| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2008 08:14:33 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Brad:
As someone that has been around here for a long time, this latest disqualification is so inconsistent with what we have seen allowed in the past. I rarely jump up & down on issues, but this was wrong in my opinion. I could easily show examples of setup props, strings, even background supports that were cloned out or removed that were no different than this shot.
What a shame. |
I have to agree. I don't think this should have been DQ'd either. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 08:18:40 AM · #27 |
As someone that has been around here longer than you :) I'd like to include the fact that the rules have been modified countless times in an attempt to make things as fair as possible. The SC is not out to get anyone, nor are they attempting to be inconsistent for any reason ... I don't understand how pointing and crying "no fair" at every DQ is going to help anything. Right or wrong, surely you'd agree that it was a judgement call ... why not just let them make that call?
Comparing entries from a different rules set will not point out inconsistencies.
Sorry Brad, this isn't really pointed at you ... you're entitled to your opinion - I just felt like giving mine.
Originally posted by Brad:
As someone that has been around here for a long time, this latest disqualification is so inconsistent with what we have seen allowed in the past. I rarely jump up & down on issues, but this was wrong in my opinion. I could easily show examples of setup props, strings, even background supports that were cloned out or removed that were no different than this shot.
What a shame. |
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 08:32:14 AM · #28 |
I'm really sorry to hear we are about to lose a perfectly good member of long standing over a DQ. especially in this Advanced Editing situation.
I wonder if it would be helpful to DPC to have an appeals process for what might well be considered a borderline decision. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 08:44:11 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by ShutterHack:
...snipCan you suggest a more objective wording? ~Terry
... snip Yes, why not state that you can clone out any portion of a submission which assisted in the setup, display, or prop as long as the original background is not changed in a way to misrepresent the original.
|
This seems like perfect wording to me. And I never chime in on these, but I'd have to say this one should get another look. I would have thought this to be perfectly legal in advanced. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 08:44:33 AM · #30 |
There have been reinstatements in the past. In this case that wouldn't cause too much trouble.
However, if something were DQ'd in the middle of voting, putting it back would not be fair to those that were in for the complete week. I guess all DQ's could wait until the end of the contest so if there are any decisions to reinstate, it could be done.
Setting up props and getting the image is one thing. But isn't framing the image in such a way as to not include the setup part of getting the shot? |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 08:56:34 AM · #31 |
Food for thought...
From the Advanced Editing ruleset.
You may:
- clone out incidental power lines, twigs, dust specks, stray hairs, and similar minor imperfections within any capture used.
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.
Under the "You may"...I think "incidental" is the keyword. Props used for setup are not really incidental, they're placed by the photographer and are totally controlled. Whether they are minor or not depends on how much the photographer allows to be visible in the final crop.
Under the "You may not"...what is "a typical viewer's description" of the original versus the final edit in this case? Would most viewers say "look it's a balloon floating in air", or something else, when looking at the original?
Not an easy task for SC to debate this one I imagine.
edit to fix a quotation.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 08:57:34. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 09:03:55 AM · #32 |
Gang, it's not about the supports. There is absolutely nothing in the rules against cloning out a support or other structurally critical element. The rules say you can clone out "minor imperfections," but clone out something visually prominent and you'll get DQ'd. The photo was DQ'd because a majority of the SC felt the boom and rope were more than imperfections. This is NOT inconsistent!
 -->   --> 
Now contrast those images to this one I see people calling the same situation:
 --> 
Are those really the same when the only measure of legality is minor imperfections? Come on! Oh, and thanks buckets to the people who were complaining about the utter unfairness of the DQ before Gatorguy even posted his original so you could see what was cloned out. Very nice. We hate to DQ entries, but consider how extra annoying it is to deal with reactions like that the next time you think about applying for SC. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 09:15:06 AM · #33 |
so, just to get this straight, we can clone out strings that hold up our props, but not ropes? can we get a diameter in the rules?
you call the boom and rope 'more than imperfections' in gatorguy's shot, but the string isn't in yours? why not? |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 09:20:17 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
you call the boom and rope 'more than imperfections' in gatorguy's shot, but the string isn't in yours? why not? |
Because it's not nearly as prominent. Heck, the thumbnails just look like a color adjustment. I wanted to use the invisible tippet line from my Silverware entry (no cloning), but couldn't find it an hour before the deadline. I tried running thread directly through the peeps, but the sticky marshmallow made the thread too prominent. I took it out and went with the thinnest fishing line I could find and used a polarizer to help minimize even that. If the spotlight had resulted in a glaring white stripe across the image, then even the fishing line might be too much.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 09:39:10. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 09:41:17 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
so, just to get this straight, we can clone out strings that hold up our props, but not ropes? can we get a diameter in the rules?
you call the boom and rope 'more than imperfections' in gatorguy's shot, but the string isn't in yours? why not? |
It's just like real life, some people have to follow the rules and others don't. Shannon, you can spin it any way you want, but you did the same thing, just on a smaller scale. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 09:46:30 AM · #36 |
I think,,,,,,,,,, that because the fishing line is barely visable and the boom and rope is really visable, that is the difference here.
edited cos i suck at spelling
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 09:47:16. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 09:46:33 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
It's just like real life, some people have to follow the rules and others don't. Shannon, you can spin it any way you want, but you did the same thing, just on a smaller scale. |
Everybody has to follow the same rules, and I've been DQ'd before, too. I did the same thing structurally, but the rules on cloning are about visual prominence, not structural importance.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 09:46:54. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 09:48:33 AM · #38 |
Shannon doesn't get to vote on his own DQ and if you think the SC members just cover for each other like some kind of secret society ... why would you want to be here? You've just insulted every member of the site counsel EXCEPT Shannon.
