DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Lets Change The Typical Viewer’s Rule for 2008
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 67, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/18/2007 12:21:56 PM · #1
Okay so if you don't know me then you will soon. Those that do, you know that I was just disqualified for editing a picture that broke the rule of changing the typical viewers description of the photograph.

Here's my problem. Another photographer did not break the rules so apparently I crossed the line somewhere and I have set out to have the admin/SC fix it. They want me to edit the wording and submit it to them, so that's what I plan on doing.

This thread is for all those people that have been DQ'd for this same reason.

Let’s set out to change this rule and reword it to clear it up for others and make that SUPER fine line a bit thicker so people don't keep getting busted. My final goal of this thread is not only to fix this rule but to make this site better.

Here is the rule that needs to be changed.

"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."

In a recent thread I was told by SC member scalvert that the reason my image was disqualified and anothers wasn't was because the background that I removed "was too prominent" and the background of the other member was not. So somewhere it needs to be added that you can remove the background as long as the back does not have prominent materials in it. With in the rules we need to define what is prominent and what is not.

Message edited by author 2007-12-18 12:28:16.
12/18/2007 12:26:55 PM · #2
How would like it to read?
12/18/2007 12:43:00 PM · #3
Originally posted by scarbrd:

How would like it to read?


I'm not sure yet... I have revised my original post to reflect what I would like to be added.
12/18/2007 12:43:56 PM · #4
Originally posted by scarbrd:

How would like it to read?


Well, that's the QUESTION. If there were an easy answer it would already BE the rule.

There are a couple approaches that can be taken:

1. Just make it legal to obliterate BG context in advanced, and be done with the problem. This is not likely to happen.

2. Try to find a wording that clarifies where the line will be drawn. This is what SC tried to do when they eliminated the old "major elements" clause and substituted the "typical viewer" clause.

Obviously, based on reactions to the two much-debated mustang images this week, there's still a lot of ambiguity in the way the rule is worded and the way it is interpreted by SC. A whole LOT of people think BOTH images should be either legal or DQ, but relatively few people think one's legal and the other not; and of those that DO think this, some think the DQ'd image should be legal and the validated image DQ'd.

So it's a can-of-worms sort of rule.

I have a LOT of experience at writing rules, and I have yet to come up with my own, workable idea on how we can make a rule regarding BG obliteration that is not fundamentally subjective, except by saying we have to be able to "see" everything that was there in the final image, even if it's just a ghost of itself. And I think that would be silly, and it would come into major conflict with the "cloning out distractions" aspect of things.

R.
12/18/2007 12:52:40 PM · #5
You know Robert I completely forgot about that "Major elements" thing. And here I was told Prominent which means the same thing. So why don't we just add it back in and say something like;

You may NOT use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any Prominent 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."

Message edited by author 2007-12-18 12:52:46.
12/18/2007 12:55:46 PM · #6
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

You know Robert I completely forgot about that "Major elements" thing. And here I was told Prominent which means the same thing. So why don't we just add it back in and say something like;

You may NOT use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any Prominent 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."


Because then we have a debate as to what is "prominent" and what is not. Just like before, when it was "what is major and what is minor?" The "typical viewer" clause was an attempt to get beyond that. The proposed rewording has the worst elements of both rules :-)

R.
12/18/2007 12:57:26 PM · #7
Or even break the rule up and just add another line.

You may NOT use ANY editing tool to move or duplicate any element of your photograph even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

You may remove any non prominent element of your photograph ie, (elements that REALLY stand out) AS LONG AS it does not 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."

OR

You may remove any non prominent element of your photograph ie, (elements that REALLY stand out) AS LONG AS it does not change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from subjective color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

Message edited by author 2007-12-18 12:58:04.
12/18/2007 01:01:10 PM · #8
Here's an interesting anomaly for you to ponder:

As the rules stand now, there is NO restriction on color-shifting in advanced editing, except that you cannot "create" new "shapes" or "objects" by masking and color shifting.

Apparently, "black" and "white" are not colors, because all you did was change the black shape to a white shape, basically, and "disappeared" it.

