Advanced Editing rules question...

01/17/2007 12:55:23 PM · #1

Okay, I've been noticing that quite a few images are getting DQ'ed lately on the basis of the following rule:

"You may NOT use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer�s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

I have read this many, many times and I have to say I just have absolutely no clue what this means. Could anyone show me some before/after shots of pictures that were DQ'ed on this requirement and/or explain what specifically was done that caused it to violate this? I'm just so confused.

-- Johnathan

Message edited by author 2007-01-17 13:01:45.

01/17/2007 01:00:54 PM · #2

It is "You may NOT ...."

01/17/2007 01:01:59 PM · #3

Oops...I fixed that.

01/17/2007 01:05:20 PM · #4

From my perspective, the rules are for touchup and enhancement of the original capture only. If you add or remove something to that capture that's significant enough to change a reasonably basic description of the photo, then you're asking for trouble. You can change the qualities of what's already there (color, tonality, saturation, etc.) but not create something that WASN'T there (like adding a motion to a static image). We're still discussing some apects of this rule, but that's the general idea. My two pennies.

01/17/2007 01:10:36 PM · #5

scalvert:

Okay, that makes sense to me. So using dodging tools, for instance, to remove extra tree branches and create a stronger silhouette of a tree is probably NOT illegal...but removing an entire outdoor background WOULD be illegal, right?

01/17/2007 01:11:01 PM · #6

Bingo.

01/17/2007 01:11:24 PM · #7

I don't have an example from the DQs, but maybe this will help.

Using this image:

A typical viewer would describe it as a barn (or building) in front of a bunch of rocks; they may say there's a road in it and maybe they wold mention the fences; quite a few people would notice the horse in the pasture.

If I were to clone out barn, it would be an obvious DQ - the barn is very much part of the image as the typical viewer would describe it.

If I were to clone out the horse, it would be maybe still a DQ, the horse, even though very small, is a fairly integral part of the image and is part of the description that many people would make of the image, but it is debatable. Not having the horse there CHANGES what the image feels like.

On the other hand, if I were to clone out the little fenced area that's at the side of the picture, to the right of the horse, it probably would not be DQed, because hardly anyone notices that little thing when they describe the image, and it is not an integral part of the image. Taking it out does NOT CHANGE what the image feels like.

Cloning minor things is legal in advanced, but the horse, even though minor, is pretty essential to the image, so cloning it out would maybe be DQable. Even if I intended to make an image without a horse, and decided when I made the image that eventually I would clone it out, it still would not be legal to do so.

This is probably not the best example, but I hope this helps a bit.

01/17/2007 01:12:01 PM · #8

So I'm typing away, and you guys have this all figured out already :)

01/17/2007 01:18:37 PM · #9

Thanks for your detailed response, ursula. That's very helpful to me.

Let me ask about this, then:

//www.dpchallenge.com/how.php?HOW_ID=41

In this how-to, the photographer clearly shows how a raft that is prominently visible in the original image is cloned out. To me, the raft is neither more nor less incidental in the original than the little horses in the barn image you used for your example. Yet, to me at least, the loss of the raft in no significant way changes my impression of the photo--save possibly to make it feel less cluttered.

I'm not trying to argue here or anything... I'm just trying to tack down at what level of subjectivity we're talking here. I mean, no doubt whatsoever...cloning the barn out would be illegal. But cloning out the horse? I'm just not so sure...and I guess that's kinda why I started this thread...just to see what people's opinion on the threshhold is.

Ursula, would you have considered cloning out the raft to have been illegal? I wouldn't...but then again I wouldn't have tended to think the horses would be either. Just really uncertain here.

Message edited by author 2007-01-17 13:21:22.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/17/2007 01:25:08 PM · #10

A little background... as bizarre and subjective as this rule sounds, there's a reason for it. People were having a hard time understanding "major elements" in the last rule set, so we were trying to avoid that phrase (even if the rule is basically the same). There will still be questions about what constitutes a "feature," but it comes down to this: if you compare the entry to the original and wonder, "Where did THAT come from?" or "Where did that big X go?" then it's probably a DQ. If you look at the shot and see that everything was in the original too, but it's lighter or a little more contrasty or a different color, then it's probably fine. The part about "regardless of whether it was intended..." was to prevent people from cloning out some giant feature and claiming that they never intended it to be there. Again, this is just MY interpretation, and other SC members may have a different take on it.

Bear_Music

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

01/17/2007 01:25:13 PM · #11

Originally posted by kanaj:

You can do whatever you want in your personal work. This image was not a challenge entry. Had it been, it probably would have been DQ'd.

R.

01/17/2007 01:29:11 PM · #12

Personally, I'd be OK with cloning out the horse. The raft is more prominent (because it's a bold thing smack dab in the middle of the photo) and probably goes a little too far.

01/17/2007 01:30:07 PM · #13

I was using the horse as an example of something that might be debatable. It was not a very good example :)

The image you're using for your example is not a challenge entry, and outside of the challenges the challenge rules do not apply.

If the raft image were to have been entered to an advanced editing challenge and I were voting on it's validity, I would not be sure, but I would lean (rather heavily) to the not DQ (or legal) side, because, even though prominent, the raft doesn't mean that much in the image. To me the raft is an incidental, not an integral part of the image.

But I probably shouldn't even have spoken up here. It is SCs decision, and whatever I say is purely my opinion. IMO Site Council has been very good at trying to make sure that if an image can possibly be validated, it will be validated. A lot of things are subjective, it is impossible to quantify all the "how much" or "how many" or "how big" or "how important". It is sometimes very frustrating to have to debate these things.

The horse is in one of my own pictures, and I'm always rougher on my own pictures when it comes to DQing (I think).

My own guideline for my own entries, if it debatable then it is better to avoid it.

Message edited by author 2007-01-17 13:34:44.