| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2007 12:06:20 PM · #101 |
Would this get DQ'ed?
Original
[thumb]623596[/thumb]
Added a vignette and burned around the edges of that.
Dodged the costume.
Brought out the red in the mouth.
Quick job...
[thumb]623597[/thumb]
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:08:04 PM · #102 |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:09:29 PM · #103 |
In my opinion no. But this is coming from the man that was just DQ'd for removing elements from an image hahaha.
In the eyes of the SC the elements that you are removing are not prominent so you should be ok.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 12:22:18 PM · #104 |
Speaking of which I have updated my 2008 goals already and one of them is to promote a new suggested rule for the one that keeps snagging us and getting us DQ'd.
I am asking those to help me out with rewording the rule for advanced editing.
"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'm starting a new thread here. ---> Thread |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:22:13 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Simms:
I would say yes... |
because?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:42:35 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Check your math. I only see a few minor distractions-
 --> 
There was NOTHING prominent in the background (and this isn't helping your cause). |
Shannon, forgive me for being a PITA but it's easy to interpret this statement/these examples as saying that in advanced editing it is OK to completely obliterate context from your images, so that the subjects float on a "sea of nothing" as long as the context was reasonably neutral to begin with. And the specific example shows a context that is a freaking parking lot... Clearly and unequivocally this was a shot of two cars in a parking lot in an industrial area, but it ended up as looking like a shot of two cars in a pure white studio setting.
Dirt's shot, the other shot, did retain the context. He didn't try to fool anybody on that.
This seems wrong-way-forward, to me. But what do I know?
R. |
unusually enough, I agree with Robert. The one that removed less of the background context gets DQed and the one that totally changes the location stays. keep either, dq either, or dq the other way around might make more sense.
But it's always been a somewhat meaningless rule. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:45:33 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Check your math. I only see a few minor distractions-
-->
There was NOTHING prominent in the background (and this isn't helping your cause). |
Shannon, forgive me for being a PITA but it's easy to interpret this statement/these examples as saying that in advanced editing it is OK to completely obliterate context from your images, so that the subjects float on a "sea of nothing" as long as the context was reasonably neutral to begin with. And the specific example shows a context that is a freaking parking lot... Clearly and unequivocally this was a shot of two cars in a parking lot in an industrial area, but it ended up as looking like a shot of two cars in a pure white studio setting.
Dirt's shot, the other shot, did retain the context. He didn't try to fool anybody on that.
This seems wrong-way-forward, to me. But what do I know?
R. |
unusually enough, I agree with Robert. The one that removed less of the background context gets DQed and the one that totally changes the location stays. keep either, dq either, or dq the other way around might make more sense.
But it's always been a somewhat meaningless rule. |
k, I'm gonna be devil's advocate & disagree with both Robert & Gordon. Once you do the curves adjustment on the original above (which was obviously done to bring the creamy color to white), there is practically nothing left of the bg. The curves adjustment is not illegal and the remaining blackish specs are not even recognizable afterward... so certainly not a distracting element. In my humble opinion, of course.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:48:15 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by idnic:
k, I'm gonna be devil's advocate & disagree with both Robert & Gordon. Once you do the curves adjustment on the original above (which was obviously done to bring the creamy color to white), there is practically nothing left of the bg. The curves adjustment is not illegal and the remaining blackish specs are not even recognizable afterward... so certainly not a distracting element. In my humble opinion, of course. |
That's be true if those rules had anything to do with the method used to make the change - but they don't. It is about the results, not the mechanism used to achieve the results. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 01:52:25 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by idnic:
k, I'm gonna be devil's advocate & disagree with both Robert & Gordon. Once you do the curves adjustment on the original above (which was obviously done to bring the creamy color to white), there is practically nothing left of the bg. The curves adjustment is not illegal and the remaining blackish specs are not even recognizable afterward... so certainly not a distracting element. In my humble opinion, of course. |
I'm probably just stirring the pot here, but isn't context important?
