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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> the official was this legal? thread
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/24/2013 08:06:11 PM · #1
so i promised after TPL was over i'd submit some images i pushed the envelope on the rules of processing , not one of these was up for validation so I'm submitting them now. DQ me if you wish but these are grey areas that I'm sure many would like clarification on, so im sure the discussion is warranted. Feel free to add your own for scrutiny and in an effort to get more participation lets make a pact not to DQ those who submit.

so, i'll start -

completely legal:



my entry:

i cloned out a rather large piece of concrete and rebuilt the tracks.

06/24/2013 08:19:30 PM · #2
Nice job building the tracks.

I don't it as a big deal, in real life the concrete may have been big but it's only like 5% of the picture.

Message edited by author 2013-06-24 20:20:17.
06/24/2013 08:32:13 PM · #3
I'm glad that you have brought this up, because I'd like this all to be more clear too. If you clone something out you obviously have to replace it with something, and the logical thing is a continuation of whatever was obscured. I know you're allowed to clone out twigs and other small elements, I just don't know where the line is drawn.
06/24/2013 09:27:41 PM · #4
Nice editing work
06/24/2013 09:45:26 PM · #5
Would it be helpful if you also submitted a ticket to SC to get an official ruling on the edit?
06/24/2013 10:21:36 PM · #6
Originally posted by sfalice:

Would it be helpful if you also submitted a ticket to SC to get an official ruling on the edit?


i figure they can just offer their opinions here.
06/24/2013 10:24:30 PM · #7
Originally posted by jomari:

I know you're allowed to clone out twigs and other small elements, I just don't know where the line is drawn.
that's kind of the point of this thread, maybe people will also offer up their images that have passed validation so we can get a better feel.
06/24/2013 10:30:23 PM · #8
Mike, your editing work is seamless and the photo composition is fabulous. But I am going to weigh in an opposing viewpoint. My understanding of the current ruleset for Advanced Editing I don't think this falls in the legal realm. You are cloning out an element that obscures the tracks behind it and then you are adding those tracks that were not visible back in. The two objects are dissimilar. To me, that falls in the realm of Expert Editing.

From the ruleset: "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."

Now because it only comprises 5% of the composition it MIGHT fall under the "You may clone out incidental power lines, twigs, dust specks, stray hairs, and similar minor imperfections within any capture used."
I cannot find the thread ATM but I believe Idnic's ribbon winning Evolution Revolution might be a similar case as your posted example Mike.

Bottom line - I think sfalice suggestion of submitting a ticket asking SC and then posting the decision here in this thread is a good one.

06/24/2013 10:31:56 PM · #9
Normally, when we clone something OUT we just bring in neighboring texture to cover it. You've gone a LOT further than that here. I'd be really surprised if this image could survive validation. I could be wrong of course...
06/24/2013 10:45:15 PM · #10
Originally posted by CNovack:



From the ruleset: "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."


the question is does it? :)
06/24/2013 10:59:36 PM · #11
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by CNovack:



From the ruleset: "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."


the question is does it? :)


I have already stated my thoughts on the matter so I will not repeat. It really is the Site Council who can deliver the final answer to this question.



Message edited by author 2013-06-24 23:04:42.
06/24/2013 11:01:46 PM · #12
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by CNovack:



From the ruleset: "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."

the question is does it? :)

In the same area of the rules:

You may NOT: use ANY editing technique to create ... objects ... that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).

Like RR tracks? Seems dangerous to me...
06/24/2013 11:02:26 PM · #13
i think i've seen a gyaban entry dq'ed for less..

edit This one:

Message edited by author 2013-06-24 23:04:44.
06/24/2013 11:32:53 PM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by CNovack:



From the ruleset: "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."

the question is does it? :)

In the same area of the rules:

You may NOT: use ANY editing technique to create ... objects ... that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).

Like RR tracks? Seems dangerous to me...


Except that it did exist. I'm pretty sure I've done similar to clean up a photo. If it was a cloud being extended a little in the corner to cover a roof edge, utility pole, etc, would you even think twice about its legality?

