Please help define a "major element"?

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/05/2005 10:09:29 AM · #1

Advanced challenge rules states:
"Selective Editing: Adjustments can be made selectively to your photo. Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."

The terms "minor distracting element" and "major element" are not commonly defined photographic terms and are also not defined in DPC rules beyond this statement.

Below is an original and post processed image. The garbage can in the original could be considered a "minor distracting element" or a "major element" of the composition.

1-Is the garbage can a "major element" of the composition?

2-If it is not a "major element" how do you know? If it is a "major element" then how do you know that?

What do you think?

Original:

Post Processed:

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 10:12:34.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

04/05/2005 10:14:26 AM · #2

Hmm, I seem to have driven that road recently...

Minor element, IMO. Removing the can has no effect on how I would describe the image. In both cases the image is of mailboxes with a desert backdrop. The presence of the can adds virtually nothing to the scene, and removing it does not change the scene in any dramatic way.

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/05/2005 10:16:32 AM · #3

I agree with Kirbic.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/05/2005 10:19:42 AM · #4

i would consider it minor

04/05/2005 10:20:27 AM · #5

Originally posted by kirbic:

Thanks... To summarize you are saying:

1-Is the garbage can a "major element" of the composition?
NO

2-If it is not a "major element" how do you know? If it is a "major element" then how do you know that?
It is not a major element because "removing it does not change the scene in any dramatic way"

Sounds fair enough to me. :)

Other opinions?

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 10:21:32.

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

04/05/2005 10:21:03 AM · #6

I agree with Kirbic, too. This image is about mailboxes in the desert. The blue garbage can may be large and obvious, but it doesn't play a lead role in the story, nor does it change the composition significantly if removed. Like a telephone wire or dust speck, it looks like something that was obviously not intended to be a part of the photo.

Firsty

Fujifilm X-E1

04/05/2005 10:21:03 AM · #7

I think it is borderline in this shot... tending on major element

but what worries me more is that when you were taking the shot, the blue of the bin must have stood out. So why didn't you walk the 6 feet to the bin and move it then take your shot and put it back when finished

but that said I like the final shot with the bin removed :)

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

04/05/2005 10:21:13 AM · #8

That's the way I see it, too. Minor element. Again, the composition or photo is of the mailboxes and scenery. The trashcan shouldn't have been there. Just like a piece of trash blowing by or a beer bottle.
Talk about lazy, though, why not just move it in the first place! Just joking! Good post. This seems to be a pretty big concern and confusing for many.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

04/05/2005 10:27:26 AM · #9

Originally posted by Firsty:

If I may so bold, I will try and summarize your answer...

1-Is the garbage can a "major element" of the composition?
YES

2-If it is not a "major element" how do you know? If it is a "major element" then how do you know that?
It is a major element because the garbage stands out and could easily have been moved before taking the shot

That answer has legitimacy to.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 10:28:59.

srdanz

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

04/05/2005 10:34:15 AM · #10

If it makes any sense... if the final image was color, I would tend to consider it a major element (as it stands out bright blue), but with the b/w version, I agree with SC that it is a minor element.

my .02

Firsty

Fujifilm X-E1

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

04/05/2005 10:38:04 AM · #11

Originally posted by stdavidson:

to clarify it a bit more
1 yes major (just) :)

2 because even though the bin is in the background and smaller by perspective it is physically larger than your main subject the mailboxes and that makes a major item (again just)
but this effect would diminish if the same amount of bin had been shown but a further 20 feet away

I don't envy the SC their job

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/05/2005 10:39:50 AM · #12

The garbage can might have been easily moved, or it might be chained to a boulder just outside the frame. Maybe there was a doberman tied up within range of the can, or a rattlesnake coiled underneath. I don't think that's the issue, though. The important thing to me is that it clearly was not intended to be part of the composition. The photo is not "about" mailboxes and a garbage can.

Now to muddy things up... if the camera had panned a little more to the left, then my opinion would likely change. The garbage can would be a more important compositional element and play a bigger "role" in the scene. If more centered, the can becomes a primary element rather than an unfortunate distraction.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

04/05/2005 10:43:49 AM · #13

Originally posted by scalvert:

...Now to muddy things up... if the camera had panned a little more to the left, then my opinion would likely change. The garbage can would be a more important compositional element and play a bigger "role" in the scene. If more centered, the can becomes a primary element rather than an unfortunate distraction.

