| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2007 07:44:45 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Weee. Frustration abounds. |
Sure enough and I still don't have a straight answer from an honest question I asked of Jorge. |
Erick,
Based on our dialog with Jorge, I am quite certain that he entered the challenge in good faith, and believed his editing was legal. If you have reason to believe otherwise, it is appropriate to express that concern to Site Council via the Contact Page. As noted in Forum Rule #10, it is NOT appropriate to publicly accuse other participants of willfully disregarding the rules. Please refrain from doing so.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 07:48:41 PM · #177 |
Rob answered my question with his 06:39:12 PM post, example #2:
Adding a vignette that was not in the original image is legal to the point of not obliterating the vast majority of the bg.
Add: I 100% good faith in SC's good faith. Thank you guys and gals.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 07:50:01 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So Not Legal.
Legal?
 |
If I'm understanding correctly - both illegal, as adding any colour/texture/gradient/shape/etc to the original stark-white blank background is creating an "element".
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 07:52:59 PM · #179 |
Under the Advanced Editing IV rules in effect at the time of this entry, this was legal. If the same entry were submitted under the current rules, I would vote to disqualify.
Please keep in mind that entries prior to B&W III are not really relevant to this discussion. The rules affecting this particular area were materially changed.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 07:55:38 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Weee. Frustration abounds. |
Sure enough and I still don't have a straight answer from an honest question I asked of Jorge. |
Erick,
Based on our dialog with Jorge, I am quite certain that he entered the challenge in good faith, and believed his editing was legal. If you have reason to believe otherwise, it is appropriate to express that concern to Site Council via the Contact Page. As noted in Forum Rule #10, it is NOT appropriate to publicly accuse other participants of willfully disregarding the rules. Please refrain from doing so.
~Terry |
Terry I am aware of the rule and thanks for pointing it out again. However I was not calling him out in that way and I tried (Not well) to say it in good faith and meant no disrespect. He chose not to answer and I have not pushed it.
As you can see I have taken up his argument and I thought that alone would signify that I figure he did not do this on propose thinking that it would be DQ’d’s.
You know I don’t call people out and I thought I would be understood but I see that is not the case thanks for that. I will follow the discussion but will no longer add input.
For the record Jorge you were robbed and I now see that. I hope the rule gets defined clearly.
Erick
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 19:57:27. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 07:56:29 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by kashi:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So Not Legal.
Legal?
|
If I'm understanding correctly - both illegal, as adding any colour/texture/gradient/shape/etc to the original stark-white blank background is creating an "element". |
It's not suppose to be looked at in terms of major elements or even elements any more but rather does the editing change how the photo is interpreted. In other words a typical viewer might say the first one is tools set against an oval background where as the second one is just a shot of tools. The background to me doesn't have a strong characteristic to it that has changed due to the editing but I may just be in the minority on that.
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 19:57:13. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:01:56 PM · #182 |
Sorry Eric  thegrandwazoo,
What's your question?
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:06:28 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
Sorry Eric thegrandwazoo,
What's your question? |
I thought that you might have been trying to have you cake and eat it too. That is to say that you knew the image would do well perhaps ribbon but build in a self distruct device (The DQ) so it would not show up on your profile page. But I now see that is not the case and you have a very valid argument against the DQ.
IMHO
Erick |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:08:57 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
Sorry Eric thegrandwazoo,
What's your question? |
I thought that you might have been trying to have you cake and eat it too. That is to say that you knew the image would do well perhaps ribbon but build in a self distruct device (The DQ) so it would not show up on your profile page. But I now see that is not the case and you have a very valid argument against the DQ.
IMHO
Erick |
I edited the original photo with the rules in my mind. Now I know I was wrong, but still don't understand why?!? |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:11:08 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
I edited the original photo with the rules in my mind. Now I know I was wrong, but still don't understand why?!? |
That is what Erick is trying to ascertain.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:14:58 PM · #186 |
The vagaries of this thread are astounding.
I posted the Goodman shot (which I admire) as an example of the sillyness of this and it was summarily dismissed. It is the only alternate shot posted so far that deals specifically with the full creation/deletion of backgrounds, IMO.
