| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2014 08:14:23 AM · #1 |
I posted this photo in the color discussion, and it's caused a bit of tangential discussion, so I thought I'd split it off and discuss it here. The photo in question...
...was taken as a part of the Mondrian Challenge. My teammates at the time thought it might be DQ'd because of the "editing techniques creating a new image area" rule, so I pinged the Site Council and was informed that, indeed, it would result in a DQ because even though the boundary lines are predefined, adding color takes what was formerly part of the wall and makes it stand out - i.e. a new image area. They recommended I post this up for discussion afterwards, but other circumstances made me want to avoid another heated and (probably) pointless rules discussion at the time, so I didn't.
But, it seems others share my view that this image should not be DQ'd, were it entered, and so, better late than never, I put this in front of you now. I understand, but strongly disagree with the SC's assessment of whether or not the coloring creates a new image areas in this particular photo. I believe that the pre-existing black lines make for many white image areas and the selective coloring of any of them is no different than the selective coloring allowed allowed under the advanced and expert editing rules. I have not subdivided any area that did not exist previously (much pointed was made to the partially colored rose photo in our team discussion).
What say you all? |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 08:25:21 AM · #2 |
As mentioned in previous thread, I just can't agree with the ruling on this as DQ. You've not created any new image area that wasn't already there.
I think this ruling puts the whole "defined area" concept onto a slippery slope as you can't get more defined than this. Very grey and murky area.
For the life of me this skirts dangerously close to selective coloring which is perfectly permissible. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 08:38:36 AM · #3 |
| Can you post a link to the unedited original, for comparison? |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 08:40:12 AM · #4 |
Original SOOC
...and yes, the over-darkening of the windows was discussed as another potential DQ and would have been changed in the final edit, so let's avoid that rabbit hole.
Message edited by author 2014-08-30 08:41:21. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 08:45:07 AM · #5 |
My understanding of new image area (and I have been DQ'd because of it before - so I am extra careful) was that one had to step out of natural boundaries within the picture. In my own Mondrian entry I changed the hue, saturation and luminosity of existing image areas in the image - no colour filling:
If I was wrong then my perception of that rule needs to change. I'm happy for someone to report the image as a test case. I'll take the DQ if it is found to be so. For the record, I don't believe the image in the OP is anywhere near a DQ - the image areas that have been coloured are very well delineated and thus manipulating the colour of the pixels is I would contend as legitimate as any form of selective colouring or selective desaturation technique. It's miles way from the arguments around using the technique to create new shapes through the application of selective editing with a brush.
As ever, I feel these discussions are helpful and contribute to clarity for all.
Paul |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 08:45:33 AM · #6 |
| Over thinking it, if I'd acquiesce to ANYTHING on the side of a DQ it MIGHT be the use of adjacent squares of the same color since the combination of multiple squares COULD be seen as a new shape. But otherwise? |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 09:16:22 AM · #7 |
I, too, thought that you could change the colour of things so long as you coloured within the lines.
This was my entry in the Mondrian challenge, and I was upfront about what I did in my notes. It wasn't challenged by anyone.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2014 09:32:28 AM · #8 |
Oh, good discussion. Glad you brought this up. My own Mondrian entry was DQ'd - at my request but it would have been anyway. I sent the original to SC but no longer have it as I really don't like the image anyway :) Here's the entry: 
Basically, the red/yellow/blue bar across the top is one board; and the blue/white/red/yellow bar across the bottom is one board. IMO, those should all have been a single color. I simply cannot remember exactly how the rest of the image played out. If anyone on SC still has the original I sent and thinks it would be helpful to post it here, within my post or in a separate post, you have my permission to do so.