Message edited by author 2013-06-24 23:34:22.
06/25/2013 12:49:22 AM · #15
I don't have a problem with the edit. The concrete was hidden in the shadows on the edge of the photo. My rough benchmark for prominence is whether the difference is obvious in the thumbnail, and it's really not.
06/25/2013 01:59:08 AM · #16
If Mike's is OK, why was this DQ'd?



I hesitated to post, as I know as soon as an SC member weighs in on something a can of worms opens, and I'd rather hear more from the SC. But honestly, it didn't take me more than a second to think that Mike's photo here is illegal, and it's based on prior rulings such as the example posted.
06/25/2013 02:05:00 AM · #17
Originally posted by bohemka:

If Mike's is OK, why was this DQ'd?



I hesitated to post, as I know as soon as an SC member weighs in on something a can of worms opens, and I'd rather hear more from the SC. But honestly, it didn't take me more than a second to think that Mike's photo here is illegal, and it's based on prior rulings such as the example posted.


Nah, that's obvious.

She added a fur cuff at the bottom of the dress - that's a bit different than cloning out a stone and making sure the tracks continue as they would had the stone not been there.
06/25/2013 02:11:13 AM · #18
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by bohemka:

If Mike's is OK, why was this DQ'd?



I hesitated to post, as I know as soon as an SC member weighs in on something a can of worms opens, and I'd rather hear more from the SC. But honestly, it didn't take me more than a second to think that Mike's photo here is illegal, and it's based on prior rulings such as the example posted.


Nah, that's obvious.

She added a fur cuff at the bottom of the dress - that's a bit different than cloning out a stone and making sure the tracks continue as they would had the stone not been there.


Semantics, cloning out a stone or adding tracks. She only fixed the fur cuff I believe. Certainly wouldn't have fallen afoul of Scalvert's thumbnail test at any rate, being down in the corner and a minor element.
06/25/2013 02:47:57 AM · #19
Originally posted by Cory:

She added a fur cuff at the bottom of the dress - that's a bit different than cloning out a stone and making sure the tracks continue as they would had the stone not been there.

What he said. There was never any fur on the bottom of the dress to be cloned back in. You can fill in a bit of blue sky that had been covered by a distracting twig, but you can't fill it with a bird or rainbow.
06/25/2013 03:38:26 AM · #20
Thanks for the explanation. Appreciated.
06/27/2013 02:58:57 PM · #21
Well that is interesting. Now I can better understand why Mike is asking the question. You learn something new everyday:-) Thanks for weighing in on the discussion scalvert .
06/27/2013 04:01:57 PM · #22
wow -- never would have thought that was legal -- I would have thought it was creating a new object -- the RR tracks. Though if the railroad tracks weren't there, and it was just leaves, I probably would have thought it was a lot of cloning, but most likely legal.

Interesting...
06/27/2013 04:15:10 PM · #23
I clone quite a bit BUT several have been validated but I still can't get a handle on what is "legal" and "what's NOT legal". It's always a nail biting experience if it will pass or not - NOT that I'm trying to push the envelope to get away with something. I have seen others get Dq'd for what seemed to be less than some of what I do. At one point I thought "maybe it's based on a % of the photo's pixels"???

here are some of my "validated" entries...



(Original)



(Original)



(Original)
06/27/2013 04:20:31 PM · #24
Originally posted by vawendy:

wow -- never would have thought that was legal -- I would have thought it was creating a new object -- the RR tracks.

The tracks were there in reality, but hidden behind what was considered an inconspicuous object in front. Every instance of removing (cloning out) an object involves replacing it with whatever was behind it, or the best approximation of it. This case is borderline only because the the object removed is physically larger -- but really not more visually prominent -- than the typical examples cited for "OK to remove" like a phone wire or a twig.

Message edited by author 2013-06-27 16:21:25.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 09:32:48 AM

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: 03/29/2024 09:32:48 AM EDT.