Originally posted by bmartuch:
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
so, just to get this straight, we can clone out strings that hold up our props, but not ropes? can we get a diameter in the rules?
you call the boom and rope 'more than imperfections' in gatorguy's shot, but the string isn't in yours? why not? |
It's just like real life, some people have to follow the rules and others don't. Shannon, you can spin it any way you want, but you did the same thing, just on a smaller scale. |
|
|
|
|
04/04/2008 09:57:07 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Shannon doesn't get to vote on his own DQ and if you think the SC members just cover for each other like some kind of secret society ... why would you want to be here? You've just insulted every member of the site counsel EXCEPT Shannon.
|
The SC is all ways going to be wrong, they will never be right, doesnt matter what they do or how they do it, they are screwed for life. I feel sorry for the lot of them, they are in between a rock and a hard place.
You have to remember that it is not just one person voting on a DQ, it is SEVERAL indivduals who each have a say in what is DQ'd or not. It has to be the majority of them who have to agree. Not one individual.
Everyone can agree to disagree, and attacking indivduals isnt going to help |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 10:07:25 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
[ Heck, the thumbnails just look like a color adjustment. |
Would it be safe to say this is the best way for us to determine if its ok to clone something out? (other than submitting to SC prior to entering) Because the rope in Gatorguys shot is BARELY visible, and yes, your fishing line is not at all visible in the thumbnail. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 10:07:48 AM · #41 |
The problem here is not with the wording of the rule.
It is with the purpose of the rule.
With most competently worded rules there should be little doubt about most theoretical applications of the rule, ie the black and white decisions or no brainers, but the fact that the rule exists and that people are aware of it will have a deterrent effect. The most glaring breaches of the rule will simply not occur because everyone knows that they will be in breach. Over time you may come to a situation where the only applications of the rule which arise are hard decisions which might possibly go either way. This does not necessarily mean the wording is bad. It might mean the opposite - that the wording is so clear it is eliminating 99% of potential breaches and leaving only the 1% of tough calls.
However you word a ruleset there will always be situations which seem problematic, which could go either way or which require a judgement call. I would suggest that this rule is just such a rule as outlined above - one which is almost too clear for its own good.
It helps in situations like this to take a teleological approach to the rule in question - ie since the rule exists and someone has made an effort to make it exist, it seems reasonable that there was a purpose behind the rule's coming into existence.
Not having been around when the rule was being discussed i would hypothesise that the reasoning behind the rule is probably something like the following -
1. DPC is a photography website and most members wish to keep it that way. Most members do not wish to see distorted images or digital art become the norm.
2. Rules are therefore needed which will have the effect of keeping digital art at bay. These rules should deal with three main areas of image manipulation - removal of parts of images, addition of parts of images and movement of parts of images. Provided these three types of activity are prohibited then the site should remain primarily photography oriented and not digital art oriented.
3. There is however a problem. The removal, addition or movement of parts of images is not the exclusive toolset of digital art. it is also, in the form of cloning, part of the toolset of digital photography. A rule is therefore needed which will separate out the use of these three techniques for photographic purposes and their use for digital art purposes.
I would suggest that this is the raison d'etre for the 'changing a typical viewres description' rule - to keep digital art at bay while allowing the use of pixel manipulation for photographic purposes.
If you then ask yourself when looking at the balloon picture and its original - 'Has this picture been modified by the removal of the stand in such a way that a typical viewer would change his description of the image and also in such a way as to offend against the raison d'etre of the rule in so far as this is now a piece of digital art rather than photography ?'
[I know it's a long winded question but you get the idea]
- I think you would have to answer no. Would a typical viewer say of the original image -
'It's a duck under a balloon .... suspended from some sort of partially visible boom'.
I would have to answer no to that. Typical viewer would not say this of the original - i find it profoundly unlikely that they would mention the boom at all.
And has the manipulation turned the image from a photograph into a piece of digital art ?
Again, from where I'm sitiing the answer is no.
For my money then the DQ is wrong.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 10:11:07. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 10:16:41 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by ZeppKash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
[ Heck, the thumbnails just look like a color adjustment. |
Would it be safe to say this is the best way for us to determine if its ok to clone something out? (other than submitting to SC prior to entering) Because the rope in Gatorguys shot is BARELY visible, and yes, your fishing line is not at all visible in the thumbnail. |
Maybe so. I suspect the rope alone could have been validated on a split decision. I say "could" because the rope is still more visible than the power lines in Joey's shot, and I can't predict the opinions of a dozen other people. Note that the fishing line in Gatorguy's shot would have been perfectly fine to remove. It's hardly visible at all.
