| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/16/2012 01:31:29 PM · #1 |
I questioned an image the other day after Free study results were posted, and I was just told that the image was validated. I'm not sure how in any sense of the rules it could possibly have been validated. Can someone explain this to me?
 This is the Free study winner And with it he has one of the originals posted  there are people at the base on the left side of the Arch. If those people moved out so he could take the second image, that breaks the rules. There has been many precedents set to uphold that. If he cloned them out, that is major elements, as it certainly would change the image in a big way.
So can someone including SC help me understand what I'm missing in the rule that states.
You may not
combine captures of different scenes, move or change a feature between frames, or combine different captures to create a new scene.
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 technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:35:25 PM · #2 |
I'm with you on this one.
I'm trying to find the example which comes to mind that got DQ'ed.
A duck/goose on a pond which was only in one of the combined exposures, except in that case (s)he left it in.
edit - Found it.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 13:40:06. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:36:50 PM · #3 |
i guess i agree with you, and this discussion is good becuase i would not have done that in fear of a DQ.
if a new precedent has been set, all should know.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 13:37:13. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:41:36 PM · #4 |
I agree with the Site Council. I figured this would be the image that was questioned on validity via another thread. Here are my thoughts on those rules:
* combine captures of different scenes, move or change a feature between frames, or combine different captures to create a new scene. - I imagine the bold part is what is the concern here. To me, I don't see the person in the frame as a feature. It's more of an incidental like a leaf blowing through.
* 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. - The bold part is what I find to be the key factor here again. That person isn't a big part of the image, and as a typical viewer, and removing them doesn't change my description of the photo.
* use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s). - I am not sure why this is in question, that didn't happen at all as far as I can see.
This will be one of those discussions that is fun to watch. :) |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:44:26 PM · #5 |
I've cloned people out of images if they were not key to the integrity of the image (major element). I think that applies here. The people are very small and definitely not the focal point of the image.
In this one
If you look in the photographers notes, you'll see that some of the original images have people in the lower left corner. They are not in all the images. I removed them after the images were combined. They were ghost-y and had moved during the exposures.
In the one with the swan, the swan IS the major element, therefore the rule kicked in.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 13:48:41. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:47:07 PM · #6 |
| i didnt even notice the people |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:48:33 PM · #7 |
I'm trying to find a recent image where people in the background were cloned out and it was considered major elements, even though they weren't the focal point of the image either. They did change the perception of the image, just as the people at the base of the arch does IMHO.
He also would have had to create the part of the arches that weren't in the image to begin with(being blocked by the people) and that is an element being created that is a big part of the image.
Matt |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 01:56:22 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
I agree with the Site Council. I figured this would be the image that was questioned on validity via another thread. Here are my thoughts on those rules:
* combine captures of different scenes, move or change a feature between frames, or combine different captures to create a new scene. - I imagine the bold part is what is the concern here. To me, I don't see the person in the frame as a feature. It's more of an incidental like a leaf blowing through.
* 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. - The bold part is what I find to be the key factor here again. That person isn't a big part of the image, and as a typical viewer, and removing them doesn't change my description of the photo.
* use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s). - I am not sure why this is in question, that didn't happen at all as far as I can see.
This will be one of those discussions that is fun to watch. :) |
technically, if you use the pictures, the rules would permit "cropping out the bottom of the same scene, no?"-
by the letter of the law- it exempts "cropping and color change" from the list of tools that "move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph [b]that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph"
Seems like a case of combining two shots of the same scene, and cropping high on one and cropping low on the other- not permitted?
eta: is there a clear agreed definition of "the same scene" or "different scenes?"
Don't tell me that if you slide the tripod 2 mm to the left its a different scene- but if you take a picture during sunshine and leave it there and take a night shot its still the same scene? is it?
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 14:05:11. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:01:44 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by giantmike:
I agree with the Site Council. I figured this would be the image that was questioned on validity via another thread. Here are my thoughts on those rules:
* combine captures of different scenes, move or change a feature between frames, or combine different captures to create a new scene. - I imagine the bold part is what is the concern here. To me, I don't see the person in the frame as a feature. It's more of an incidental like a leaf blowing through.
* 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. - The bold part is what I find to be the key factor here again. That person isn't a big part of the image, and as a typical viewer, and removing them doesn't change my description of the photo.