I think this hits the mark. It's not how much area something takes, up, or whether it stands out in color or B+W, it's how it is perceived. That perception does vary with the observer. That's why we have (currently) 14 SC members and two admins reviewing these.
BTW, in my original post, I did not consider whether the can could have been moved. I assumed that the photo was posted for demonstration pourposes. The can could easily have been a blue-painted boulder.

04/05/2005 10:45:15 AM · #14

what about these two?

i added a solid color layer to the top of the image and changed the opacity.

1) would this be legal under advanced editing?
2) is an empty, almost colorless sky a 'major element'?

04/05/2005 10:49:19 AM · #15

I don't think you can replace an element, but you can certainly enhance it. The original sky did have some tone in it, but it was a gradation rather than a solid color. You could shift the color of the sky or burn it in, but not replace it totally with a flat color. That would be "adding artwork." This is why I tend to underexpose images slightly- you can usually adjust what's there, but you can't add lots of pixels that aren't in the original.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 10:58:01.

Beetle

04/05/2005 10:53:59 AM · #16

Keep it up, folks, this is very helpful for learning.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

04/05/2005 10:58:12 AM · #17

Originally posted by scalvert:

You could shift the color of the sky or burn it in, but not replace it totally with a flat color. That would be "adding artwork."

so you would consider any type of 'fill' to be 'artwork'? is that how the sc would interpret it?

kdkaboom

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

04/05/2005 11:01:07 AM · #18

I agree. And furthermore, I think there should be sample photos (befores and afters) for do's and do not's. It might lessen the amount of threads about what is/isn't allowed in the editing rules.

Originally posted by Beetle:

Keep it up, folks, this is very helpful for learning.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/05/2005 11:03:29 AM · #19

in the first example, i think it is a major element - but i also understand that it's a judgement call (that's why there are several SC's to vote) - but I would vote major.

04/05/2005 11:03:35 AM · #20

Originally posted by skiprow:

so you would consider any type of 'fill' to be 'artwork'? is that how the sc would interpret it?

Yes, flling in a large area like that would prompt a DQ in my [non-site council] opinion. There may be exceptions, such as painting a transparent mask to adjust an underlying color, but simply coloring an area with a paintbrush or fill as the final result is not allowed.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 11:04:41.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/05/2005 11:12:38 AM · #21

Originally posted by scalvert:

simply coloring an area with a paintbrush or fill as the final result is not allowed.

ok, not to completely nitpik (and just playing da)...

if you have a portrait of a person, close in (i apologize for not having a ready example, but try to bear with me), and you wanted to enhance the catchlights in their eyes...

which of these would be legal
1) you use clone tool to replace darker areas with lighter areas
2) you use an overlay layer filled with 50% gray and paint in the eyes
3) you select the eyes and make a layer that you adjust
4) you use the dodge tool

and so on. you could use a lot of different methods to wind up at the same place. the issues are knowing which would be legal and also, how to tell the difference as to which method was used

edit: clarification

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 11:13:42.

Canon EOS-20D

04/05/2005 11:15:12 AM · #22

Originally posted by skiprow:

so you would consider any type of 'fill' to be 'artwork'? is that how the sc would interpret it?

I believe the precedent for this has been, and other SC may correct me if I'm wrong, that it's okay to fill an area of solid color with another solid color. It is not okay to fill an area with detail, say a sky with clouds, with a solid color. And I believe it's not okay to use gradients either.

04/05/2005 11:19:19 AM · #23

Originally posted by hopper:

in the first example, i think it is a major element - but i also understand that it's a judgement call (that's why there are several SC's to vote) - but I would vote major.

Can you identify why you think the garbage can is a "major element", please?

The idea here is to help us clarify in our own minds what a "major element" is and perhaps spare someone an unpleasant discovery by having their ribbon winning entry DQed.

04/05/2005 11:19:33 AM · #24

Originally posted by mk:

...it's okay to fill an area of solid color with another solid color.

Good point. That would essentially be the same as shifting the color of the existing area. If the filled area removes image details that were already there, then that potentially becomes a "major element" issue.