remove the barn (and do no other editing - this is just hypothetical), is that 'removing a major element'? |
No. The comparison is made between the entry and the same image area of the original. If there was nothing in that (cropped) area to begin with, it's OK. If there was something significant in that cropped area before and now there isn't, then it's illegal no matter how you arrive at the result. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:04:23 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
I can look at it and easily have the opinion that a major element was not removed. The definition of 'major element' here is way too hazy. Is a major element something that takes up a certain percentage of pixels in the entire image? Is a major element something that forms part of the subject of the photograph?
In my opinion, that light fixture had no relevance to the subject of the photo, so removing it would be OK. If there were two girls in the photo, I believe that removing one of them would be considered removing a major element. If the girl had a rose in her hand, I believe that removing it would be considered 'major element'.
A photo of this nature has a subject and a theme. The light fixture played no role in either. It could ONLY be considered a major element since it was a rather large object in the frame.
This is just MY opinion of what a major element is and I don't expect it to be shared.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:06:22 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by saracat:
If you have an image, say, with a barn on the left and a cow on the right and you crop the image to remove the barn (and do no other editing - this is just hypothetical), is that 'removing a major element'? |
No. The comparison is made between the entry and the same image area of the original. If there was nothing in that (cropped) area to begin with, it's OK. If there was something significant in that cropped area before and now there isn't, then it's illegal no matter how you arrive at the result. |
Ah. Thank you. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:07:57 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
So what is the difference. You clone out the hand and the hand is not a major element. |
Stop thinking about how it's done, the rules apply to what is done and don't care about the method.
You can't clone out the hand. You can crop it out, you can't remove it and still retain that area of the image.
Brett |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:10:37 PM · #37 |
Okay: then it is a fact that in the hand and sprinkles image the hand may not be cloned out nor can the image be cropped and canvas extended.
In the dr,Jones the light was removed and in the sprinkles the hand was removed and the means do not matter, both are major objects. Both of these operations are illegal. I am sorry, I am not as dense as I sound. Please state that these two examples are illegal.
Message edited by author 2006-01-09 15:17:37. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:11:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
In my opinion, that light fixture had no relevance to the subject of the photo, so removing it would be OK. |
What if the light fixture had been a boulder? How about a tree or a piano? Judging relevance or the photographer's intentions is a cure that's potentially worse than the disease. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:12:34 PM · #39 |
In my opinion the light fixture is a major element. It's a totally different picture with it in there.
Cloning out dust spots won't change a picture dramatically.
If I shoot a street scene at night and clone out all the street lamps I'm dramatically changing the picture.
If I shoot a picture of my dog and there is a speck of light I remove from his wet nose I'm not dramatically changing the picture.
Personally I wish the photo would have been entered with the light in it, I like it better that way.
So to me the question to ask is "If I remove this ____ will it dramatically change the picture?" - regardless of the actual subject of the photo. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:13:59 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Please state that these two exmaples are illegal. |
They're both illegal. Anything significant in the original when cropped to the same image area must still be discernible in the entry. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:15:31 PM · #41 |
I think scalvert explained it once by saying how would you describe the image before post-processing and after?
In the example of Dr. Jones image, the image could be described as a naked lady in a studio. Take away the light and you've removed the studio.
In the example graphicfunk keeps mentioning; the hand and the sprinkles. If the image (before post-processing, i.e. - the 'Original') could be described as a hand dropping sprinkles and you clone out the hand...it's not legal. If the photographer removes the hand before PP by cropping, then the 'Original' has changed, but it doesn't matter because now the 'Original' can be described as an image of glittering sprinkles.
Message edited by author 2006-01-09 15:17:11.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:17:02 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
And I agree with Bearmusic. Expanding the canvas up? Making a new area black? I WISH! LOL...I have a photo that in camera is missing JUST a hair of the subject. I would have loved to have extended out the right side a small bit just so I could add in the missing element. BUT, I knew it couldn't be done. SO, I just cropped the other side to look the same. LOL...
