| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2006 03:30:40 AM · #76 |
excellent. i have no more questions your honor. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:39:21 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David.C:
color is perceived as hue, saturation and luminosity (tone). I think it would be less likely to confuse if stated explicitly for each of the three perceptions of color. |
Any of those perceptions would fit, so regardless of your personal definition it still works. Thus, there is no confusion and we can just keep it simple. |
As you wish, it was as I said just a minor inconsistency. This rule is one whose intention will become clear easily enough regardless of the wording. BTW: it's not just a personal definition [Color].
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David.C:
Using scenic backdrops has been a staple of studio portrait photography for a very long time. The goal of which is to create an image that gives the illusion the photographer captured the image of the person in the environment the backdrop represents. This would on face value seem to violate this rule by presenting a final image with the intention of fooling the viewer into thinking they photographer took the image of the scene portrayed in the backdrop. |
A backdrop with other objects isn't ENTIRELY artwork, is it? If the additional parts are insignificant, then it will still appear to be entirely artwork, but otherwise there's no problem. The words 'entirely' and 'appear' are the keys here. If the voters are primarily reacting to the existing artwork as if it was something you set up and shot, then you're asking for trouble (if in doubt, we can look at the comments when deciding). If they're reacting to the overall concept (artwork + added elements) then you're fine. |
Ok. I didn't think something as ingrained as backdrops would be eliminated, but one can never be sure around here sometimes.
I do see how you intended the rule to be read now as well, but in the interest of clarity perhaps a bit of reformatting would help. The rule as written is:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
The use of an 'or' between each element of the list caused me to read it as:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not...
... appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules
or
fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
The use of a comma, I believe, is the accepted way to seperate all but the last element when listing options such as this.
However, in keeping with the overall layout of the rules, might I suggest replacing the rather long and unwieldy sentence with a bulletted sub-list. Such as:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to [do any of the following]:
- circumvent date
- editing rules
- fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David.C:
Could you discuss the reasoning behind not including 'change, move or remove'? |
This is Basic. Pretty hard to change, move or remove objects when you can't make selections. ;-) |
Not really, Selective Color and a bit of patience does wonders. ;-)
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David.C:
What is a 'feature' or 'significant part' of the original capture? |
The editing rules are for touchup and enhancement only. Removing prominent objects or adding things like motion or lens flare where there wasn't any before will get you into trouble. The rule is a matter of common sense. If we compare the original to your entry and say, "Hey, where'd the big honkin' [removed object] go?!?" or "Hey, that Ferrari wasn't motion-panned at all!" then it probably wasn't a minor distraction.
Originally posted by David.C:
in a multi-cultural, multi-background and multi-interest community such as DPC, exactly what is a 'typical' viewer? |
Again, common sense is our guide. There is no way to objectively define the important parts of every photo. An elephant in an empty field is obvious, but a tiny fly on the nose of an animal looking cross-eyed at it is prominent, too. If you can think of better working definition, we'd love to hear it. |
I understand where you are trying to go with this rule. However, my main objection isn't to the direction, but the choice of paths. The way the rule is written now (and in the past) gives the photographer the ability to determine what a 'feature' is. This is all well and good, but each and every one of us will come up with a different subjective idea of what a 'feature' is. The problem comes when an images is submitted for validation and the photographer's perception of what a 'feature' is becomes completely unimportant.
D&L have given to the SC the exclusive ability to determine what subjectively fits within the spirit of the rules, it's what you (collective) do. What I don't understand is why we have all this mucking about with imaginary beings that have somehow become all knowing in matters subjective.
A wording that addresses this subjective issue realisticly would be along the lines of:
Any entry submitted for validation will be reviewed by a panel of judges composed of SC members who will provide an objective and subjective evaluation of its preparation. Any image determined, by majority vote of the panel, to be altered significantly from the original (except as specifically permitted here) will be disqualified.