I'm sure about the bottom: the blue/white/red/yellow strip is all one board which I divided into four spaces with color. I'm also sure that the dark brown trapezoid in the center left was one board. I'm pretty sure the top was also one board that I divided into three spaces. I can't remember whether the little red triangle belonged to the yellow rectangle above it or the black rectangle beside it :(
I don't think  backdoorhippie's entry should have been dq'd. Had I just added different colors to each section of board as it showed in the original, I don't think mine should have been dq'd either. But given what I did, I'd say it's a definite dq
|
|
|
|
08/30/2014 09:37:13 AM · #9 |
| Window edit was a dq. Wall should have been legal. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 10:55:55 AM · #10 |
Disagree. Window has been darkened, but still maintains all the detail, so no DQ.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2014 11:13:36 AM · #11 |
For the record, here's the exchange between Jake and me on the ticket he sent in. Bear in mind that the entire discussion was between the two of us: no other SC were involved. Think hard about the hypothetical example of a highly-detailed brick wall and "treating each brick as a pixel", and where we need to draw the line here.
Originally posted by bear_music:
Jake, that would be pushing it way past where the rule makes any sense. Look at it this way: assume the wall were a regular, unfeatured brick pattern, then you could do what you're proposing to create a trompe l'oeil doorway into a courtyard and view of vineyards and mountains or something: the wall is an underlying, defined matrix to manipulate as you saw fit.
So, it's ingenious (and lovely, be SURE to show it after voting) but your team mates are right: it wouldn't be allowed. |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
I appreciate the prompt response, but I just want to be clear on what I'm showing (in the original image the left image is unedited, the right is the change). The only thing I've done is alter the color of select bricks on a brick overlay that exists on the building as-is. The gaps in the white brick-face that reveal the underlying bricks exist. I'm trying to figure out how this is any different than the selective desaturation in an image like this...
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=780788
...or the altering of the colors in the abdomen in this image...
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=832997
...as mentioned in this thread...
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1038516
I'm not questioning your answer as much as I want to understand it, because I am in no way adding content, just altering color, which as I read it is well within the rules provided I am not creating any new area (the brick lines are already defined). Like the fly, I am merely adding color to a predefined area, so I don't see how this could ever be confused with making an addition such as a trompe l'oeil.
|
Originally posted by bear_music:
But you ARE adding content, by producing a pattern, a distinct one, that did not exist before. We HAVE do draw the line somewhere, Jake. Think about my extreme example: photograph an immense, featureless brick wall, and then use the matrix to create a pattern, and image, a message, whatever, that had not existed before: every brick of the wall becomes a pixel, so to speak, and there's no limit to what you can do. That's not "photography" in the sense we're promoting it here.
Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to accept Roz's re-imagined fly, because she's giving us, IMO, a "feature" ("striped abdomen") that had not existed before. On the other hand, the CRAYON shot is totally OK simply because is's REMOVING color from units where color had existed, but not producing a pattern that had not existed.
Of course, this is all just MY opinion, and I'm the junior SC here :-) |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
OK, I think I'm understanding your point a little more. So what you're saying is that the colored blocks form a new pattern by emphasizing a pattern that, while already there in the original, is not a recognizable pattern on its own in the original because it blends in with the others. I get it, completely. Thanks for the explanation. |
Message edited by author 2014-08-30 11:14:47. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 11:19:31 AM · #12 |
| If changing colors is allowable so long as nothing is moved within the photo, then IMO the wall image should not be a DQ anymore than Paul's building. I don't think the amount/type of color shifting can be quantifiable as the rule stands now. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 11:24:00 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
If changing colors is allowable so long as nothing is moved within the photo, then IMO the wall image should not be a DQ anymore than Paul's building. I don't think the amount/type of color shifting can be quantifiable as the rule stands now. |
We're being slightly mislead by having this presented as "new image area": it's about "new features". Do you think we should have let Jake spell out "DPC" on that wall by coloring tiles? |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 11:28:36 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
If changing colors is allowable so long as nothing is moved within the photo, then IMO the wall image should not be a DQ anymore than Paul's building. I don't think the amount/type of color shifting can be quantifiable as the rule stands now. |
We're being slightly mislead by having this presented as "new image area": it's about "new features". Do you think we should have let Jake spell out "DPC" on that wall by coloring tiles? |
I don't think Jake would have wanted to use the blocks to do that, but maybe that's the difference. Creating his new pattern would have been fooling the viewers. But if you don't DQ an orange dress that's altered to purple and entered into a purple challenge, idk where to draw the line, |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 11:33:57 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
I don't think Jake would have wanted to use the blocks to do that, but maybe that's the difference. Creating his new pattern would have been fooling the viewers. But if you don't DQ an orange dress that's altered to purple and entered into a purple challenge, idk where to draw the line, |
PERSONALLY, I have issues with using photoshop to make unpurple things purple in a purple challenge as well, but we are gonna solve THAT by making all "color challenges" minimal in the future.