Now, let's suppose that the white room had been a yellow room, and the black wall had been a red wall. Now let's suppose you made the red wall into a yellow wall (completely legal) and so disappeared it.

See the problem?

R.
12/18/2007 01:01:44 PM · #9
It's already broken up with another line: "You may... clone out incidental power lines, twigs, dust specks, stray hairs, and similar minor imperfections."
12/18/2007 01:03:25 PM · #10
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Now, let's suppose that the white room had been a yellow room, and the black wall had been a red wall. Now let's suppose you made the red wall into a yellow wall (completely legal) and so disappeared it.

See the problem?

No. "You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate..." It doesn't matter how you obliterate something, only that you did.
12/18/2007 01:05:33 PM · #11
Problem is you're looking for a bright line rule for what is inherently a subjective judgment call by SC. I don't think it can be done, unless, the rule is either: 1. Backgrounds can be removed (as Robert suggests) or 2. Nothing can be removed. Everything in between is going to be a matter of opinion, and no matter how clear it is to you someone else will interpret it differently.
12/18/2007 01:08:42 PM · #12
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Now, let's suppose that the white room had been a yellow room, and the black wall had been a red wall. Now let's suppose you made the red wall into a yellow wall (completely legal) and so disappeared it.

See the problem?

No. "You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate..." It doesn't matter how you obliterate something, only that you did.


Well, it's still there; I just changed its color. I didn't remove anything. You telling me I can make it blue, purple, green, whatever-the-heck-I-want-except-yellow? What about a B/W conversion where I can use channel mixer to fade the wall into the BG?

R.
12/18/2007 01:32:49 PM · #13
I agree with Bear's #1 (including his feeling that it's unlikely to change). Every instance of this rule being enforced that I remember seeing has ended with some nice photo getting DQ'd, and the rational for the rule is distinctly unclear to me. It's pretty standard stuff for photo editing, and has been around since about 5 minutes after the first photo was taken.

And while I have elsewhere stated that I support the SC in making calls in rules grey-areas (someone has to) when the grey area is as wide as this one clearly is I do think the rules could use a good looking-at.
12/18/2007 01:37:47 PM · #14
Guys, we don't like dq'ing any more than you like to be dq'ed. We are currently discussing the dirt_diver/danny situation.

To that end, I offer the invitation again --

Give us the rule that is concise, definitive and doesn't have loopholes, and we will consider it. It is one thing to gripe and complain about a rule, but it is quite another to suggest an alternative.
12/18/2007 01:42:11 PM · #15
If the SC is looking to this thread for a "pulse of the people" ...

i think the rules are fine ... the wording is fine ... and if once in a while a photo gets DQ'd or left in against my opinion, i can live with that ... even if it involves my own image
12/18/2007 01:42:25 PM · #16
Ok, here's one to chew on:

"You may NOT use ANY editing tool to move 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."

Simply remove the word "remove." This would allow the darkening of backgrounds with D&B, but still prohibit removing elements through cloning (which involves moving and duplicating other elements).
12/18/2007 01:43:26 PM · #17
Originally posted by karmat:

Guys, we don't like dq'ing any more than you like to be dq'ed. We are currently discussing the dirt_diver/danny situation.

To that end, I offer the invitation again --

Give us the rule that is concise, definitive and doesn't have loopholes, and we will consider it. It is one thing to gripe and complain about a rule, but it is quite another to suggest an alternative.


I donno about the rest of them, but I am trying :-) And I have never come uop with anything better, except to just let everyone obliterate BGs at will, which IMO is probably the best approach as far as clarity of rules goes.

My pointing out of the anomalies is not meant to be poking fingers at "the idiots who made the rule", far from it, because I have never come up with a better one. I am instead trying to point out to others who are proposing rewordings that it's not as simple as it seems.

Peace, all :-) I love my SC :-)

R.
12/18/2007 01:57:00 PM · #18
Hmm. At least for the Car ad challenge, perhaps the rules should have been relaxed, After all, in a real car ad, the advertising agency will do whatever photoshopping in necessary to make the image work.