The voters provide an objective (and somewhat subjective) evaluation of the finished product, and the finished product only. The objective and subjective evaluation of the preparation of the image is solely the responsibility of the SC. This is how it has been for as long as I've been around here and is no departure from standard practice. However, by not presenting the illusion the photographer has a say in the subjective interpretation of the rules, the feeling of betrayal and resentment will likely be greatly reduced. But seriously, let's stop relying on imaginary beings to make our decisions for us, shall we. ;)
On the subject of communicating to the participants how the SC are likely to vote on subjective matters, I think a presentation of various samples would suffice nicely. This would be much like the now (mostly) defunct literal artwork article we have now.
---
I left this one tell last because I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate with the intention of better understanding if a few additional staples of photography are allowed now or not.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David.C:
Is the 'outside edge of your entry' to be taken literally? For instance, are lines that follow at a set distance from the outside physical edge be permitted? |
Yes, that's fine. An inline still runs around the outide edge. The rule is meant to prohibit dividing your entry into triptychs, quadrants, etc. If you want a border, just use a simple border. |
That's what I figured, but wanted to make sure I understood the intent of the wording.
However, a few more clarifications if you don't mind.
- Are translucent borders allowed? Provided they are distintly bordering the image.
- If so, must the translucence be the same for the entire border? Thinking specifically of the common portrait practice of dodging or burning the edges to produce a white or black vignetting. But this also applies equally well when the subject overlaps the border in places (such as 3rd place in the original Nude challenge).
- Must the border be present on all four edges of the image? Thinking specifically, but not exclusively, of the very common landscape practice of burning the sky and forground to contain the image within the top and bottom of the frame while allowing it to continue out the sides.
Thanks for the answers.
(and sorry for the length of the post, but I thought it preferable to many smaller posts)
David
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:54:16 AM · #78 |
RE: 2nd DQ in last 25 submissions: 1 week suspension of submission privileges
If you camera date is wrong by accident, you could enter two submissions before you realise your innocent mistake. EG Results for challenge A is announced while challenge B is being voted. You get DQ for A becuase of wrong date and you cant unsubmit B because its in the process of being voted. Result is you get 1 week suspension when B gets DQ. Is this fair? |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 04:29:58 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by carlo:
RE: 2nd DQ in last 25 submissions: 1 week suspension of submission privileges
If you camera date is wrong by accident, you could enter two submissions before you realise your innocent mistake. EG Results for challenge A is announced while challenge B is being voted. You get DQ for A becuase of wrong date and you cant unsubmit B because its in the process of being voted. Result is you get 1 week suspension when B gets DQ. Is this fair? |
I can't speak for the SC, but they are not required to give out the specified punishments -- they are guidelines of what could happen. The SC take specific circumstance under consideration when making the decision on what punishment to hand out.
I believe, but am not certain, that in the past they have considered multiple, back-to-back violations to to be one offense that generated multiple DQs and determine punishment according to that single offense of the rules.
Like I said, I may be remembering it wrong and have no idea what key-words to put into a search to find what I am remembering. :D
But to answer your question directly, yes it is fair. On the submission page of each challenge is a checkbox that states you agree the image was taken within the challenge dates and that you will provide proof if requested. If the photos were submitted without checking to see if you had that proof ... well, let's just say it is a totally avoidable circumstance that occurs far too often and leave it at that.
David
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 05:25:10 AM · #80 |
As clear as an Unmudded lake sir!
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:05:05 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by carlo:
If you camera date is wrong by accident, you could enter two submissions before you realise your innocent mistake. EG Results for challenge A is announced while challenge B is being voted. You get DQ for A becuase of wrong date and you cant unsubmit B because its in the process of being voted. Result is you get 1 week suspension when B gets DQ. Is this fair? |
we have some flexibility in the suspensions that are handed out. if a situation like this occurs, let us know and we'll probably treat the whole mess as one "penalty."