If you look at a photo before the editing and describe it as a car in a parking lot - vs - a car in a studio/showroom, then the removed items may not be so minor? Yes, minor in that they are small and light in color, but perhaps not so light in descriptive context.
Just thinking outloud. :-)
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 02:02:40 PM · #110 |
| Yes, I have to agree with Robert, glad, Gordon and the others on this one. I am a typical viewer (I think), and my description of the shot changes drastically, IMO. The original is a shot of cars sitting in some kind of parking lot. The entry looks like a really clean studio set up. In fact, during voting, I thought, wow, how fortunate someone had a car gig scheduled for this week! |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:46:43 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by taterbug:
Yes, I have to agree with Robert, glad, Gordon and the others on this one. I am a typical viewer (I think), and my description of the shot changes drastically, IMO. The original is a shot of cars sitting in some kind of parking lot. The entry looks like a really clean studio set up. In fact, during voting, I thought, wow, how fortunate someone had a car gig scheduled for this week! |
DITTO!! |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 03:47:09 PM · #112 |
Well thanks Tater, to be honest all I did was walk into the Dealership and say HEYYYY can take pictures of this car. They were all up for it. One guy was like you want me to move anythink out of the way for you?
And BTW Tater, you are not a typical viewer. We only have 18 typical viewers and 2 Admins. They are the ones that decide if I changed the image too much. So in reality they are the only typical viewers in this case. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:05:36 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Well thanks Tater, to be honest all I did was walk into the Dealership and say HEYYYY can take pictures of this car. They were all up for it. One guy was like you want me to move anythink out of the way for you?
And BTW Tater, you are not a typical viewer. We only have 18 typical viewers and 2 Admins. They are the ones that decide if I changed the image too much. So in reality they are the only typical viewers in this case. |
In the FWIW column, count me as a "typical" viewer. I think you changed the image too much also.
edit - typo.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 16:06:15.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:07:55 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Well thanks Tater, to be honest all I did was walk into the Dealership and say HEYYYY can take pictures of this car. They were all up for it. One guy was like you want me to move anythink out of the way for you? |
Should've moved that wall. :-P (So says a typical viewer.) |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 04:28:58 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by idnic:
k, I'm gonna be devil's advocate & disagree with both Robert & Gordon. Once you do the curves adjustment on the original above (which was obviously done to bring the creamy color to white), there is practically nothing left of the bg. The curves adjustment is not illegal and the remaining blackish specs are not even recognizable afterward... so certainly not a distracting element. In my humble opinion, of course. |
EXCEPT in the other thread, SC is on record as saying that if it is determined that the elements cannot be removed, then it doesn't matter how you remove them. In this case they determined that it was OK to remove ALL of the parking lot context, apparently because it wasn't important, and it was not OK to remove PART of the dealership context, because the element removed was a significant part of the composition.
So we have the very odd anomaly that a car shot in a parking lot with a building in the BG has been legally 'shopped so it looks like it was shot in a very clean dealership, whereas the car shot IN a dealership, that still retains its context, is DQ'd because SOME of the context was removed.
I absolutely DO understand their reasoning, I am not on SC's case over this, but it points out a serious pitfall in the rule itself.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 08:42:21 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Well thanks Tater, to be honest all I did was walk into the Dealership and say HEYYYY can take pictures of this car. They were all up for it. One guy was like you want me to move anythink out of the way for you?