Message edited by author 2014-08-30 11:34:42. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 11:40:47 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
PERSONALLY, I have issues with using photoshop to make unpurple things purple in a purple challenge as well, but we are gonna solve THAT by making all "color challenges" minimal in the future. |
Ha! Now there's an idea I would heartily applaud!
|
|
|
|
08/30/2014 11:57:45 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For the record, here's the exchange between Jake and me on the ticket he sent in. Bear in mind that the entire discussion was between the two of us: no other SC were involved. Think hard about the hypothetical example of a highly-detailed brick wall and "treating each brick as a pixel", and where we need to draw the line here.
Originally posted by bear_music:
Jake, that would be pushing it way past where the rule makes any sense. Look at it this way: assume the wall were a regular, unfeatured brick pattern, then you could do what you're proposing to create a trompe l'oeil doorway into a courtyard and view of vineyards and mountains or something: the wall is an underlying, defined matrix to manipulate as you saw fit.
So, it's ingenious (and lovely, be SURE to show it after voting) but your team mates are right: it wouldn't be allowed. |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
I appreciate the prompt response, but I just want to be clear on what I'm showing (in the original image the left image is unedited, the right is the change). The only thing I've done is alter the color of select bricks on a brick overlay that exists on the building as-is. The gaps in the white brick-face that reveal the underlying bricks exist. I'm trying to figure out how this is any different than the selective desaturation in an image like this...
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=780788
...or the altering of the colors in the abdomen in this image...
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=832997
...as mentioned in this thread...
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=1038516
I'm not questioning your answer as much as I want to understand it, because I am in no way adding content, just altering color, which as I read it is well within the rules provided I am not creating any new area (the brick lines are already defined). Like the fly, I am merely adding color to a predefined area, so I don't see how this could ever be confused with making an addition such as a trompe l'oeil.
|
Originally posted by bear_music:
But you ARE adding content, by producing a pattern, a distinct one, that did not exist before. We HAVE do draw the line somewhere, Jake. Think about my extreme example: photograph an immense, featureless brick wall, and then use the matrix to create a pattern, and image, a message, whatever, that had not existed before: every brick of the wall becomes a pixel, so to speak, and there's no limit to what you can do. That's not "photography" in the sense we're promoting it here.
Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to accept Roz's re-imagined fly, because she's giving us, IMO, a "feature" ("striped abdomen") that had not existed before. On the other hand, the CRAYON shot is totally OK simply because is's REMOVING color from units where color had existed, but not producing a pattern that had not existed.
Of course, this is all just MY opinion, and I'm the junior SC here :-) |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
OK, I think I'm understanding your point a little more. So what you're saying is that the colored blocks form a new pattern by emphasizing a pattern that, while already there in the original, is not a recognizable pattern on its own in the original because it blends in with the others. I get it, completely. Thanks for the explanation. |
|
I understand the logic here - bit this feels like new information. A new interpretation of what a new image area is. It seems to me we are now talking about new meta-areas, not just new areas.