that beind said, this part of the ruleset didn't change. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:19:51 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by David.C:
I understand where you are trying to go with this rule. However, my main objection isn't to the direction, but the choice of paths. The way the rule is written now (and in the past) gives the photographer the ability to determine what a 'feature' is. This is all well and good, but each and every one of us will come up with a different subjective idea of what a 'feature' is. The problem comes when an images is submitted for validation and the photographer's perception of what a 'feature' is becomes completely unimportant. |
first of all, this is probably single-handedly the one rule that has kept this new ruleset from going live 6 months ago. i know there's no way for you to know this, but we have been hashing it out, off-and-on, forever it seems. this wording has been mulled over quite a bit.
the key to this rule IS the "typical viewer's description!" you may post-process your entries until your heart's content (within the rules), but as soon as you create an effect or illusion that the "typical viewer" assumes to be part of the original photograph, that's when you've gone too far.
as soon as "the photo of the kid holding hands with his dad" becomes "the photos of the kid being swung around the yard by his dad," that's too much. and that change is description is now our guideline on what's too much.
Originally posted by David.C:
On the subject of communicating to the participants how the SC are likely to vote on subjective matters, I think a presentation of various samples would suffice nicely. This would be much like the now (mostly) defunct literal artwork article we have now. |
we are working on a new tutorial along the lines of the now-defunct literal artwork tutorial to answer this. we didn't want its production to delay the implementation of the new rules any longer.
Originally posted by David.C:
(and sorry for the length of the post, but I thought it preferable to many smaller posts)
|
actually, i think many smaller posts are easier for most people to read. then they can be replied to individually and each of your questions can be more easily referenced. just mho.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 08:23:06. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:23:51 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I had hoped to see a revision of the following:
You May Not: discuss any entry in the forums while voting is in progress.
I have seen several instances where individuals have gone to great length to seek input and approval from their peers relative to a particular photograph, and then enter same in a challenge.
|
I'd sure hate to miss entering a great image just because I'd placed it in my portfolio here, and maybe discussed it. I'm sensitive to thoughts like yours because I removed an image from my portfolio and then entered it into my next to last free study. I removed it because I wasn't sure about the rules at that time. I suspect that someone recognizing my work wouldn't have affected my score in a positive manner since I'm not a recognized popular photographer at DPC. :)
If the rules are restricted in the manner you seek, I'll simply stop placing any of my images in the porfolio section. This will stop any discussion of them, and any attendant learning.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:29:38 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Not exactly sure what you're asking here. Are you saying because you are "altering reality" and making a day shot appear night, would this now be illegal? |
This would also mean flash would be illegal if it were not balanced fill flash, because it could make a daytime shot look like night. So I suspect this wasn't the intent.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 08:43:38 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by carlo:
RE: 2nd DQ in last 25 submissions: 1 week suspension of submission privileges
If you camera date is wrong by accident, you could enter two submissions before you realise your innocent mistake. EG Results for challenge A is announced while challenge B is being voted. You get DQ for A becuase of wrong date and you cant unsubmit B because its in the process of being voted. Result is you get 1 week suspension when B gets DQ. Is this fair? |
What are the chances that more than one of your entries will be in the top 5 and require proof submission? For me very low. ;)
As another poster indicated you should check this before submitting. I have added this step to my workflow. It probably saved me from a DQ as one entry I worked up for a Free Study I caught was one day off from the challenge period when I looked at the EXIF. Dammit I hope there is a best of 2006 challenge in January so I can use it then! I believe it would easily top 5.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 09:11:12 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
I suspect that someone recognizing my work wouldn't have affected my score in a positive manner since I'm not a recognized popular photographer at DPC. :) |
Trust me, "popularity" is no shield. If I (or anyone else) posted a shot in a portfolio or forum thread with lots of views and then entered it, we'd get plenty of 1 votes. The anonymity police are equal opportunity destroyers. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 09:13:56 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
What are the chances that more than one of your entries will be in the top 5 and require proof submission? |
The top 5 are not the only entries checked for validation. You could be asked to submit proof for any reason, and SC members will sometimes make that inquiry because something doesn't look quite right. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 10:00:41 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by David.C:
I do see how you intended the rule to be read now as well, but in the interest of clarity perhaps a bit of reformatting would help. The rule as written is:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
The use of an 'or' between each element of the list caused me to read it as:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not...
... appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules
or
fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
The use of a comma, I believe, is the accepted way to seperate all but the last element when listing options such as this.
However, in keeping with the overall layout of the rules, might I suggest replacing the rather long and unwieldy sentence with a bulletted sub-list. Such as:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to [do any of the following]:
- circumvent date
- editing rules
- fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph. |
You were right the first time. The sentence is a bit long, but not entirely unwieldy. You're right about the comma separating three or more elements, but here there are only two: "circumvent date or editing rules" and "fool the voters." So the grammar is correct as written. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:06:55 AM · #89 |
Nice job on the presentation of the new rules. :)
Just two questions:
"may include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."
In the Camera Self-Portrait challenge, I entered a silouhette of my camera taken over a self-portrait in a way that my face appeared within the silouhette. If that entry had been entered under this new/updated rule, would it be considered illegal?
"may not submit a photograph depicting male or female genitalia"
Is this specific to those parts in the flesh, or does it include symbolic depictions such as a strategically placed flower (that looks like genetalia), or other symbolic items?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:27:00 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I had hoped to see a revision of the following:
You May Not: discuss any entry in the forums while voting is in progress.
I have seen several instances where individuals have gone to great length to seek input and approval from their peers relative to a particular photograph, and then enter same in a challenge.
|
I'd sure hate to miss entering a great image just because I'd placed it in my portfolio here, and maybe discussed it. I'm sensitive to thoughts like yours because I removed an image from my portfolio and then entered it into my next to last free study. I removed it because I wasn't sure about the rules at that time. I suspect that someone recognizing my work wouldn't have affected my score in a positive manner since I'm not a recognized popular photographer at DPC. :)
If the rules are restricted in the manner you seek, I'll simply stop placing any of my images in the porfolio section. This will stop any discussion of them, and any attendant learning. |
As currently written, the rule only applies to exposure of images tot he public while voting is underway; it says nothing about entering images that were previously posted to the forums. It's actually not uncommon for previously posted images to show up in "Best of the Year" Free Studies for example, and IMO that is how it should be; I'd hate to NOT post ANY of my best images throughout the course of the year in fear that one of them might end up being a free study entry.
But, as has been pointed out, the voters themselves have the final say on this; a widely-viewed image may get dinged by them anyway.
R. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:31:41 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I had hoped to see a revision of the following:
You May Not: discuss any entry in the forums while voting is in progress.
I have seen several instances where individuals have gone to great length to seek input and approval from their peers relative to a particular photograph, and then enter same in a challenge.
|
I'd sure hate to miss entering a great image just because I'd placed it in my portfolio here, and maybe discussed it. I'm sensitive to thoughts like yours because I removed an image from my portfolio and then entered it into my next to last free study. I removed it because I wasn't sure about the rules at that time. I suspect that someone recognizing my work wouldn't have affected my score in a positive manner since I'm not a recognized popular photographer at DPC. :)
If the rules are restricted in the manner you seek, I'll simply stop placing any of my images in the porfolio section. This will stop any discussion of them, and any attendant learning. |
As currently written, the rule only applies to exposure of images tot he public while voting is underway; it says nothing about entering images that were previously posted to the forums. It's actually not uncommon for previously posted images to show up in "Best of the Year" Free Studies for example, and IMO that is how it should be; I'd hate to NOT post ANY of my best images throughout the course of the year in fear that one of them might end up being a free study entry.
But, as has been pointed out, the voters themselves have the final say on this; a widely-viewed image may get dinged by them anyway.
