Reconsidering a DQ - DPChallenge Forums

01/09/2006 03:46:38 PM · #51

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

...drop the degrees and consider all objects major and not to be removed.

The object is to allow removal of minor distractions- a power line, errant twig, sensor dust, a hair or stray background bird... things like that. The softbox went WAY past minor distraction, even if it wasn't relevant to the photo (nowhere in the rules is relevance a condition). If it had been just a piece of the softbox along the edge, or just a pole from the light stand, then it probably would have been OK to remove.

So how much is allowed? Well, it can't really work that way. If a lion was looking cross-eyed at a gnat on his nose, then the gnat could be a major element even though it's tiny. Likewise, a hint of cloud texture in an otherwise all-gray sky could be minor even though it occupies most of the image. It's a judgement call between significant and distraction. We're pretty lenient, but something as prominent and compositionally important as that softbox is more than a mere distraction IMO. It is essentially the entire context (a studio) of the nude.

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 15:58:35.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/09/2006 03:50:49 PM · #52

From what I recall, a 'major element' was defined as something an average person would mention in their description of the image in its pre-editted form. If that is wrong, don't read any further and correct me.

If that is right, that brings up issues of changing color, using curves and levels, or basically most any alterations to image tones, values, etc could be considered illegal. Also, if changing the color of a group of pixels is legal (say via hue/sat, color balance, whatever), what if I meticuously changed each color of each pixel to make a blank area...that would be illegal, right?

Obviously, lots of color work in the photo above, but this is still legal, despite my changing a major element - every color in the image. This is the same with a black & white.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/09/2006 03:52:40 PM · #53

Originally posted by w24x192:

An "element" is considered to be an "object"; what you are describing is the attributes of objects. Changing the color of anything is changing an attribute of it, and that's always been fair game.

R.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/09/2006 03:53:07 PM · #54

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
...drop the degrees and consider all objects major and not to be removed.

The object is to allow removal of minor distractions- a power line, errant twig, sensor dust, a hair or stray background bird... things like that. The softbox went WAY past minor distraction, even if it wasn't relevant to the photo (nowhere in the rules is relevance a condition). If it had been just a piece of the softbox along the edge, or just a pole from the light stand, then it probably would have been OK to remove.

So how much is allowed? Well, it can't really work that way. If a lion was looking cross-eyed at a gnat on his nose, then the gnat could be a major element even though it's tiny. Likewise, a hint of cloud texture in an otherwise all-gray sky could be minor even though it occupies most of the image. It's a judgement call between significant and distraction. We're pretty lenient, but something as prominent and compositionally important as that softbox is more than a mere distraction IMO. It is essentially the entire context (a studio) of the nude.

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

Very well described. Why not add this line to the rules. It will make the object and intent: posted by scalvert: The object is to allow removal of minor distractions- a power line, errant twig, sensor dust, a hair or stray background bird... things like that.

Message edited by scalvert - (Corrected my own typo).

DjFenzl

01/09/2006 03:56:22 PM · #55

It's not the method of removal, it's the result that is legal/illegal.

01/09/2006 03:57:54 PM · #56

Originally posted by w24x192:

changing color, using curves and levels, or basically most any alterations to image tones, values, etc could be considered illegal. Also, if changing the color of a group of pixels is legal (say via hue/sat, color balance, whatever), what if I meticuously changed each color of each pixel to make a blank area...that would be illegal, right?

Color shifts (even extreme ones) are OK. If they weren't, then sepia toning, selective desaturation, etc. would be taboo. Basically, color is an attribute of an element, but not an element itself. Sure, changing each pixel to the same color alters an attribute of the element, but it also REMOVES it, thus it's illegal (nice try, but we aren't buying it). ;-)

It's not HOW you remove a major element, but the fact that you did it that matters.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

01/09/2006 03:58:24 PM · #57

Originally posted by nshapiro:

.....For example, Coley says he removed the ropes/wires his models were hanging by in his recent shot.....

I saw that one (and his previous entries that are a similar concept) - I put the recent one in my favs actually, so I like the image [sorry Cole, not picking on you here, just an example] - but I have a hard time seeing these are NOT major elements whereas the light is.

I think we are already partially down the slipperly slope of removing things in the photos and it's now just degrees, which are subjective.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/09/2006 03:59:32 PM · #58

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

But in the digital world, pixels and their color are what make up said objects, so that is subjective in my eyes. If I slid the levels to all black or all white, that would be removing everything...illegal?