Lesley obliterated the background on that picture, but was not DQ'd. Sure they were DARK shirts, but they weren't totally black right? Yet SC says day in and out you can't obliterate or create backgrounds.
All the contributors are asking for is parity in judgment "case history". DeSousa did not have anthing, and now does. Lesley did, and now does not. Is this simply a case of the rules being different now, that's cool. But I don't really remember that particular section being different. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:21:11 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
The vagaries of this thread are astounding.
I posted the Goodman shot (which I admire) as an example of the sillyness of this and it was summarily dismissed. It is the only alternate shot posted so far that deals specifically with the full creation/deletion of backgrounds, IMO.
Lesley obliterated the background on that picture, but was not DQ'd. Sure they were DARK shirts, but they weren't totally black right? Yet SC says day in and out you can't obliterate or create backgrounds.
All the contributors are asking for is parity in judgment "case history". DeSousa did not have anthing, and now does. Lesley did, and now does not. Is this simply a case of the rules being different now, that's cool. But I don't really remember that particular section being different. |
Goodman's shot and DeSousa's shot are completely different, though.
Goodman's shot had a dark background in the original...after it was cropped, the background was completely dark. no, not totally black but very dark. all she did was darken an already dark background.
DeSousa's shot had a solid white background. he added an oval shape to the background creating an element that was not present in the original photo.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:31:47 PM · #188 |
<-- notes sher's coolocity when she SC's. hubba hubba.
Sorry - back to your business
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:32:17 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by sher:
Goodman's shot and DeSousa's shot are completely different, though.
Goodman's shot had a dark background in the original...after it was cropped, the background was completely dark. no, not totally black but very dark. all she did was darken an already dark background.
DeSousa's shot had a solid white background. he added an oval shape to the background creating an element that was not present in the original photo. |
I'm going try to say what you said in clear words. If you change luminosity from 50% to 0 it's OK. If you change it from 100% to 50% it is KO. Is that?
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 20:40:48. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:41:29 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
Originally posted by sher:
DeSousa's shot had a solid white background. he added an oval shape to the background creating an element that was not present in the original photo. |
I'm going try to say what you said in clear words. If you change luminosity from 50% to 0 it's OK. If you change it from 100% to 50% it is KO. Is that? |
Well, they're going to say different rule set an all, I'll have to stare/compare them again. I still think the only "case history" exists in the the old rule set, even if it has changed marginally. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:50:22 PM · #191 |
Old rules:
Selective Editing: Adjustments can be made selectively to your photo. Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.
New Rules:
You may:
* apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process.
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.
* use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture.
++++++++++++++++
Alrighty, I stand corrected. The new rules are significantly more strict on element creation specifically.
Feet taste gross. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 08:55:23 PM · #192 |
my "element creation" example (it has got DQ'ed so it's cool, please dont burn my village)
 |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:28:00 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Which I'm understanding now to be completely illegal. Should I just submit my original now and bow out gracefully as one of the many who will be disapointed by misunderstanding the rules? I doubt I will place high enough to have a forced validation but now after all this talk and fuss I'm sure someone will call me out eventually anyhow. |
i can't answer your question because i don't know what photo you are talking about and what technique you used. i don't think you've done anything illegal, and if you are worried about it based on what you've seen in this thread, you probably needn't be.
if you've added vignette to your photo, does it significantly change the composition? does it add a blatant, describable feature that isn't there? or is it simply a manner of sly editing to give the photo dramatic impact?
this is not the right thread to be reading to cause concern about your vignetting or colorization techniques -- NEITHER of those were the reason why the photo in question was disqualified. |
Another similar technique.
original already posted.
 |
Sooo back to this again. Will someone give me a straight answer on this particular photo? It got ignored. Yes I see new element. But I just got confirmation that a vignette was legal as well selectively changing color.
If the De Sousa "oval" as we are now calling it, blended and was more subtle would it then be legal? Or if it went OVER the tools?
