| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2007 05:29:00 AM · #51 |
Opppps, I guess we forgot it is "Site Council Appreciation Month".
The site council does a good job, not that anyone agrees 100% with every decision they make. They are extremely fair and conscientious with their decision and in my time here have never seen anything flippant or careless in their decision making.
It does not mean that every decision is one I would make, but it does mean that every decision I can support.
JJ is a great photographer and one of the all time favorites here and some one I try to emulate- the question is not even about his photography or his person - it is about the rules.
Happy "Site Council Appreciation Month".
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 05:42:21 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If this shot had been validated, then SandyP, KDO, Cutter, and anybody else with a similar situation would be rightfully outraged that they were DQ'd. |
I must admit - I had thought that the rule change was intended to make a change from these examples and permit object removal where that does not affect a reasonable interpretation of the subject matter.
There were a few arguments over the typical viewer rule at the time of its introduction: it was criticised for introducing an unfamiliar subjective test. I suppose that with a few decisions like this we'll get used to knowing how the rule is being applied in practice.
I still think that my suggestion at the time could help: introduce a purpose or theme to the rules. The other rules should be interpreted in order to give effect to that purpose. Given that absolute clarity/objectivity is not attainable, the purposive element at least gives guidance on how the rules should be interpreted.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 08:44:28 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Jammur:
From JJ's comment: "Next door table at a Chinese restaurant. Stolen moment... "
It seems rather straight forward where the line is..... where's the restaurant?
His subjects are completely out of context now, he has turned what was a candid into something that appears to be a studio shot. |
And after deliberation, that was the opinion that the SC had to come to as well. :( |
There is still the table with glasses and plates on it, the other parts of the restaurant are of zero importance for a photo like this. The title and ambiance of the photo also hint at that. It was about the moment, not about the restaurant. Saying it is out of context is rubbish. I do not see a change of a typical viewer's description of the photograph.
And I do not care if it is JJ's or shot by the latest brown ribbon winner.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 08:49:11 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by e301:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
 e301, it all comes down to: "If you don't like the rules, the people, or the photos... find somewhere you do." |
brilliant move. chase off one of the best photographers on this site. sigh... |
i agree that he is one of the best on the site but many comments like his and some of yours in the past seem like you guys think you are better than the rest of us. It seems (to me) like a few of you want to chase off those that don't live up to your emotional value. |
No, don't want to chase off anyone. What I don't want is for the photographers I find interesting to be chased off. Which is happening. And yes, they are finding somewhere else to go. |
so you think that they should be exempt from the rules everyone else has to follow just to keep them here? |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 08:53:19 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
[..... I do not see a change of a typical viewer's description of the photograph...... |
How can you say that there is not change without having seen the original. That's like saying gold & silver are the same thing when you've never seen the gold. WE (the voters) cannot say WHAT was removed unless we are privy to the original image.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:48:13 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I had thought that the rule change was intended to make a change from these examples and permit object removal where that does not affect a reasonable interpretation of the subject matter. |
The *real* goal in my personal opinion was simply to try another way to communicate the Major Element rule. The rule hasn't really been changed, only reworded. The big complaint used to be, "What is "major" and what is an "element'"? If we said it was the important features, then people wanted to know what a "feature" was and what qualified as "important." Same deal with "prominent," "significant," "object," whatever. You can't define the important parts of *all* photos with concrete measurements or intent. A portrait of a model looking cross-eyed at a gnat on her nose makes the gnat a prominent feature, yet an even bigger gnat in another context might be trivial and nobody would notice its removal. A small tree trunk along the ouside edge of the frame may be a distraction, while the same tree smack dab in the center of the frame is a prominent feature.
Backgrounds are considered important because they provide context for the scene. If the background is largely blank it should stay blank, and if it's full of detail, then it should stay visible. This should be common sense, but some people (and I'm not referring to jj) just can't use that as a guide. They want to look in the manual and find on page 24, section 5, paragraph 3, item 6.22b that an elm or maple tree branch (but not oak) measuring no more than .08% of the overall image area in a photo of a forest may be cloned out unless a narrow ray of light highlights that branch. Sheeesh!
Anyway... we had always defined major elements behind the scenes as those things a typical viewer might mention if describing the image, so we thought we'd try putting that internal criteria down in the rules. In addition, we tried to emphasize that the things you CAN edit out are limited to minor distractions (a stray hair or dust speck, etc.). Changes in color or tone on existing objects are generally exempt from consideration as long as those objects aren't removed in the process. I suspect that no matter how it's described, though, some people will complain. Of course, if we removed the rule and somebody cloned out the top of the Eiffel Tower, people would complain about that, too! :-/ |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:54:24 AM · #57 |
there have been lots of awesome photos DQ'd. The quality of the image has nothing to do with the compliance to the rules.
What if this great shot was done outside the date range of the challenge? Would people be as upset?
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:55:08 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
There is still the table with glasses and plates on it, the other parts of the restaurant are of zero importance for a photo like this. |
I would disagree with this statement. I imagine the background is probably quite distracting and would reduce my vote given on this image if it had been left there according to the rules. |
|
|
|
06/12/2007 09:57:15 AM · #59 |
Well said Shannon.
ETA: I haven't read through this entire thread, but I must say that when I first saw the photo in question, it seemed very "staged" in a studio environment and black backdrop. The removal of the background certainly did change how I "perceived" the image.
For the record, I agree with the DQ.
Message edited by author 2007-06-12 10:00:37.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 10:02:27 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by LanceW:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
There is still the table with glasses and plates on it, the other parts of the restaurant are of zero importance for a photo like this. |
I would disagree with this statement. I imagine the background is probably quite distracting and would reduce my vote given on this image if it had been left there according to the rules. |
Funny you should say that... I would imagine the background would've added to the image for me. It would seem less "staged". Some subtle dodge/burn could've easily kept the background intact AND added emphasis to the main subject.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2007 11:26:27 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by DowseDesigns:
Funny you should say that... I would imagine the background would've added to the image for me. It would seem less "staged". Some subtle dodge/burn could've easily kept the background intact AND added emphasis to the main subject. |
Yep! You might be correct. It sure would be nice to see the original. ;-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:20:33 PM EDT.