Yes, under the rules, spelling out DPC on a brick wall should be regarded as legal if done by respecting the natural boundaries of the image. It is no different to desaturating all but one brick. If one, why not more, if more, then I can spell anything I like.
It's a new meta-area that offends, nothing to do with new areas - I would contend this is a new (or at least newly revealed) interpretation.
We then get on the slippery slop of asking 'when is a meta-area a new feature'? Surely my interpretation of staying within the natural boundaries within an image is an easy rule to apply and to adhere to. Trying to police this 'new' interpretation would seem to be more difficult and more controversial.
Robert, with respect I think you have extrapolated from the actual rule to something that I acknowledge represents the spirit of the rule BUT is not the rule.
Very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss it here though, and appreciate the dialogue/multilogue.
Cheers
Paul
(Composed on my iPhone so sorry if there are errors)
|
|
|
|
08/30/2014 12:20:00 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Robert, with respect I think you have extrapolated from the actual rule to something that I acknowledge represents the spirit of the rule BUT is not the rule.
Very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss it here though, and appreciate the dialogue/multilogue. |
That's certainly a viable point of view, and it's why I encouraged Jake to post this up. I'm not alone on SC in seeing it this way, BTW. My main concern at the time was to be sure Jake didn't get DQd during the team challenge, and this was/is a highly debatable image.
But PLEASE everyone, remember we are not talking about "new image area" here, we are talking about "new features". Here's the relevant rule:
You may not: 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).
All discussion of meta-patterns (a fascinating intellectual concept but an infinitely malleable one) aside, it's my contention that creating prominent, highly visible patterns out of underlying, subliminal patterns is introducing a new feature to the image, so I think that ruling IS within the rule itself. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 12:43:14 PM · #19 |
Just to add another SC point of view...
As Bear noted, "New image area" has a specific meaning that's not relevant here: adding pixels outside the originally captured frame. This is about adding new features, and the image in question would be dancing precariously on a narrow gray area. The rules say you can change the color of any object, but you can't use ANY editing technique to create new features. While colorizing an object for a color challenge is its own can of worms, at least in those cases they tend to be "blue thing-that-already-existed" to "orange thing-that-already-existed." Here, the individual tiles already existed, but the colorized result creates a new, recognizable thing (a Mondrain painting) which did not. I suspect that could be a very close split decision if sent for validation, and Bear was advising against it out of caution. I would have done the same. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 12:44:36 PM · #20 |
You've sold me on the feature issue.
How do you square that with any form of selective desaturation - the mapping of the feature to a physical object? I.e If a feature that emerges from an act of editing does not remain with the clearly visible parameters of a defined image area then it should be regarded as illegal?
That works for me as a logic.
It's difficult with abstract patterns though isn't it - given what you've argued and my acceptance of the argument I believe my Mondrian should be considered for DQ. I'll amend my understanding of the rule. Thanks for the opportunity to talk this through.
Cheers
Paul |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 12:57:58 PM · #21 |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 01:31:57 PM · #22 |
Shannon, I'm not sure how the first example failed. I assume it's because Paul colored the lip. But, by coloring in the lip, new area wasn't created nor do I feel a new feature was created since the lip is clearly defined already.
Can you please expand on the reasoning? |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 01:37:19 PM · #23 |
The whole lip wasn't colored, just part of it... with an arbitrarily defined edge (shape) above the crayon. There was some discussion on the subject here.
Message edited by author 2014-08-30 13:41:48. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 01:45:18 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The whole lip wasn't colored, just part of it... with an arbitrarily defined edge (shape) above the crayon. |
Absolutely - Shannon took me through it at the time. It was a formative case for me. Once I saw the rationale, it helped me clarify the rule in my head. Had the crayon been a bit higher it could have provided a full edge that could have completed an existing image area that I could have kept saturated. |
|
|
|
08/30/2014 01:50:20 PM · #25 |
| Guess I can't see the edge of the crayon. So if the crayon had complete delineated the bottom lip, would it have been okay then? |
|
