| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2006 03:17:31 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
|
Shannon, that would eliminate the legal use of fish-eye correction, perspective correction all kinds of things that are widely used. |
Just like the other photo that was DQ'd becasuse they moved the slider the other way for vignette correction. They didn't add anything, they enhanced the information that was already there.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:18:17 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
You should be able to present your scene how you envisioned it with all the tools available. |
I can envision quite a scene, and if all tools are available, I certainly don't need a camera to present it! ;-) |
then it wouldn't have any photographic integrity now would it? |
Of course not, and the same could be said for drawing in motion that wasn't in your capture, too. |
Would it still be considered a photograph? or an illustration?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:18:40 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Can we agree the background is a forest? Can you not tell that it is a forest in the final image? Is the "major element" not the forest? If the major element is still identifiable as said forest, would it not still be the same major element in the original image? Following this line of thought, what "major element" was added? What "major element" was removed? |
No one seems to have noticed that this filter creates a quite impossible illusion. Unless the photographer were flying directly ahead of the birds and shooting backwards -- which is the only "natural" way to achieve this specific effect where you have a radial blur of only the BG (i.e. panning directly along the axis of the lens) -- this would have to be a clever bit of fakery. That would make this lean more in the direction of "digital art" than "photographic integrity" to me.
Originally posted by kiwiness:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I call it as I see it. I see a bunch of coders or graphic designers on the SC, but not one photographer. |
Wow that is a pretty hard! Totally uncalled for in my opinion. There are many site councilers I respect as photographers. I find your remark a tad insulting! |
Actually, I'm rather pleased as being acknowledged as a graphic designer -- I should print out this thread and show it to my boss. Anybody need business cards? : )
BTW: I voted No DQ on this one. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:19:07 PM · #179 |
Are Filters considered Editing Tools or not? If the answer is yes, then why would the rules have them in two separate sections, one says you can't use Editing Tools to create or removed elements, and the other say you can use filters in whole or in part at your discretion?
The way the rules are written suggest that they're two different things, and therefore what I did should not be considered using an Editing Tool, let alone the fact that no element (major or minor) was removed or added except in some of the SC members mind. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:19:43 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted." |
Shannon, that would eliminate the legal use of fish-eye correction, perspective correction all kinds of things that are widely used. |
Well, not really... many editing tools move pixels. I believe that rule referred to moving objects around with respect to each other. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:21:10 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
...but he didn't break the law. He only did something that a few didn't like. |
He (supposedly) broke this law: "...using ANY editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
I believe Muckpond and others consider the blur itself to be a major (added) element, and on that point we disagree. To me, the elements are the birds, trees and lake, and the blur is just an aspect of those elements that has been modified (like color, sharpness, grain, etc...). Everything that was in the original is still in the final, so it seemed OK to me. This is why clarifying the rules is more important than trying change differing opinions here which may be equally valid. |
I'm going to jump in here for a second, personally after seeing the other 2 photos that were allowed and then seeing this one that was DQed, I'm disheartened. I see no difference in the changes made other then the hue change. My feeling is if the first 2 stand this one should also. There has to be some sort of line thats drawn that says this is legal, this isnt. I dont see the difference in the 3 except 2 were allowed and the other wasnt. Either they all stay or they all go, same effect different result in allowing it.
My Humble 2 cents
MattO |
Ex post facto is a retroactive idea that is not practiced in federal law (or state or local) per the constitution. It means that they cannot make a law and then punish someone who violated that law prior to its formation.
I think they all should be allowed since there isn't a rule against it, and the DQ is downright vague at best. Then, if they want to revise the rules, they should do so, without affecting previous entries. That would be fair.
