| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2007 01:38:16 PM · #1 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There are still MANY ways we can edit our images to significantly change the "description" of them that are nevertheless legal. An example would be the switch from featureless white BG to featureless blue BG on the DeSouza image, which would definitely change how it is described but which is, as far as I know, 100% legal.
R. |
In the case of your edited "blue version" the objects seen in that photograph remain the same, which is two tools and some nails where as in De Sousa's version there are two tools, some nails and a white oval. Had he made the oval more feathered producing little to no discernable edge to it that photo would have been ok, IMO. Most photos after being edited can be "described" differently but I think the SCs contention is does that new description contain new shapes/objects/elements added in the editing process that a typical voter would recognize as such?
In your edits, you've made the "effect" more subtle and therefore it's probably more likely that the typical voter wouldn't see it as an added shape. Anyway, just my interpretation on the SC's interpretation.
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 13:39:32. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 01:05:14 PM · #2 |
What is interesting about this discussion is the question of what constitutes a 'good' photograph and/or 'cheating' in the 'real' world of photography as opposed to what meets DPC rules. These are two separate things.
What violates DPC rules can and should be DQed.
Obviously there is a question in many people's minds what EXACTLY violating rules means. There is an implicit assumption that DPC rules somehow matches 'real' world photography. It does not. Some regard 'The Rules' at DPC as if that has special meaning beyond the DPC community. It does not.
Lets not pretend that it does.
Agree on DPC rules and live by them, but never assume it nor DPC scores has a one-to-one value beyond weekly DPC competitions. The 'real' world of photography has its own set of rules for us to live by.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:48:33 AM · #3 |
A very similar effect can be acheived by using the 'Lighting Effect' filter (Filters>Render>Lighting Effects)in Photoshop. This filter alters hue and luminence in an adjustable pattern. Here is asample applied to the image in question:
Is this 'lighting effect' filter legal to use? |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:40:53 AM · #4 |
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all. - Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 10:11:30 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
pinning down one or two of us and demanding answers about a specific image in the middle of a debate that has gone FAR from its origins is really not going to result in a comprehensive, reliable answer. |
I have no problem with the SC saying "It's a continuum as Bear_Music and Owen have shown. At some point it crosses the line. The exact point may vary among SC members, so we can't give you a hard and fast rule, but if a majority of us think it's illegal it gets DQd."
I agree completely with Owen - that's why we have an SC.
My problem is that many times SC members respond with answers that seems to indicate there is some magic, permanent, universal line when there isn't. And that leaves many of us trying to pin down the line when it can't be pinned down.
Anyway, I think I understand this particular issue, and Owen's advice about knowing in advance you're skirting the line is sound.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 09:29:36 AM · #6 |
First I want to say that I really liked the image, and saddened to see it DQ'd. It had a metaphor that I think most of us can relate to.
In my novice opinion though, there's a big difference between a vignette and the blue gradient (besides color). A vignette is generally a top layer, placed over the entire photo, or at least appearing to. Used dicreetly, it has a very nice effect in some photos. (In Roberts fine example I can't really tell if the vignette is placed over the tools because the vignette is faint and on the very outside (and doesn't really intrude on the tools). In DeSouza's photo, the gradient was predominant taking up about half of the image, but more importantly underneath the tools, giving the appearance that the tools and nails were layed on top of an airbrushed background, or in front of a background with a spotlight blowing out the center of a background. If the blue gradient was placed over the tools though, besides it looking kind of silly that way, I think the argument would be a little stronger comparing it to a heavy vignette with the only difference being color. I hope that all makes sense.
So I can see S/C's opinion that it was a major element added. Again, I'm not an expert on this, just my humble opinion. I think the S/C do an amazing job here on DPC and do their best to keep everybody's best interests at heart, they're not out to get anybody. And DeSouza, I'm sorry to see the DQ, I thought it was a very clever photo. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 09:23:54 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
in advanced editing it all boils down to this: are the edits that you are making enough that it significantly changes the description of the photograph from its original? |
As an addendum, it's equally important to note that there are some areas of editing that does NOT apply to: most significantly, you can change colors within (or throughout) the image at will, as long as you don't create something new by doing so:
you may:saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it.
So even if this would lead to a complete change in the "description of the photo", that doesn't matter, right? I think it's important to emphasize this, because what you have bolded in your snippet above is basically the part of the rules that is replacing the now-defunct "major elements" rule, and it was intended (as far as I know) to serve as the new measuring stick by which it is determined whether a cloned-out object, for example, is an OK edit, or whether (as in this case) a new element has been introduced into the image.
