| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2004 09:20:32 AM · #1 |
| Please discuss the current poll about updating the "border rule" here. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:28:18 AM · #2 |
This is the first I'm saying anything regarding this ... and to be honest I couldn't care less what happens, but I just wanted to say this:
In the past, if something was "legal", but frowned upon (like big ugly borders) ... it was encouraged to vote accordingly. Now that this issue is "out in the open" - if you see a triptich border in the future and think it's too much use of photoshop ... don't give it a high score. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:30:15 AM · #3 |
well in response to setzler, 'the new rule would diqualify many types of borders that are currently used'... yeah i agree.. but i don't think there is any harm in that... we aren't taking anything away from anyones photography... just from their post processing.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:30:49 AM · #4 |
I voted "No". I do not think we need to restrict the way people add borders. You can add a simple tasteful border that is not just a solid line. Examples include the ones automatically added on DigitalPhotoContest.com
While I personally prefer a simple solid border, I don't think it needs we should limit how a photographer chooses to present their image.
Current voting tales it into consideration. When a border distracts from the image, people tend to mention that and vote accordingly.
That doesn't make this a photoshop site.
Dave
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:32:34 AM · #5 |
| I voted no because I have so many other things on the planet to worry about besides whether or not a border is ruining photographic integrity or not... sheesh - it's a border! Vote high, vote low, but vote and move on. ;o) |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:35:17 AM · #6 |
Amend the rule to "only one border is allowed in a picture".
That will stop the triple border thing! |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:36:52 AM · #7 |
I don't mind the borders. Since I know why this is coming up, I'll say this. The rules should specify if diptych/triptych is allowed in the challenge.
I vote NO.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:40:22 AM · #8 |
I think it is important to point out that borders like this:
  
will still be legal, because the borders are made up of contiguous solid colors around the perimeter of the photo.
Inset or translucent borders, like this (which is both inset and translucent):
would not. If you know of other examples of borders that would be "restricted" because of this rule, please feel free to post them.
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 10:03:29. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:45:07 AM · #9 |
The more you try to constrain the rules, the greater chance you have that the SC will be forced into making subjective decisions on pictures. I think that is the role rightly reserved for the voters.
I find it somewhat amusing that a few people find a certain border such a horrible violation of "photographic integrity," while the voters of the site as a whole gave it a ribbon.
Whenever you have the SC making a decision for the voters you end up with a less valid result; an 8:6 vote to DQ a photo scoring a 6 or 7 with the voters does not seem like the right way to go.
I'm voting "no" on this poll -- I think you (voters) can decide for yourselves if a border is "too much" -- I really don't think you need to delegate that decision to me. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:49:56 AM · #10 |
I vote no, like or dislike, just vote accordingly, maybe comment to that effect.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:55:49 AM · #11 |
I voted no but after thinking about it, I might reconsider. I think the point of interrest here is the mention of "around" the image. Perhaps stating that it can be how we like (faded, etc), without any text, etc, but must be around the picture would suffice.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 09:58:23 AM · #12 |
I voted yes in the poll. If such a new rule is adopted it will, to some small extent, restrict creativity. But that would be creativity in the use of software, not creativity in the use of your camera. It will move us in the direction of photographic integrity and away from digital art. For that small movement I will be grateful.
But what I really want is for the SC and voters to recognize that something that runs across the center of the image is not a border, and should not be treated as such. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:04:31 AM · #13 |
| I voted yes initially for the sake for clarifying the rules, but changed my mind after seeing this discussion. I like the look of a translucent (though maybe not inset) border, and I wouldn't want to see that outlawed. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:05:58 AM · #14 |
| As GeneralE pointed out, the very fact that a triptych ribboned demonstrates the will of the majority. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:07:50 AM · #15 |
I will point out that the current way the SC interprets any DQ requests for "border violations" is that "anything goes in the border" as long as it doesn't contain clip-art.
Example:
This photo was presented to the SC for a ruling on legality, and it was deemed to be legal.
Like coolhar, the advantage I see to this propopsed ruling is that it shifts (even if slightly) the focus of submissions more towards photography and not how "fancy" you can get with "presentation".
Message edited by author 2004-11-09 10:11:37. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:09:16 AM · #16 |
Come on people, we all know that borders which go over the top get voted accordingly. Its self regulating.
Why even contemplate this imposition?
I vote NO on principle. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:10:30 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The more you try to constrain the rules, the greater chance you have that the SC will be forced into making subjective decisions on pictures. I think that is the role rightly reserved for the voters.