And again the hands entry. I doubt that was a natural occurane. I could be wrong but he did say something along the lines of the shot having an enormous amout of editing and following in the Goodman et al. footsteps of editing and that the light came from a window. That being said... lets assume the original did not have the darkening... Really legal?
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:29:38 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Old rules:
Selective Editing: Adjustments can be made selectively to your photo. Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.
New Rules:
You may:
* apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process.
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.
* use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture.
++++++++++++++++
Alrighty, I stand corrected. The new rules are significantly more strict on element creation specifically.
Feet taste gross. |
I honestly don't think the old and new are that different the old said you can't duplicate, CREATE, or move major elements.
Don't create a major element and no new shapes or features seem about the same to me...
I think you should take the foot out of your mouth. :) |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:45:12 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Old rules:
Selective Editing: Adjustments can be made selectively to your photo. Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.
New Rules:
You may:
* apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process.
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.
* use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture.
++++++++++++++++
Alrighty, I stand corrected. The new rules are significantly more strict on element creation specifically.
Feet taste gross. |
I honestly don't think the old and new are that different the old said you can't duplicate, CREATE, or move major elements.
Don't create a major element and no new shapes or features seem about the same to me...
I think you should take the foot out of your mouth. :) |
Depends on what you think is "major", the new rules stated "NO new shapes" unequivocally, not just no major shapes. However, if your shape is see through, and only recoloring the already present vignetting, then it's only altering a shape that was already present. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:45:28 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Thanks. Note to self:
Be careful when quoting. Write slowly and carefully, but swim fast.
 |
fortunately i've got more butt than they've got teeth. ;) |
Nah!!! It goes like this,"I can swim faster scared than you can mad!".
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:48:48 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by De Sousa:
I'm going try to say what you said in clear words. If you change luminosity from 50% to 0 it's OK. If you change it from 100% to 50% it is KO. Is that? |
hey mate ... i think this is focusing on the process rather than product. the outcome is that you created a major element that wasn't originally there. you used a legal technique to produce an illegal result.
increasing or decreasing luminosity can highlight elements already in the image. but as your example shows, you weren't using luminosity to accentuate an already existing effect ... you were using it to create a new effect.
as muckpond said, your original shot is hammer and wrench. your entry was hammer, wrench, and pretty blue background ... those are vastly different things.
i'm not an expert, i'm not trying to be adversarial, and this is only my opinion. :)
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 09:56:13 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
Originally posted by De Sousa:
I'm going try to say what you said in clear words. If you change luminosity from 50% to 0 it's OK. If you change it from 100% to 50% it is KO. Is that? |
hey mate ... i think this is focusing on the process rather than product. the outcome is that you created a major element that wasn't originally there. you used a legal technique to produce an illegal result.
increasing or decreasing luminosity can highlight elements already in the image. but as your example shows, you weren't using luminosity to accentuate an already existing effect ... you were using it to create a new effect.
as muckpond said, your original shot is hammer and wrench. your entry was hammer, wrench, and pretty blue background ... those are vastly different things.
i'm not an expert, i'm not trying to be adversarial, and this is only my opinion. :) |
I think you're missing the same thing I did, and so did DeSousa. The rules have actually significantly changed since the other entries referenced. Lesely's ( goodman) and djabordjabor's shot may not pass muster under the new rules. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:01:51 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
I think you're missing the same thing I did, and so did DeSousa. The rules have actually significantly changed since the other entries referenced. Lesely's ( goodman) and djabordjabor's shot may not pass muster under the new rules. |
well, if that's true, then it's unfair to compare desousa's shot to those other shots, because they were photographed when different rules were enforced.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:34:00 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by sher:
DeSousa's shot had a solid white background. he added an oval shape to the background creating an element that was not present in the original photo. |
After numerous pages here, that was about as plain & simple as it gets.
Adding gradients affects the whole shot, this one didn't - it created a new background.
Look at the thumbnail, and what's the first thing that really pops it off the page - the cyan/white background.
The gradient is a major effect that drastically changed the shot, not a supplemental one to enhance the shot.
This site has given a lot of leeway in what's allowed in the editing, and in this case, it just went over the line in my opinion.
Shame, as this was a creative photograph.
|
|