There are still MANY ways we can edit our images to significantly change the "description" of them that are nevertheless legal. An example would be the switch from featureless white BG to featureless blue BG on the DeSouza image, which would definitely change how it is described but which is, as far as I know, 100% legal.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 09:14:14 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by owen:
I think most people would agree that this one would be illegal.
so if you think that Bear's last example was legal than somewhere in between the two it changes from legal to illegal. But where? This is a grey area and needs an adjudicator to decide. Hence we hand it over to a group of humans who do the best job they can at deciding that point. It would be nice if we could have a black and white rule so that this wasn't necessary but after five years nobody has come up with it yet. So like many sports etc. we have someone to decide each time. If you don't want to get caught out you need to stay away from the centre. I'm sure I've been close sometimes but the photos didn't rate high enough to get any attention :( |
bless you, owen.
the issue here is that you all are asking for black and white answers to very gray questions. |
Mucky,
Not to be sticky about it, but that's NOT what I'm asking for. In fact, Owen just "finished" my series of examples for me (one like that was forthcoming after I saw the response to the previous). If you look at that last post of mine you'll see that I agree the DeSouza went too far, and that I think it's important to make clear WHY that's so, and I provided some examples to show what I was talking about.
I'm not doing this just to be contrary, and I am well aware there's no "black and white" rule we can lay down that would simplify this. Unfortunately, a LOT of the responses in this thread seem to me to be making unwarranted assumptions that ARE based on Black and white reactions, so I'm more-or-less desperately trying to illustrate a continuum which would indicate to people where they can draw the line to be on the safe side.
Now, again, I'm not SC obviously, but it seems clear to me that the line should be drawn somewhere between my vignetted example and Owen's hard-edged example. Is it possible to have any consensus from SC that would support or refute that? I mean, y'all could look at these examples and say whether Owen and I are on the right track?
R.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 08:38:22 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
in advanced editing it all boils down to this: are the edits that you are making enough that it significantly changes the description of the photograph from its original? |
i'm quoting this here because it's important. if you have a question about your advanced editing, try the before and after comparison that works for us. get a friend to try it for you. get someone who is not a photographer to describe the shot before and after.
if you have a question still, submit a ticket and let the SC look at it as a group.
pinning down one or two of us and demanding answers about a specific image in the middle of a debate that has gone FAR from its origins is really not going to result in a comprehensive, reliable answer. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 08:35:28 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by owen:
I think most people would agree that this one would be illegal.
so if you think that Bear's last example was legal than somewhere in between the two it changes from legal to illegal. But where? This is a grey area and needs an adjudicator to decide. Hence we hand it over to a group of humans who do the best job they can at deciding that point. It would be nice if we could have a black and white rule so that this wasn't necessary but after five years nobody has come up with it yet. So like many sports etc. we have someone to decide each time. If you don't want to get caught out you need to stay away from the centre. I'm sure I've been close sometimes but the photos didn't rate high enough to get any attention :( |
bless you, owen.
the issue here is that you all are asking for black and white answers to very gray questions. if we were to come up with a strict set of rules that were easy to vote on, everyone would cry foul.
we're not trying to restrict creativity, but we HAVE to have a ruleset that encourages the participant to invest most of the effort into the capture of their photograph. otherwise we're just a willy-nilly post-processing challenge.
the SC does its best, but you can't expect us to agree on everything in a black and white manner...and we can't just answer gray questions individually in a thread. we do a LOT of debating "in the shadows" before most rulings are made. i'm sorry if it frustrates you when we don't answer right away, but with specific questions like escapetooz's photograph debate and a group decision is required.
trust me, you don't want the "first person to answer wins" thing to happen. the rules would be FAR more all over the place than you think they are now. ;) |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 08:04:22 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by owen:
If you don't want to get caught out you need to stay away from the centre. |
Ya know.....this seems to address an awful lot of issues and may also keep the entries closer to an "as shot" disposition.
If what you enter only has the elements that were there when the shutter was snapped, you're not going to have problems.
If you get too close to the flame, you could get burned.
This is also easy for someone like me who isn't particularly adept at PS to have a cavalier attitude towards.....8>)
This little exchange has made me tremendously happy that I'm not a member of Site Council!
You guys are great for being willing to undergo this scrutiny.
Best of luck to you!
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 06:27:26 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me see if we can narrow this down:
1. What I imagine DeSouza's entry looked like before processing, more or less:
2. Isolate the BG and turn it blue, indisputably legal as far as I know:
3. Copy the tools, vignette the image, paste the tools back on top is this legal? I would have assumed so:
***********
Now of course the difference between DeSouza's actual entry and what I have done here is the he used a feathered, oval selection to lay in his blue on the white BG, and in so doing he "created an element" that was never there to start with. Whereas what I just did was color shift a white BG and then use the vignette tool to create darker corners on it. Now I can understand the reasoning that says the actual entry crossed over a line from "photography" to "the digital creation of major components of the image" and I really don't have a problem with that.
No, my concern is that as we discuss this here, members and SC both, we not get trapped in some arbitrary definition that precludes the use of what I (and many others) consider to be perfectly normal post-processing techniques that predate digital photography. So the question is, "Is the vignetted version I created of this image a legal version?" And if not, why not? This is important to make clear, IMO. Incidentally, by MY interpretation of the rules, the Djabordjabor image discussed earlier, if submitted to a current challenge, WOULD be legal: there's (in my mind) a point of no return somewhere between DeSouza's and Djabor's, where the effect stops being an effect and becomes an element.
But that's a really tough call to make, isn't it?
