| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2006 02:27:59 AM · #26 |
| M&M's, hmmm, maybe you should have used the round pixels... |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:28:59 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Should be obvious. It doesn't look like a photo and it doesn't look anything like your original... |
I'm assuming it was for the abstract challenge, and zooming into and making a photo of the actual pixels is not a reason for a DQ.
It's pretty funny though. |
And incredibly creative! That's crazy. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:32:26 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say. |
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal. |
-----------------------
I don't know, I kinda doubt I'd be able to recognize the original for most of the abstract entries... |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:33:05 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say. |
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal. |
...and it doesn't make it Illegal either. The end result is an abstract digital file. Just like all the other entries.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:34:46 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say. |
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal. |
What about macros? If I shot a photo of a fly and decided to crop it so tightly that only it's head was left would that be ok even though I cropped out it's body, legs, the flower it was siting on, the fence in the background and the grass on the ground and a lightstand sitting to the left? After all the original photo is not distinguishable anymore. Heck, the fly might have not even been the main subject when one viewed the whole image let alone it's head.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 02:36:08. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:39:25 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say. |
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal. |
What about macros? If I shot a photo of a fly and decided to crop it so tightly that only it's head was left would that be ok even though I cropped out it's body, legs, the flower it was siting on, the fence in the background and the grass on the ground and a lightstand sitting to the left? After all the original photo is not distinguishable anymore. Heck, the fly might have not even been the main subject when one viewed the whole image let alone it's head. |
That would be perfectly fine. SC has stated numerous times that cropping has no limits. The problem is when you make the pixels the size of golf balls - not exactly what I would call a photograph, even for an "abstract" challenge.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:40:56 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say. |
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal. |
What about macros? If I shot a photo of a fly and decided to crop it so tightly that only it's head was left would that be ok even though I cropped out it's body, legs, the flower it was siting on, the fence in the background and the grass on the ground and a lightstand sitting to the left? After all the original photo is not distinguishable anymore. Heck, the fly might have not even been the main subject when one viewed the whole image let alone it's head. |
That would be perfectly fine. SC has stated numerous times that cropping has no limits. The problem is when you make the pixels the size of golf balls - not exactly what I would call a photograph, even for an "abstract" challenge. |
and I supose Andy Warhohl's stuff isn't art?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:42:07 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say. |
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal. |
What about macros? If I shot a photo of a fly and decided to crop it so tightly that only it's head was left would that be ok even though I cropped out it's body, legs, the flower it was siting on, the fence in the background and the grass on the ground and a lightstand sitting to the left? After all the original photo is not distinguishable anymore. Heck, the fly might have not even been the main subject when one viewed the whole image let alone it's head. |
That would be perfectly fine. SC has stated numerous times that cropping has no limits. The problem is when you make the pixels the size of golf balls - not exactly what I would call a photograph, even for an "abstract" challenge. |
But what if I cropped the fly's head a bit more where I only show the patterns of one of it's eyes. Now it doesn't look like a fly's head any more but rather like some abstract image. Is that still ok? How far can one go before it seizes to be a photography? It's like the abortion debate, I think. lol.
ETA: Btw, I like to argue/play devil's advocate all the freak'n time so keep that in mind. :)
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 02:44:31. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:44:03 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say. |
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal. |
...and it doesn't make it Illegal either. The end result is an abstract digital file. Just like all the other entries. |
 Then I guess this is legal too, since the end result is an abstract image. I followed all editing rules.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:44:04 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say. |
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal. |
What about macros? If I shot a photo of a fly and decided to crop it so tightly that only it's head was left would that be ok even though I cropped out it's body, legs, the flower it was siting on, the fence in the background and the grass on the ground and a lightstand sitting to the left? After all the original photo is not distinguishable anymore. Heck, the fly might have not even been the main subject when one viewed the whole image let alone it's head. |
That would be perfectly fine. SC has stated numerous times that cropping has no limits. The problem is when you make the pixels the size of golf balls - not exactly what I would call a photograph, even for an "abstract" challenge. |
It's not a matter of what you call a photograph; it's about entering an image in a challenge that did not break the rules.
Your view regarding major elements is irrelevant if no manipulation or filters/tools were used he simply cropped, rotated and resized no manipulation at all.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:46:42 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Your view regarding major elements is irrelevant if no manipulation or filters/tools were used he simply cropped, rotated and resized no manipulation at all. |
The "manipulation" occured when he resized to 6x4 then upsampled to 640x480. Even if you don't call it a "filter" or "tool," the fact is it distorted the picture out of obscurity.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:46:58 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Then I guess this is legal too, since the end result is an abstract image. I followed all editing rules. |
If you didn't break any rules why wouldn't it be legal ?? |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:47:40 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Your view regarding major elements is irrelevant if no manipulation or filters/tools were used he simply cropped, rotated and resized no manipulation at all. |
The "manipulation" occured when he resized to 6x4 then upsampled to 640x480. Even if you don't call it a "filter" or "tool," the fact is it distorted the picture out of obscurity. |
According to the rules you are allowed to do that. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:50:05 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Then I guess this is legal too, since the end result is an abstract image. I followed all editing rules. |
If you didn't break any rules why wouldn't it be legal ?? |
That was meant to be satirical: using your logic, it is "legal."