Rose
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:21:56 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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). |
I've done this on an image before the rules change and it was deemed legal. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:25:22 PM · #44 |
Can someone start a list items removed from specific validated photos that are NOT major elements and perhaps some of the "reasoning"? This would be a least a valuable laundry list.
For example, Coley says he removed the ropes/wires his models were hanging by in his recent shot.
This may be before the major rules changes, but another example is Danny's winning caged bird shot, where he removed the cage.
I am not arguing either way for any photo--I'd like to see a list as we talked about a while ago.
Here's one I need to know for one of my candidates for the next free study (raised by the "extending canvas" discussion).
If we adjust a shot, say .6 degrees, to level the horizon, and now, in order to include as much of the original shot as possible, we clone a little bit of blue sky to fill the gap in the upper edge, is that illegal? If not, how much blue sky does it take to become illegal? And what if there's the edge of a cloud that must be fixed/extended?
Message edited by author 2006-01-09 15:26:04.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:35:19 PM · #45 |
It is my understanding from hearing the s/c that all elements are major despite the fact that we indulge in judging their degrees.
So, as stated by Scalvert, if the light had been much higher, with say only 15 percent showing or whatever visibility he attributed as safe, it would be alright to clone it. But all objects are interpreted as major. So the rule should be: drop the degrees and consider all objects major and not to be removed. This would add some consistency. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:35:44 PM · #46 |
This shot was disqualified for removing major elements (not to rub salt in your wounds, Ron, but it's a good example). The image was cropped, then extended with a white "border." The bottom line was that some very significant objects were in this image area before and now they're gone. I don't think anyone recognized a border here, either.
I remember a photo from an older challenge of a fighter jet that was just slightly clipped out of the frame. I would've thought that little missing piece could be cloned back in, but the ruling was (if I remember correctly) that it would be illegal. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:35:57 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Can someone start a list items removed from specific validated photos that are NOT major elements and perhaps some of the "reasoning"? This would be a least a valuable laundry list.
For example, Coley says he removed the ropes/wires his models were hanging by in his recent shot.
This may be before the major rules changes, but another example is Danny's winning caged bird shot, where he removed the cage.
I am not arguing either way for any photo--I'd like to see a list as we talked about a while ago.
Here's one I need to know for one of my candidates for the next free study (raised by the "extending canvas" discussion).
If we adjust a shot, say .6 degrees, to level the horizon, and now, in order to include as much of the original shot as possible, we clone a little bit of blue sky to fill the gap in the upper edge, is that illegal? If not, how much blue sky does it take to become illegal? And what if there's the edge of a cloud that must be fixed/extended? |
I've wanted to do that a hundred times, at least, and never have. I do it in my own prints all the time if rotation crops me too close to an edge, but I wouldn't dare do it in a challenge submission.
R. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:37:28 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
This shot was disqualified for removing major elements (not to rub salt in your wounds, Ron, but it's a good example). The image was cropped, then extended with a white "border." The bottom line was that some very significant objects were in this image area before and now they're gone. I don't think anyone recognized a border here, either.
I remember a photo from an older challenge of a fighter jet that was just slightly clipped out of the frame. I would've thought that little missing piece could be cloned back in, but the ruling was (if I remember correctly) that it would be illegal. |
That's the one I was referring to earlier, thanks...
R. |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:44:30 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
This shot was disqualified for removing major elements (not to rub salt in your wounds, Ron, but it's a good example). The image was cropped, then extended with a white "border." The bottom line was that some very significant objects were in this image area before and now they're gone. I don't think anyone recognized a border here, either.
I remember a photo from an older challenge of a fighter jet that was just slightly clipped out of the frame. I would've thought that little missing piece could be cloned back in, but the ruling was (if I remember correctly) that it would be illegal. |
No need to appologize! I was actually going to respond to an earlier post by Funk using this shot as an example and voila there it was! |
|
|
|
01/09/2006 03:46:24 PM · #50 |
a third way to accomplish that nude image would have been to reposition the light so it fell outside the frame. eliminating all arguments about it - bercause it wouldn't have been in the photo to begin with.
|
|