R. |
I think most people would agree that this one would be illegal.
so if you think that Bear's last example was legal than somewhere in between the two it changes from legal to illegal. But where? This is a grey area and needs an adjudicator to decide. Hence we hand it over to a group of humans who do the best job they can at deciding that point. It would be nice if we could have a black and white rule so that this wasn't necessary but after five years nobody has come up with it yet. So like many sports etc. we have someone to decide each time. If you don't want to get caught out you need to stay away from the centre. I'm sure I've been close sometimes but the photos didn't rate high enough to get any attention :(
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 03:34:00 AM · #13 |
This thread is a perfect example of the problems with abstract rules. I never would have figured that photo for DQ - I don't think "Personified Tools against a blue and white background" is any different than "Personified tools against a white background".
A lot of very good questions have been asked, however. I'm very interested to see a response to Bear's question. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 01:37:11 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me see if we can narrow this down:
1. What I imagine DeSouza's entry looked like before processing, more or less:
2. Isolate the BG and turn it blue, indisputably legal as far as I know:
3. Copy the tools, vignette the image, paste the tools back on top is this legal? I would have assumed so:
***********
Now of course the difference between DeSouza's actual entry and what I have done here is the he used a feathered, oval selection to lay in his blue on the white BG, and in so doing he "created an element" that was never there to start with. Whereas what I just did was color shift a white BG and then use the vignette tool to create darker corners on it. Now I can understand the reasoning that says the actual entry crossed over a line from "photography" to "the digital creation of major components of the image" and I really don't have a problem with that.
No, my concern is that as we discuss this here, members and SC both, we not get trapped in some arbitrary definition that precludes the use of what I (and many others) consider to be perfectly normal post-processing techniques that predate digital photography. So the question is, "Is the vignetted version I created of this image a legal version?" And if not, why not? This is important to make clear, IMO. Incidentally, by MY interpretation of the rules, the Djabordjabor image discussed earlier, if submitted to a current challenge, WOULD be legal: there's (in my mind) a point of no return somewhere between DeSouza's and Djabor's, where the effect stops being an effect and becomes an element.
But that's a really tough call to make, isn't it?
R. |
This sounds like a good question to me. I dunno. This all still doesn't sit right with me, especially if your third example IS considered legal. I personally still don't see it as a new element but an enhancement of the photo just like your examples. It's all so subjective. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 01:31:39 AM · #15 |
Let me see if we can narrow this down:
1. What I imagine DeSouza's entry looked like before processing, more or less:
2. Isolate the BG and turn it blue, indisputably legal as far as I know:
3. Copy the tools, vignette the image, paste the tools back on top is this legal? I would have assumed so:
***********
Now of course the difference between DeSouza's actual entry and what I have done here is the he used a feathered, oval selection to lay in his blue on the white BG, and in so doing he "created an element" that was never there to start with. Whereas what I just did was color shift a white BG and then use the vignette tool to create darker corners on it. Now I can understand the reasoning that says the actual entry crossed over a line from "photography" to "the digital creation of major components of the image" and I really don't have a problem with that.
No, my concern is that as we discuss this here, members and SC both, we not get trapped in some arbitrary definition that precludes the use of what I (and many others) consider to be perfectly normal post-processing techniques that predate digital photography. So the question is, "Is the vignetted version I created of this image a legal version?" And if not, why not? This is important to make clear, IMO. Incidentally, by MY interpretation of the rules, the Djabordjabor image discussed earlier, if submitted to a current challenge, WOULD be legal: there's (in my mind) a point of no return somewhere between DeSouza's and Djabor's, where the effect stops being an effect and becomes an element.
But that's a really tough call to make, isn't it?
R.
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 01:34:30.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 12:43:48 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I opened a general inquiry ticket on your behalf with the question. That's the official way to ask a question of the SC as a whole.
|
Sure, sure, and I use it regularly. But Monica, please let us know what they say! :)
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 12:03:54 AM · #17 |
Not a SC member (obviously) but I'll toss in my 2ยข
Monica's background is supplemental and supports the main image, not jumps off the page to get your attention.
(she does that well enough on her own)
The color corrections and white balance & such are a no-brainer, but had the background looked like the recent DQ shot in question, that would be cause for DQ in my opinion.
We shouldn't allow linear gradients and not allow the others, but like anything else, done in moderation, a little goes a long way.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 12:01:49 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
lol. Sorry to be a pain in the butt. |
I opened a general inquiry ticket on your behalf with the question. That's the official way to ask a question of the SC as a whole.
In the future, when you have questions, you can do that
here
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:56:49 PM · #19 |
| lol. Sorry to be a pain in the butt. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:42:29 PM · #20 |
Could someone on the SC please respond to escapetooz's very specific question in which she gave you the original and the edited version?
Please?
Originally posted by escapetooz:
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? |
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 23:44:38.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:20:55 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by super-dave:
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. |
exactly!!
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:11:32 PM · #22 |
| Sigh. Things are getting clearer but my questions still aren't being answered. Not really. |
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:34:00 PM · #23 |
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.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 10:01:51 PM · #24 |
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 09:56:13 PM · #25 |
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. |
|