R. |
Personally I don't mind if an image has been posted at some point for sharing. The posted images that I have some difficulty with are those that are posted to a forum, then substantial feedback is requested/given on how to improve or modify the image. Then the new & improved version shows up sometime later in a challenge. Doesn't seem right to me.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 11:32:11 AM · #92 |
fencekicker --
1)
I looked at the entry you are referring to, and I believe that would still be legal
2)
I don't think we would dq for symbolic representations. It would need to be the "flesh"
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:14:56 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by karmat:
fencekicker --
1)
I looked at the entry you are referring to, and I believe that would still be legal
2)
I don't think we would dq for symbolic representations. It would need to be the "flesh" |
Okay, Thank you :) |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:22:21 PM · #94 |
Quick question.
Basic rules, RAW conversion, vs Advanced rules, RAW conversion
Basic:
use RAW conversion software as long as the changes are made globally to a single file on one layer and do not create new features or effects in the process.
Advanced:
use RAW conversion software.
So the question, can you use lens vignetting compensation in basic ?
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 12:33:05 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
...So the question, can you use lens vignetting compensation in basic ? |
There has been specific discussion of this. The consesus has been that vignetting correction and CA correction are *not* legal in Basic. Other corrections in RAW conversion that affect the entire image are legal.
As a side note, correction of barrel/pincusion distortion through plug-ins like PTLens is also not allowed in Basic.
Edit: I misspoke; see my post below.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 15:30:05. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 02:41:44 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Gordon:
...So the question, can you use lens vignetting compensation in basic ? |
There has been specific discussion of this. The consesus has been that vignetting correction and CA correction are *not* legal in Basic. Other corrections in RAW conversion that affect the entire image are legal.
As a side note, correction of barrel/pincusion distortion through plug-ins like PTLens is also not allowed in Basic. |
Update. Hold tight on this. I may have misspoken. I or another SC member will provide clarification upon conclusion of an ongoing discussion. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:28:53 PM · #97 |
Update on Gordon's question:
Ignore my previous post... The following are *legal* under the New Basic Rules (for challenges starting November 07):
- Vignetting correction in RAW conversion
- CA correction in RAW conversion
Keep in mind that vignetting correction must be applied *correctively,* that is, it must be used to remove vignetting from an image, not introduce it as an effect. If used as an effect, it is clearly illegal. Same goes for CA correction... though why someone would want CA in their image I do not know ;-)
External plug-ins that correct lens distortions such as barrel or pincushion distortion are still not legal under the New Basic Rules, since they move pixels relative to one another. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:33:39 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Update on Gordon's question:
Ignore my previous post... The following are *legal* under the New Basic Rules (for challenges starting November 07):
- Vignetting correction in RAW conversion
- CA correction in RAW conversion
Keep in mind that vignetting correction must be applied *correctively,* that is, it must be used to remove vignetting from an image, not introduce it as an effect. If used as an effect, it is clearly illegal. Same goes for CA correction... though why someone would want CA in their image I do not know ;-)
External plug-ins that correct lens distortions such as barrel or pincushion distortion are still not legal under the New Basic Rules, since they move pixels relative to one another. |
So I can partially dodge the edges of my images but not partially burn them ;) Or if I want the effect of it being burned in, I need to use a cheaper lens. Interesting.
Think it might be easier just to say 'no' as an absolute for basic.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 15:34:26.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:40:12 PM · #99 |
You can't dodge or burn anything in Basic Editing. Kirbic is referring specifically to global lens correction tools (used for that purpose) that do not physically distort the image.
Message edited by author 2006-11-06 15:40:40. |
|
|
|
11/06/2006 03:43:54 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You can't dodge or burn anything in Basic Editing. Kirbic is referring specifically to global lens correction tools (used for that purpose) that do not physically distort the image. |
True, but the effect is the same. lens vignetting corrections are exactly the same as dodging or burning the edges of the image with a controllable diameter, soft edged oval mask.
When used to correct vignetting, you'll be selectively lightening (dodging) the edges of the image. I've never see a case were lens vignetting lightened the corners, so I doubt you'd ever be able to correctively burn in the corners. Hence my comment.
I typically use lens vignetting as a quick way to burn down the corners if it suits a shot. It's a simple way to enhance the emphasis on the center of the image.
|
|