* use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s). - I am not sure why this is in question, that didn't happen at all as far as I can see.
This will be one of those discussions that is fun to watch. :) |
technically, if you use the pictures, the rules would permit "cropping out the bottom of the same scene, no?"-
by the letter of the law- it exempts "cropping and color change" from the list of tools that "move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph [b]that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph"
Seems like a case of combining two shots of the same scene, and cropping high on one and cropping low on the other- not permitted? |
The scene cannot change is the discussion that was had prior. when combining images. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:16:08 PM · #10 |
This is a very interesting case, and one that I think is deserving of discussion. First, let me say that my *personal* view is that this should be legal, but based on past history, I don't see how it is.
When we made the change to allow multiple exposures in Advanced, the result of SC discussion was clear; any removal of objects that appear in one image but not in another was verboten. So in this case, apparently there has been some significant discussion and the outcome is different. I think that, all things considered, this is a very positive thing (see my personal views above). I do hope that the SC chimes in here and lets us know whether the validation of this image means that we have a little wiggle room on things that appear on only one frame of a stack. And if so, we need guidance on where the limits are.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:20:20 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
This is a very interesting case, and one that I think is deserving of discussion. First, let me say that my *personal* view is that this should be legal, but based on past history, I don't see how it is.
When we made the change to allow multiple exposures in Advanced, the result of SC discussion was clear; any removal of objects that appear in one image but not in another was verboten. So in this case, apparently there has been some significant discussion and the outcome is different. I think that, all things considered, this is a very positive thing (see my personal views above). I do hope that the SC chimes in here and lets us know whether the validation of this image means that we have a little wiggle room on things that appear on only one frame of a stack. And if so, we need guidance on where the limits are. |
I agree it "should" be legal, but based on the last discussion that was had when combining images it "can't" be. Allowing multiple images of the SAME scene was allowed for larger dynamic range in the images presented. However as in the past things could not change or be removed from one image to do so.
All that said, if there is in fact a change in how the rule is interpreted, then it needs to be told so that everyone can do it. Otherwise the prior discussion should hold merit and this image be DQed.
Matt |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:20:41 PM · #12 |
what people are saying is why couldn't they be combined, not removed, and then cloned out as incidental?
be clear - is the problem with the fact that the people were not in one of the scenes so it is per se an illegal use of multiple scenes? or are they two big a feature to clone out? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:21:42 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MattO:
I'm trying to find a recent image where people in the background were cloned out and it was considered major elements, even though they weren't the focal point of the image either. They did change the perception of the image, just as the people at the base of the arch does IMHO. |
I submitted an edit of this image for SC review as a potential submission for "Vintage." I had removed the people, and was told that in most cases removal of people, even though they might be small and inconsequential to the composition, was usually not allowed.
|
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:28:15 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
technically, if you use the pictures, the rules would permit "cropping out the bottom of the same scene, no?"-
by the letter of the law- it exempts "cropping and color change" from the list of tools that "move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph [b]that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph"
Seems like a case of combining two shots of the same scene, and cropping high on one and cropping low on the other- not permitted?
eta: is there a clear agreed definition of "the same scene" or "different scenes?"
Don't tell me that if you slide the tripod 2 mm to the left its a different scene- but if you take a picture during sunshine and leave it there and take a night shot its still the same scene? is it? |
The cropping/scene in a situation like that is supposed to remain consistent. The application of HDR as a rule is intended strictly to effect dynamic range.  Bear_Music provides a good rundown of the evolution of the rule here
So, if you're doing HDR, I don't think it's within the intent of the rules to crop one vs the other.
Now, you note 2mm changes, which are incidental and allowed. This is where things get gray. What is too much movement? Discretionary. I'm not sure about leaving your camera for an immense amount of time... as I'm pretty sure that would be deemed changing the scene, since it would change lighting. HDR is intended to show the lights and darks of a scene that are simultaneously seen by the viewer in person but are incapable of being represented by the dynamic range of a single digital capture.
Myself, I'd say the people were mostly incidental, but I'd definitely hesitate if I was doing it myself, as I try to be pretty careful about that simply because it is a gray area.