I think it's a fuzzy line that is tough set in stone. It's like old question of "is it art or porn?" and the answer is "I know it when I see it".

I think the term "incidental" is important here. Perhaps not defining what you can't do, but what you can. How about using the term "Minor and incidental elements and imperfections"?
12/18/2007 02:21:56 PM · #19
A lot of cameras analyse the picture area prior to (or while) assessing white balance, focus, exposure value etc.

Now, I wouldn't know the first thing about how to do this, but I bet someone here does:

Submit the picture to be validated to scanning by scene recognising software and let the software decide what's background and what isn't. This objective assessment should then be the basis for what can be tinkered with and what can't.

It's understood that we're all so damned smart we set everything manually and essentially distrust auto - focus, wb, exposure and on and on (is the ability to pre-set the duration of shutter opening really sporting?), but this automated judgement of the 'nature' of a scene (and this is where the controversy lies, folks), can just be added to the same Luddite list instead of fueling the constant harassment of the SC.

Whom we love, as Robert so desperately pointed out :-)
12/18/2007 02:23:14 PM · #20
"You may NOT use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element greater 15% of the area 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."

Insert whatever a reasonable percentage is.

Your bill is in the mail.
12/18/2007 02:44:38 PM · #21
Even though this thread isn't for me (I've never been DQ'd at all), I'll just agree with hopper on this one - the wording is fine as is. This issue has been and will continue to be subjective and impossible to pin down to a razor thin, black-or-white line those so terribly aggrieved by this heinous, fascist whim of the SC wish it could be.

Look, there are just some things that have to be left to a gray area, and we have the Site Council to help sort those things out. Since we're lucky enough not to have a bunch of automatons or bureaucrats or computers running things around here, there are going to be times when a large (or at least vocal) chunk of the DPC populace doesn't like the decision. Fortunately, it doesn't happen very often, and when it does the SC is good about letting folks vent their frustrations and even attempt to "rectify" the situation, even for rules that ain't broke in the first place. Thus, this thread and the many more that have come before it.

I'm for stopping beating on this dead horse. Next time you aren't sure of a rule, ask first.
12/18/2007 02:53:08 PM · #22
Originally posted by elemess:

Even though this thread isn't for me (I've never been DQ'd at all), I'll just agree with hopper on this one - the wording is fine as is.

Agreed here too.
12/18/2007 02:56:34 PM · #23
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Now, let's suppose that the white room had been a yellow room, and the black wall had been a red wall. Now let's suppose you made the red wall into a yellow wall (completely legal) and so disappeared it.

See the problem?

No. "You may not... use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate..." It doesn't matter how you obliterate something, only that you did.


Well, it's still there; I just changed its color. I didn't remove anything. You telling me I can make it blue, purple, green, whatever-the-heck-I-want-except-yellow? What about a B/W conversion where I can use channel mixer to fade the wall into the BG?

Yes, you can make it any color you want, but you can't use ANY tool to make it go away. You could even make it yellow... as long as you can still see it. If you can't see something in a photo, then it's been removed.
12/18/2007 03:12:14 PM · #24
Originally posted by scalvert:

You could even make it yellow... as long as you can still see it. If you can't see something in a photo, then it's been removed.


Polar bear in a snow storm. Is the polar bear still in the photo ?

12/18/2007 03:14:11 PM · #25
So you're saying that Danny's photo isn't legal, because the background information (garages etc) have been removed ... had he made them yellow, then it would have been legal, but because they can't be seen anymore then it isn't legal ...

edit to say that I realize this is probably in the wrong thread, but I felt the need to make the point ... I agree that the wording needs to be clarified in the basic ruleset to avoid this debate in the future ...

Originally posted by scalvert:

Yes, you can make it any color you want, but you can't use ANY tool to make it go away. You could even make it yellow... as long as you can still see it. If you can't see something in a photo, then it's been removed.


Message edited by author 2007-12-18 15:16:19.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 12:40:53 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/28/2024 12:40:53 PM EDT.