Voting to DQ something when the rules aren't clear, leads to bias and subjectivity that you can't ignore. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:21:34 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gringo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted." |
Shannon, that would eliminate the legal use of fish-eye correction, perspective correction all kinds of things that are widely used. |
Well, not really... many editing tools move pixels. I believe that rule referred to moving objects around with respect to each other. |
Teh photo at hand didn't move any objects, he moved the pixels.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:23:40 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
Are Filters considered Editing Tools or not? If the answer is yes, then why would the rules have them in two separate sections, one says you can't use Editing Tools to create or removed elements, and the other say you can use filters in whole or in part at your discretion?
The way the rules are written suggest that they're two different things, and therefore what I did should not be considered using an Editing Tool, let alone the fact that no element (major or minor) was removed or added except in some of the SC members mind. |
Hang in there Sam,
You my not be able to reverse the DQ of this shot at this point, but the debate and the voting process on it just may improve the way the rule is currenty written. That is a victory my friend. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:25:07 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Teh photo at hand didn't move any objects, he moved the pixels. |
To such a point that, without seeing the original first, I would have NO clue that I should be seeing trees, grasses and even water. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:25:24 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
Are Filters considered Editing Tools or not? If the answer is yes, then why would the rules have them in two separate sections, one says you can't use Editing Tools to create or removed elements, and the other say you can use filters in whole or in part at your discretion? |
Sure they are, just like the clone tool, noise filters or anything else you use to modify your image. You can use tools in whole or in part, but not to create or remove major elements of your photo. I don't see that as a conflict. One part indicates where you can use the tool (on part or all of your image), and the other part explains the limit on what you can do with the tools (don't erase or draw things in). |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:27:22 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
The photo at hand didn't move any objects, he moved the pixels. |
...did I ever say the photo at hand was illegal? |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:29:24 PM · #187 |
Well, yeah, it is a victory, but I am like the man who caused the death penality to end after he was wrongfully executed. It just hurt to be treated unjustly, to be discriminated against, to be punished by a new rule that is still in the making. Yeah yeah I know it's just a silly photography contenst but it just the concept that bothers me.. I understand the SC are just humans and probably have much better things to do and to worry about, let's just be glad they're not the ones running our country's legal system.
Originally posted by Gringo:
Originally posted by samanwar:
Are Filters considered Editing Tools or not? If the answer is yes, then why would the rules have them in two separate sections, one says you can't use Editing Tools to create or removed elements, and the other say you can use filters in whole or in part at your discretion?
The way the rules are written suggest that they're two different things, and therefore what I did should not be considered using an Editing Tool, let alone the fact that no element (major or minor) was removed or added except in some of the SC members mind. |
Hang in there Sam,
You my not be able to reverse the DQ of this shot at this point, but the debate and the voting process on it just may improve the way the rule is currenty written. That is a victory my friend. |
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:29:45 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
The photo at hand didn't move any objects, he moved the pixels. |
...did I ever say the photo at hand was illegal? |
SO we should string up the other SC members who voted FOR the DQ? Names please. jk.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:30:01 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Gringo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted." |
Shannon, that would eliminate the legal use of fish-eye correction, perspective correction all kinds of things that are widely used. |
Well, not really... many editing tools move pixels. I believe that rule referred to moving objects around with respect to each other. |
Teh photo at hand didn't move any objects, he moved the pixels. |
adding to your post Brent, also by using that filter which moved the pixels, I dont think that a major part of the image was moved its still there, but also the bird to me is the major part of the image and the filter used just makes the image pop more. Its an awesome image and I have seen more images on here win or did not win but are not DQ'ed and it clearly seen in these images that they have been well as dpc says it advance editing was done. I could understand if the background was completely removed and replaced by another.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:30:40 PM · #190 |
| Im with sprite777 on this one. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:32:44 PM · #191 |
I guess for me it's not as much as the rules being vague as it is the allowing sometimes and not allowing others.
Be consistent. Even a dog would get confused by all the back and forth. If it's illegal, go back and DQ all the shots. If it's not, keep them.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:33:32 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
OK... Just to bring up the point again (buried down below)
Still waiting on a response...