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 10:22:48. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 10:19:35 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
... Would a typical viewer say of the original image -
'It's a duck under a balloon .... suspended from some sort of partially visible boom'.
I would have to answer no to that. Typical viewer would not say this of the original - i find it profoundly unlikely that they would mention the boom at all. ... |
Typical viewer here, and I'd say the original photo looks like an illustration of how to setup a shot using props to suspend a duck under a balloon. Only thing missing are some arrows to indicate items needed in the assembly list. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 10:22:08 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We hate to DQ entries, but consider how extra annoying it is to deal with reactions like that the next time you think about applying for SC. :-/ |
Hey Shannon,
I sympathize with the heat you and the other SC members take in these situations. Really. I also know as the decisions were being made, they were made full knowing it would generate yet one more civil uprising in the community. (I never even considered a reply until I saw the original btw.) I specifically did not single anyone out nor any specific images, as it wasn't about that, and fwiw, never considered yours in the group of "got away with it" editors, as I know you do go to great lengths to not need to or only have minimal clean-up after your shots.
I know nobody likes to or wants to disqualify a shot and no favoritism is shown based on who the member is.
I do support the SC and their decisions, though don't agree with it personally in this case.
Oh and no worries about applying, I'm not the right kinda' guy for the job. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 10:27:45 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Brad:
......go to great lengths to not need to or only have minimal clean-up after your shots. |
THIS is the single greatest lesson to be learned here. in  Gatorguy's shot, he uses a thin piece of thread above the ballon. If that same thread where cloned out below the peep, no problem with cloning. A slight change of camera angle could have easily gotten the boom out of the shot also.
Originally posted by Brad:
I do support the SC and their decisions, though don't agree with it personally in this case. |
ditto |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 10:36:04 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Brad:
I also know as the decisions were being made, they were made full knowing it would generate yet one more civil uprising in the community. |
Actually no- the decision was nearly unanimous based on the precedent of DQ'd shots like Joey's. Although I could have predicted certain individuals crying foul (because they do so on a regular basis without any insight into the situation), my post was certainly not aimed at you. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 10:44:32 AM · #47 |
| From someone who sucks at cloning and therefore rarely does any (though I did in a current challenge, mind you, and it took me forever!), I would never consider cloning out the support thingamabob (technical term) in the upper right of Gatorguy's shot. I can see cloning the rope below, though. But to me, that upper right thingambob is quite prominent in the shot. That may just be me. And SC - the cloning I did is in my current curves entry. If you'd like, I'll be happy to submit the original for review. I won't be losing any ribbons on it if it fails. :-) You can then use it as an example in either direction (after the challenge closes if it passes, of course.) |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 10:52:25 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brad:
I also know as the decisions were being made, they were made full knowing it would generate yet one more civil uprising in the community. |
Actually no- the decision was nearly unanimous based on the precedent of DQ'd shots like Joey's. Although I could have predicted certain individuals crying foul (because they do so on a regular basis without any insight into the situation) |
Then let me make a correction about the lack of uniformity . I never knew about Joey's shot and was basing my opinions on what I'd seen in the past, again without citing anyone/any images. I know defining the "line" of tolerance has to be tough at times. Based only on what I have seen in the past, I disagree with the decision, but not seeing every validation pass by my eyes, shouldn't have been so hasty to jump on this case. Apologies to the SC as a whole and respect your decisions.
Originally posted by scalvert:
my post was certainly not aimed at you. |
Damn. Haven't had a good fight in a long time and was ready to go find a bunch of Slippycons to catapult at ya.
quietly slips out of the lynch mob's back door to seek refuge under my rock once again.. > |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 11:18:42 AM · #49 |
I think I'm the only one who hasn't chimed in here. The only reason I am is because I have to do some account maintenance before SC will delete it for me.
I am not going to rant and rave about the decision to DQ. I think it's wrong and that's all I'll say about that. By the way, that also put me into the disciplinary measures category because I self DQ'd an entry awhile back, that probably stings more than anything.
The reason I'm bailing is that the site isn't what is was (IMO) when I first joined. I absolutely hate that team collaboration on challenge entries is not only allowed, but encouraged. So rather than get my blood pressure up, or rant and rave, I'll just slide into the land of the departed. I guess that was a rant...
BTW, I still have 11 months left of my membership. SC, can I donate that to someone?
Message edited by author 2008-04-04 11:19:54. |
|
|
|
04/04/2008 11:26:36 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
I absolutely hate that team collaboration on challenge entries is not only allowed, but encouraged. |
I'm not sure I understand the issue here. There was some team discussion during the DPL last year, but otherwise...?
Originally posted by Gatorguy:
I still have 11 months left of my membership. SC, can I donate that to someone? |
That's outside SC control, but you can ask Langdon. |
|