That fact is I blurred the image out of obscurity using gaussian blur. While gaussian blur is indeed legal, I created/removed a major element. So in this case it is of course illegal. And that's exactly what spazmo did - created a major element.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:53:31 AM · #40 |
So... anyone heard when that new rules set is going to be finished?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:54:44 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by yanko:
But what if I cropped the fly's head a bit more where I only show the patterns of one of it's eyes. Now it doesn't look like a fly's head any more but rather like some abstract image. Is that still ok? How far can one go before it seizes to be a photography? |
That would be up to SC to decide. If they consider it removal/creation of a major element, then it's DQ'ed. If they decide it's not removal/creation of a major element, then it's legal. Obviously it takes judgement on the part of the submitter, but I would hope you don't expect to submit golf-ball-sized pixels and score well.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:55:29 AM · #42 |
First, way cool and super creative -- major kudoos for that.
But, I want to chime in to see if the so-called 'average' person I mock-up to interpret the rules for me (per current SC suggestion) is in any way similar to the average person mocked up by the SC members.
As I understand the creation of the image; it was taken, resized to 6x4 and then resized again to 640x427 image. As I understand the SC (not the rules, the SC) the creation of the major elements was done when the image was increased in size again. Resizing to 6x4 was fine, but by increasing again (especially with an interpolation choosen to make the resize obvious) the increase was not to the same image it was reduced from. This, I'm thinking, is similar in the eye's of the SC to cropping and then increasing the canvas size again to be a plain background. The elements of the image stopped being M&M's and became squares of color.
Not saying I agree with it (or that I don't), but that's my best guess -- now I wait to see how close I've come. :D
BTW: I don't know if the vote was close of not (of course) but I bet it would not have been near as close as it was if the 6x4 square was a crop of the image instead of a resize. But, I've been wrong before when guessing ... :D
But, once again, way cool idea.
David
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:55:50 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Then I guess this is legal too, since the end result is an abstract image. I followed all editing rules. |
If you didn't break any rules why wouldn't it be legal ?? |
That was meant to be satirical: using your logic, it is "legal."
That fact is I blurred the image out of obscurity using gaussian blur. While gaussian blur is indeed legal, I created/removed a major element. So in this case it is of course illegal. And that's exactly what spazmo did - created a major element. |
What was the major element created/added?
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 02:56:37. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:56:01 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Your view regarding major elements is irrelevant if no manipulation or filters/tools were used he simply cropped, rotated and resized no manipulation at all. |
The "manipulation" occured when he resized to 6x4 then upsampled to 640x480. Even if you don't call it a "filter" or "tool," the fact is it distorted the picture out of obscurity. |
According to the rules you are allowed to do that. |
"using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:57:45 AM · #45 |
Last post for this thread my head hurts, brick walls get harder as you get older.
The image in question did not create a major element all he did was zoom in on the pixels that were already there, as pointed out earlier this had been done before and was deemed to be ok. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:57:59 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Then I guess this is legal too, since the end result is an abstract image. I followed all editing rules. |
If you didn't break any rules why wouldn't it be legal ?? |
That was meant to be satirical: using your logic, it is "legal."
That fact is I blurred the image out of obscurity using gaussian blur. While gaussian blur is indeed legal, I created/removed a major element. So in this case it is of course illegal. And that's exactly what spazmo did - created a major element. |
How did he create a major element? HE only worked with what was there. I think you've been fed misinfo abou tthe whole major element thing.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:58:03 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say. |
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal. |
What about macros? If I shot a photo of a fly and decided to crop it so tightly that only it's head was left would that be ok even though I cropped out it's body, legs, the flower it was siting on, the fence in the background and the grass on the ground and a lightstand sitting to the left? After all the original photo is not distinguishable anymore. Heck, the fly might have not even been the main subject when one viewed the whole image let alone it's head. |
That would be perfectly fine. SC has stated numerous times that cropping has no limits. The problem is when you make the pixels the size of golf balls - not exactly what I would call a photograph, even for an "abstract" challenge. |
But what if I cropped the fly's head a bit more where I only show the patterns of one of it's eyes. Now it doesn't look like a fly's head any more but rather like some abstract image. Is that still ok? How far can one go before it seizes to be a photography? It's like the abortion debate, I think. lol.
ETA: Btw, I like to argue/play devil's advocate all the freak'n time so keep that in mind. :) |
As stated by SC in another thread -- only the portion of the original that matchs the crop of the submission is taken into consideration -- crop all you like. :)
David
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:58:34 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Then I guess this is legal too, since the end result is an abstract image. I followed all editing rules. |
If you didn't break any rules why wouldn't it be legal ?? |
That was meant to be satirical: using your logic, it is "legal."
That fact is I blurred the image out of obscurity using gaussian blur. While gaussian blur is indeed legal, I created/removed a major element. So in this case it is of course illegal. And that's exactly what spazmo did - created a major element. |
Like hell you did; all the elements are clearly discernible, the 3 M&M's/semicircular shapes. That version is absolutely legal, albeit doomed to a poor showing at the voters' hands...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 02:59:45 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Then I guess this is legal too, since the end result is an abstract image. I followed all editing rules. |
If you didn't break any rules why wouldn't it be legal ?? |
That was meant to be satirical: using your logic, it is "legal."
That fact is I blurred the image out of obscurity using gaussian blur. While gaussian blur is indeed legal, I created/removed a major element. So in this case it is of course illegal. And that's exactly what spazmo did - created a major element. |
What was the major element created/added? |
Squares of varying color. Now I know these "squares of color" were present in the original, but they weren't the size of golf balls - making them that big created a major element IMO - golf-ball-size-squares of color.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:00:26 AM · #50 |
I'm with you on this one, voters may not like it but I can't see why this broke any rules. Very creative.
|
|