Directed to muckpond
The image in question had a radial blur filter and hue adjustments done to the background only and according to the rules... the filter can be applied to the entire image or a part of the image. The background is still discernable, the filter did not change the fact that it was a "wooded background". |
i'm not sure what response you are waiting on here. i consider a major element to be something that you mention when describing the photo. however you describe sam's photo, you would probably comment on the blur or the motion effect or what have you.
to that end, if it's major enough to be in the description of the photo, i consider that a major element. i don't think a "major element" has to be something literally captured in the frame; rather, i think that effects/filters/techniques/pixelmovements/whatever that are ADDED in the post-processing can be elements as well.
and, as i've said before, my votes on these shots HAS been consistent. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:34:31 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
OK... Just to bring up the point again (buried down below)
Still waiting on a response...
Directed to muckpond
The image in question had a radial blur filter and hue adjustments done to the background only and according to the rules... the filter can be applied to the entire image or a part of the image. The background is still discernable, the filter did not change the fact that it was a "wooded background". |
i'm not sure what response you are waiting on here. i consider a major element to be something that you mention when describing the photo. however you describe sam's photo, you would probably comment on the blur or the motion effect or what have you.
to that end, if it's major enough to be in the description of the photo, i consider that a major element. i don't think a "major element" has to be something literally captured in the frame; rather, i think that effects/filters/techniques/pixelmovements/whatever that are ADDED in the post-processing can be elements as well.
and, as i've said before, my votes on these shots HAS been consistent. |
...albeit consistantly wrong. An element and an effect are different. A tree is an element. A mountain is an element. If I through some background blur on an image to make the main focus of the image to pop a little more, what am I adding? An effect.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 15:39:21.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:39:04 PM · #194 |
Moving back to pragmatics rather than theoretics, here's how I see it.
The best, easiest, and clearest rules would be to list exactly which filters are disallowed. Those filters then should be disallowed period. The rest of the filters should then be allowed to whatever effect the creator desires.
Will this prevent some great photos? A few, but there are millions out there. Will this allow some digital art? Some, but not many, especially the more filters you eliminate.
Personally, I would allow Gaussian Blur, all noise filters (add or subtract, NI, noise ninja), and all sharpening filters. The rest...out the window. Could you Gaussian a background into oblivion? Sure, but it never looks as good as a nice DOF.
Clone, burn and dodge would remain in the subjective realm of SC vote. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:40:11 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Moving back to pragmatics rather than theoretics, here's how I see it.
The best, easiest, and clearest rules would be to list exactly which filters are disallowed. Those filters then should be disallowed period. The rest of the filters should then be allowed to whatever effect the creator desires.
Will this prevent some great photos? A few, but there are millions out there. Will this allow some digital art? Some, but not many, especially the more filters you eliminate.
Personally, I would allow Gaussian Blur, all noise filters (add or subtract, NI, noise ninja), and all sharpening filters. The rest...out the window. Could you Gaussian a background into oblivion? Sure, but it never looks as good as a nice DOF.
Clone, burn and dodge would remain in the subjective realm of SC vote. |
If you allow one blur why not the others?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:42:12 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If you allow one blur why not the others? |
Perhaps because they do not closely simulate an in-camera effect, but rather create "digital art" like the current example. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:42:44 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If you allow one blur why not the others? |
For one, this whole argument would have disappeared. There are simple enough darkroom techniques to mimic gaussian blur. The others, less so.
The point however, is to either totally allow or disallow a filter. I just posted my opinion on which I'd keep, but that's just my opinion. I'd abide by any clearly stated rules and be glad for it. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:44:45 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Why not let the voters decide on them? |
Voters have no way of knowing the effect was creating in PS. How would you feel if you actually managed a good motion blur in-camera and got beaten by someone who just drew it in? |
Great point here.