And BTW Tater, you are not a typical viewer. We only have 18 typical viewers and 2 Admins. They are the ones that decide if I changed the image too much. So in reality they are the only typical viewers in this case. |
In the FWIW column, count me as a "typical" viewer. I think you changed the image too much also.
edit - typo. |
That's your opinion but you don't have a say in it. You're not the one that actually decides if the image is DQ'd or not Right? |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 08:43:08 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Well thanks Tater, to be honest all I did was walk into the Dealership and say HEYYYY can take pictures of this car. They were all up for it. One guy was like you want me to move anythink out of the way for you? |
Should've moved that wall. :-P (So says a typical viewer.) |
Now that I got DQ'd I should have, But isn't that how we learn??? I know I learned something here. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:21:52 PM · #118 |
For the love of Pete, just DQ my freaking photo so it'll die. I don't know what the SC used to judge why mine was legal and the other wasn't, but the back and forth is just dragging down my whole getting 6th place after a 2 year hiatus. So, PLEASE, DQ it!!!!!!
-danny |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:31:53 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
For the love of Pete, just DQ my freaking photo so it'll die. I don't know what the SC used to judge why mine was legal and the other wasn't, but the back and forth is just dragging down my whole getting 6th place after a 2 year hiatus. So, PLEASE, DQ it!!!!!!
-danny |
Welcome back to the insanity, Danny! ;-) |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:40:08 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
For the love of Pete, just DQ my freaking photo so it'll die. I don't know what the SC used to judge why mine was legal and the other wasn't, but the back and forth is just dragging down my whole getting 6th place after a 2 year hiatus. So, PLEASE, DQ it!!!!!!
-danny |
THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANT DANNY! DON'T YOU GET IT? I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THE LINE IS.
AND DO NOT DQ HIS IMAGE |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:54:22 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
For the love of Pete, just DQ my freaking photo so it'll die. I don't know what the SC used to judge why mine was legal and the other wasn't, but the back and forth is just dragging down my whole getting 6th place after a 2 year hiatus. So, PLEASE, DQ it!!!!!!
-danny |
I don't think that's fair dude. It's not about you, dqing your photo or the fact that you've not entered a challenge for two years. Your image is simply being used to gauge why the other one was axed. I think it's a valid argument.
From this thread
This: scalvert
Canon EOS-40D 03/28/2007 02:51:20 PM
Correct. Detailed backgrounds stay detailed, featureless backgrounds stay featureless, and you can fix a minor intrusion on either.
In response to this:
Phil
Konica-Minolta Maxxum 7D 03/28/2007 02:40:21 PM
Now that makes sense. If I'm reading this correctly if Sandy had taken this in a studio with a solid white backdrop then she could've changed the background to solid black because it didn't have any textured features to begin with, correct?
As you can see the rules differ from image to image.
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 22:56:24. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:03:48 PM · #122 |
Fair or not, the last thing that should happen is a reversal of the SC decision. Admitting wrongness is OK, but if the image got validated, it should stay that way. Otherwise, we can delete image validation from SC's list of tasks and leave it to the forums to perform validation tasks.
DD, chalk this one up under "haven't learned a thing" - or - that it is risky to try something like that and that the outcome is not guaranteed if you play with 'major elements' in the future.
Good luck in the next challenge(s). |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:46:24 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
...chalk this one up under "haven't learned a thing" - or - that it is risky to try something like that and that the outcome is not guaranteed if you play with 'major elements' in the future.
|
I think this is the takehome message. SC does a good job, but, yes, they are human. Application of subjective rules is going to be uneven at times. The more you do to your picture, the more risk you take. You roll the dice, you takes your chances. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:58:37 PM · #124 |
Yup, ditto. A long and windy thread, but at the end of the day, the DQ is the judges decision, and the judges decision is final. No amount of arguing will change any of these decisions, so learn and move on.
I know it's harsh, but tread close to the line, and take the risk. Yes, it's a fuzzy line, so stay back from it. I've presubmitted a couple of entries recently and been knocked back, so I'm glad I checked. Make use of this option if you aren't sure.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2007 12:19:09 AM · #125 |
at the end of the day, a dq is not going to stop a person from liking their picture, using it as a desktop, making a print for the wall, having someone else like it enough to buy a print....etc....its a bummer but not worth all this angst
|
|