Message edited by author 2006-01-09 16:01:26.

fotomann_forever

01/09/2006 04:01:51 PM · #59

I often submit images with significant changes to color, even under basic rules. As you will see Wednesday my latest entry changed the color completely on some very major elements. But, like Bear said, changing the color of an element is not removing an element.

I like Dr. Jones shot, love it actually, but it still deserved the DQ under the rules it was submitted under. Had that shot been for a model's portfolio, I'd say remove the light. But, the Rules here strictly say that no major element [relevant or not] can be romved or added to a photograph.

I'm gonna have to say the DQ was just.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/09/2006 04:09:54 PM · #60

Originally posted by w24x192:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
An "element" is considered to be an "object"; what you are describing is the attributes of objects. Changing the color of anything is changing an attribute of it, and that's always been fair game.

R.

But in the digital world, pixels and their color are what make up said objects, so that is subjective in my eyes. If I slid the levels to all black or all white, that would be removing everything...illegal?

I don't agree with this: "elements" are the components, the things we took a picture OF. They exist in the real world, we didn't invent them. In the real world theyhave "attributes", and the attributes can be changed easily enough. You mention color; you say "this is a white flower"; but if I light the flower with blue light, it won't be white anymore. "White" is a subjective, and mutable, attribute of the object "flower". Color is entirely subjective, it's a matter of perceotion. But the existence of the flower is not subjective, it is what it is.

This shifting of hues, at least in a subtle way, is EVERY photographer's stock-in-trade, and it doesn't even need photoshop to make it happen; it can be done with lighting, it can be done with in-camera white balance, you name it.

R.

01/09/2006 04:10:22 PM · #61

Originally posted by w24x192:

If I slid the levels to all black or all white, that would be removing everything...illegal?

Yes, illegal... and if you blurred everything or applied a heavy texture to the point that the major element was totally gone, then that would also be illegal. We compare the destination to the starting point. If the same principle objects aren't in both, then the route is irrelevant.

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

01/09/2006 04:12:36 PM · #62

Originally posted by w24x192:

... If I slid the levels to all black or all white, that would be removing everything...illegal?

..removing everything except a darn good shot at the 'Brown' ribbon. ;^)

01/09/2006 04:14:08 PM · #63

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by w24x192:
If I slid the levels to all black or all white, that would be removing everything...illegal?

Yes, illegal... and if you blurred everything or applied a heavy texture to the point that the major element was totally gone, then that would also be illegal. We compare the destination to the starting point. If the same principle objects aren't in both, then the route is irrelevant.

Cool...

Not to get anyone's ire up, I just like playing devil's advocate.

01/09/2006 04:15:35 PM · #64

To elaborate on Bear_Music's post, if you setup a tripod and take a picture of a barn against an empty field, then those are your two major elements. They will still be the major elements at dusk, dawn, midday and late afternoon- in full sun or under heavy cloud cover, but the colors will shift dramatically.

01/09/2006 04:21:52 PM · #65

Originally posted by scalvert:

Granted. Monet did lots of studies on just that.

The fact that the site now shows DQ'd images is a blessing. DQ'd images get more views than those in the middle of the pack (so that takes out some of the sting) and we can all learn a bit more from them week by week. I'm glad that SC made that change.

01/09/2006 04:27:32 PM · #66

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

This shifting of hues, at least in a subtle way, is EVERY photographer's stock-in-trade, and it doesn't even need photoshop to make it happen; it can be done with lighting, it can be done with in-camera white balance, you name it.

R.

Right. At least the image by Dr. Jones, and all others lately DQ'd, haven't been lost, as many of them are downright fantastic. The rules here can trip us up, and can boggle our minds, but all in all, if you don't like them, don't follow them. All you will lose is a competition where the prize is some mild exposure and a bit of fame. The good photos still stand out, despite placement, ie this thread, or DQ, ie the image that started this thread.

01/09/2006 04:39:25 PM · #67

One more thing about the rules...

I think it is a sign of a truly talented artist/designer/engineer that can make a masterpiece under restraints. I think that it is basically lazy to say that when held by restraints, an artist cannot perform. If that were the case, then no architecture is art, no engineering is amazing. How beautiful is the house that you can't fit in, or the bridge that falls down?

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II