Those with more $$ to invest in software or more time to dabble in their software shouldn't be able to buy their way up the ladder really. I decided to pull this shot out of the Wildlife II challenge BECAUSE I feared it would have been poorly received as a PS effect rather than in-camera (as it was). It should be about the creativity in the eye of the photographer, and this is a photography site ater all. Software should be used to enhance, clean up, adjust, sharpen, crop, etc, but not make an image something it never was to begin with. The rules here have given a lot of lattitude in the regards as to what is allowed, and some push it a bit too far, myself included. |
My problem with this is you are defining 'photography' as essentially everything that happens up until the shutter opens and then closes again. In your description above, the photography has then stopped.
Otherwise, if this was a photography site and photography was everything up until the final jpeg was saved, then this wouldn't be a problem.
If the decision is to define dpchallenge as 'digital photographic capture challenge' then maybe that would be valid.
But look at the history of photography. It doesn't end with a press of the shutter. For many of the classical 'masters of photography' they weren't even half done in creating their photographic image.
Some see the shutter button as the end of the process, others see it as the start. In either case the end result is often a photograph and the process is photography.
If those with more to invest can buy better cameras to buy their way up the ladder, why shouldn't the same be true for those that invest in their darkroom and darkroom skills, digital or otherwise ?
The cyborg and flying carpet shots are fine examples - so the photographers printed out their photoshop layers and stuck them on/ under their subjects and then rephotographed it - is that suddenly better, more ethical, a better learning experience, etc than just doing it in photoshop like most sane people would do these days ? There really isn't a difference other than how the effect was achieved. The end result would be the same - is one a photograph and the other 'cheating' ?
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 15:46:58. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:49:14 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Moving back to pragmatics rather than theoretics, here's how I see it.
The best, easiest, and clearest rules would be to list exactly which filters are disallowed. Those filters then should be disallowed period. The rest of the filters should then be allowed to whatever effect the creator desires. |
This flat out doesn't make sense. Why blame the tools ?
Guns don't kill people, people do...
Crowbars are used by thieves
and many other similar arguments.
Never mind the impossibility of listing or approving every
version of every tool in every variation of photoshop, PSP, gimp, ImageMagik, Picassa, Iphoto + all the plugins available.
Not sensible, nor practical.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 03:50:12 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
Filters: At your discretion, you may apply filters to your photo, in whole or part. (Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.)
He followed the rules. If you don't like the rules, change them, but you can't just ignore them because you don't like them.
You can't tell someone that the speed limit is 65 and then give them a ticket for going that fast! |
Regarding this analogy, close examination of the traffic laws would support SC position on this DQ. There is what is called the "absolute" speed law (posted maximum = 40mph, whatever) and the "basic" speed law (prohibits driving at an unsafe speed regardless of the posted limit). An officer may cite you for speeding even IF you were traveling at less than the posted speed if conditions are such that your speed was clearly unsafe. An example would be driving on the freeway at 50mph in a fog that limited your visibility to 50 feet.
That's what SC is dealing with here. Our "basic speed law" has to do with a loosely-defined concept of "photographic integrity" and our "absolute speed limit" has to do with which tools are allowed in the toolbox at all. Those who are arguing for "one size fits all" in the use of filters that distort (either you CAN or you CAN'T use filter "X") are in many ways arguing for increased complexity of rules, because if we are to presume that any filter NOT on a "banned" list is completely legal then we will continually find ourselves being pushed by new developments in imaging software, and it will become a full-time job for someone in authority to stay abreast of all developments and make before-the-fact rulings on their legality.
Instead we ask the members to keep in mind the goals of the site, its basic premises, and police themselves. Inevitably, there will be disagreements, and this is why we have SC and their voting process. That SC are not unanimous in these votes, and that some votes take a long time to resolve, is a good thing, not a bad one. It means that both sides are being represented fairly effectively.
Even in the Law, there is ample precedent for overturning precedent; it happens with some frequency, especially as societies and technologies grow and change. Sometimes, arguably, if a trend seems to be manifesting that is moving the site away from its stipulated goals, it may be necessary to make what appears to be an inconsistent judgment (as based on earlier judgments) to reverse the trend and get back on track.
I don't envy SC their jobs. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, a lot of the time.
Robt.
|
|