Message edited by author 2012-08-17 00:08:09. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:42:06 PM · #15 |
| The obvious image that comes to mind in this case is the art image of the guy in th wheel chair alongside a classic car that had a few people cloned out from the background surely this is the same thing?? That image got a DQ. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:44:14 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bobby-Liston:
The obvious image that comes to mind in this case is the art image of the guy in th wheel chair alongside a classic car that had a few people cloned out from the background surely this is the same thing?? That image got a DQ. |
That is the image I was trying to find. Do you know who's image it was? |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:45:13 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Bobby-Liston:
The obvious image that comes to mind in this case is the art image of the guy in th wheel chair alongside a classic car that had a few people cloned out from the background surely this is the same thing?? That image got a DQ. |
That is the image I was trying to find. Do you know who's image it was? |
No sorry and I'm on my phone which is why I didn't find it. But t was one of the art or best of 2011 / 2012 challenges I think. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:47:35 PM · #18 |
The key issue here IMHO was the major element rule. Humans are so conditioned to look for other humans in an image that no matter how few pixels they take up, if those few pixels are a person it has a much greater impact than if it was a bird of a tumbleweed.
In Damon's posted originals we can see that people wandered into the scene, but had he cloned them in instead of out it would have probably been a violation. Given the "swan rule" if an element wanders into the frame of a sequence, do you have any choice but to remove them? Or ought the rule be that you may not use any image that has any element which move from frame to frame in an HDR? To my way of seeing removing moving elements is the only viable option if you can't keep everything in the frame static. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:48:10 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Bobby-Liston:
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by Bobby-Liston:
The obvious image that comes to mind in this case is the art image of the guy in th wheel chair alongside a classic car that had a few people cloned out from the background surely this is the same thing?? That image got a DQ. |
That is the image I was trying to find. Do you know who's image it was? |
No sorry and I'm on my phone which is why I didn't find it. But t was one of the art or best of 2011 / 2012 challenges I think. |
Sorry my stepsons been on my phone checking his score lol I
Made the previous two comments :) |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:49:02 PM · #20 |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:51:33 PM · #21 |
 Image DQ'd because the people cloned out were as large/prominent in the image as the subject person (guy in the wheelchair). Also, the mist was added in post. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:52:53 PM · #22 |
| yeah i read the description, that one seemed obvious. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:54:08 PM · #23 |
A tricky image, but basically giantmike had it right IMO. We've validated numerous images where a leaf or bird or plane blew through over a burst of frames and the scene didn't otherwise change. If such an element had been kept, as in the swan example, then I would consider that a selective application of something that changed between frames rather than a distraction that "blew through." Sort of like shooting a series of sky photos and keeping a rainbow that appeared in one. Actually, the sky is a bit dicey in this regard since that's something that arguably DID change in the scene, not just a camera setting to handle exposure or DOF, but I suppose there were enough similarities in both to give the benefit of doubt.
We've also ruled that you can't take a series of photos from a crowded street and clone out the people as they move from frame to frame to make a ghost town because that isn't what the otherwise unchanged scene looked like (there would be people in every shot). In Kirbic's example, the guy standing in front of the plane was just a little too prominent to be considered a minor distraction, while in this case the tiny people are nearly hidden in the shadows. Like a moving leaf or passing bug, they just weren't significant enough to change the scene or be considered a major element. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:58:25 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by MattO:
I'm trying to find a recent image where people in the background were cloned out and it was considered major elements, even though they weren't the focal point of the image either. They did change the perception of the image, just as the people at the base of the arch does IMHO. |
I submitted an edit of this image for SC review as a potential submission for "Vintage." I had removed the people, and was told that in most cases removal of people, even though they might be small and inconsequential to the composition, was usually not allowed. |
I found the ticket where you asked us this, and saw your edit had ALL the people removed. Clearly a different scenario than what we are debating here. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:59:12 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by MattO:
I'm trying to find a recent image where people in the background were cloned out and it was considered major elements, even though they weren't the focal point of the image either. They did change the perception of the image, just as the people at the base of the arch does IMHO. |
I submitted an edit of this image for SC review as a potential submission for "Vintage." I had removed the people, and was told that in most cases removal of people, even though they might be small and inconsequential to the composition, was usually not allowed. |
I found the ticket where you asked us this, and saw your edit had ALL the people removed. Clearly a different scenario than what we are debating here. |
Were not all the people removed the the image we are discussing? |
|