I find it somewhat amusing that a few people find a certain border such a horrible violation of "photographic integrity," while the voters of the site as a whole gave it a ribbon.
Whenever you have the SC making a decision for the voters you end up with a less valid result; an 8:6 vote to DQ a photo scoring a 6 or 7 with the voters does not seem like the right way to go.
I'm voting "no" on this poll -- I think you (voters) can decide for yourselves if a border is "too much" -- I really don't think you need to delegate that decision to me. |
Very well stated! I, too, have voted 'no'. The existing rules and the challenge voters are the best measurements of whether a border is "appropriate".
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:13:22 AM · #18 |
This whole thing is just a matter of style, trend, or personal taste. If someone wants to try something new on the voters it should be allowed so they can learn how well it is accepted from the voter response. What harm is there in that? It is obvious that the majority liked the picture that started this whole thing.
I am here to learn what I can about camera use, composition, AND post processing. Think about it how many threads are there that deal with only post processing?
I voted no and feel it should be left the way it is.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:14:22 AM · #19 |
| I voted 'yes', I think it's only sensible to restrict the use of borders as stated, alternativly what's stopping me using a triptych or similar effect to cover errors that I would not normally be able to cover due to restrictions in spot editing? |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:16:57 AM · #20 |
I voted "yes" for perimeter borders only in competition. I tend to be more interested in the photograph than the decoration when judging an entry.
Having said that, I very much appreciated BradP's clear and concise directions on how to make his triptych, practiced the steps yesterday, and will happily use the technique elsewhere. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:17:46 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by colda:
I voted 'yes', I think it's only sensible to restrict the use of borders as stated, alternativly what's stopping me using a triptych or similar effect to cover errors that I would not normally be able to cover due to restrictions in spot editing? |
The fact that you will turn your picture into a diptych or a triptych when you may not want to or when it looks really stupid? If I want to remove a speck in someone's eye I dont think creating a border straight through it is the best idea.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:30:33 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by colda:
I voted 'yes', I think it's only sensible to restrict the use of borders as stated, alternativly what's stopping me using a triptych or similar effect to cover errors that I would not normally be able to cover due to restrictions in spot editing? |
The fact that you will turn your picture into a diptych or a triptych when you may not want to or when it looks really stupid? If I want to remove a speck in someone's eye I dont think creating a border straight through it is the best idea. |
but if I have an unwanted addition on a landscape, or some damaged vegitation on a flora shot, or something out of place on a street scene, or a broken part on a still life image, then I may be able to employ a little cropping and the application of triptych to turn a fault into an attractive image, thus intoducing a post processing element to cover a mistake made at the point the photo was taken. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:32:22 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Inset or translucent borders, like this (which is both inset and translucent):
would not. |
Okay, i had just voted "yes", but i'm going to change this to a "no" because artistically i don't think there's anything negative about this specific effect. not sure if it strictly adds to the quality of the picture, but i honestly don't think an unfair advantage would have beeen achieved by it.
and another thing, personally i don't think a catastrophic lack of taste is something that should even remotely be considered to be worthy of being addressed by a rule change. just my thoughts, really. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:33:40 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by colda:
but if I have an unwanted addition on a landscape, or some damaged vegitation on a flora shot, or something out of place on a street scene, or a broken part on a still life image, then I may be able to employ a little cropping and the application of triptych to turn a fault into an attractive image, thus intoducing a post processing element to cover a mistake made at the point the photo was taken. |
Whereas, under any sane editing scheme, you'd just use the clone tool to fix this minor imperfection, if you feel it is a detriment to the image. Just like in a film image you'd either use positive or negative retouching to address the issue.
If this is the issue you have against border usage, you should be trying to address the fundamental issue, not going further down the path of weird rules and patches. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:36:20 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by colda:
but if I have an unwanted addition on a landscape, or some damaged vegitation on a flora shot, or something out of place on a street scene, or a broken part on a still life image, then I may be able to employ a little cropping and the application of triptych to turn a fault into an attractive image, thus intoducing a post processing element to cover a mistake made at the point the photo was taken. |
Whereas, under any sane editing scheme, you'd just use the clone tool to fix this minor imperfection, if you feel it is a detriment to the image. Just like in a film image you'd either use positive or negative retouching to address the issue.
If this is the issue you have against border usage, you should be trying to address the fundamental issue, not going further down the path of weird rules and patches. |
naturally that would be the obvious approach, but in the case of a 'Basic Editing' rules challenge where spot editing is not allowed? |
|
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: 04/19/2024 05:44:35 AM EDT.
