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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Please help define a "major element"?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 78, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/05/2005 12:30:21 PM · #51
On the other hand, there's a fair amount of space taken by that trashcan, and it had to be replaced by "created" elements--a fair amount of bushes. Doesn't that matter?

Just stirring the pot.
 04/05/2005 12:35:43 PM · #52
Originally posted by nshapiro:
On the other hand, there's a fair amount of space taken by that trashcan, and it had to be replaced by "created" elements--a fair amount of bushes. Doesn't that matter?

Just stirring the pot.


A fair question. If there had been a large, evil, green-eyed pig boar edited into the spot where the can was, that would have been "adding a major element". When the element removed is considered minor, then cloning in detail to match the surrounding detail has been allowed, as long as the cloned-in detail is sourced from within the image (single-image rule) and is meant to blend in and thus does not become a major element itself.
04/05/2005 12:36:43 PM · #53
Originally posted by skiprow:
...i cloned out and replaced some words that changed the context of the post. now, my post in this thread is a bit more presentable. have i changed a 'major element'


Keep going. Most people WOULD notice the can as "part" of the image. I said they wouldn't focus on it as the subject of the photo, nor would anyone in my office apparently. It's not about the trash can, and the primary subjects do not depend on the trash can for their impact.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 12:37:57.
 04/05/2005 12:37:28 PM · #54
Good explanation, Kirbic.
 04/05/2005 12:42:38 PM · #55
As for the rule of "major element".... this is becomming complicated. It seems that the rule should read...... Just take your chances.
 04/05/2005 01:05:53 PM · #56
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
On the other hand, there's a fair amount of space taken by that trashcan, and it had to be replaced by "created" elements--a fair amount of bushes. Doesn't that matter?

Just stirring the pot.


A fair question. If there had been a large, evil, green-eyed pig boar edited into the spot where the can was, that would have been "adding a major element". When the element removed is considered minor, then cloning in detail to match the surrounding detail has been allowed, as long as the cloned-in detail is sourced from within the image (single-image rule) and is meant to blend in and thus does not become a major element itself.


Yes, but there might have been one behind the trash can, waiting to attack if the trash can were removed--and now, we have a serene scene with only bushes. So we've actually removed a possible major element--the evil pig boar. ;)
 04/05/2005 01:09:17 PM · #57
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
On the other hand, there's a fair amount of space taken by that trashcan, and it had to be replaced by "created" elements--a fair amount of bushes. Doesn't that matter?

Just stirring the pot.


A fair question. If there had been a large, evil, green-eyed pig boar edited into the spot where the can was, that would have been "adding a major element". When the element removed is considered minor, then cloning in detail to match the surrounding detail has been allowed, as long as the cloned-in detail is sourced from within the image (single-image rule) and is meant to blend in and thus does not become a major element itself.


Yes, but there might have been one behind the trash can, waiting to attack if the trash can were removed--and now, we have a serene scene with only bushes. So we've actually removed a possible major element--the evil pig boar. ;)


Qh, that's actually a good point. Suppose the trash can were a blue-painted boulder, ugly as hell. Can't move it, but it may be a major element. I just happen to have a cammo tarp with me; throw that over the boulder, it's now a minor element, and i can clone it out...

sigh...

LOLOL

R.
 04/05/2005 05:34:17 PM · #58
Originally posted by undieyatch:
As for the rule of "major element".... this is becomming complicated. It seems that the rule should read...... Just take your chances.


Actually it seems much clearer now...

Major Element:
Any element of the composition that is relevant to the main subject and that, by its removal or replacement, alters the fundamental character of the original image.

Size, shape and or prominence of the element does not matter, only its relevance to the composition does. The ability to physically remove or not remove the element and what might be behind it are inconsequential (except that another major element of the composition could not be cloned in to replace it).

Think back on the other images recently DQed for removing major elements and it all makes better sense now.

In all cases it is best to remove distracting elements from the composition BEFORE taking the picture.

But Noooooo... I had to utter those immortal last words, "I can take it out later in Photoshop!"

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 17:36:47.
 04/05/2005 05:50:38 PM · #59
That's a very good summary, Steve.
 04/05/2005 06:03:14 PM · #60
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's a very good summary, Steve.

ditto that!

Originally posted by stdavidson:
But Noooooo... I had to utter those immortal last words, "I can take it out later in Photoshop!"

i like the idea of carrying around a cammo tarp and throwing it across whatever ;-)
 04/05/2005 06:36:19 PM · #61
Originally posted by bear_music:

The concept of "major element" can be seen in two ways; one definition would be "how noticeable is it?", and the other would be "How important is it to the essence of the scene?"

--snip--

It's not really important, IMO, whether or not the trash can COULD have been removed; it's just that the can really has nothing to do with subject or topic of the picture, and thus it's minor, or extraneous. I feel the same way about telephoen wires.

Robt.

Bear, how does this then relate to KDO's DQ'd image? Her couch had nothing to do with the subject or topic of her picture. It just happened to be behind her. Its size forced her to do a lot of work to remove it, but it was most certainly not what she was trying to photograph.

We're back to the art vs reality argument, I think.

Just taking my turn with the ladle. ;p
 04/05/2005 07:06:24 PM · #62
Originally posted by aronya1:
Her couch had nothing to do with the subject or topic of her picture. It just happened to be behind her.


I disagree. The couch was an essential part of the scene. Don't believe me? Think of it this way... KDO's final entry could be reasonably described as a woman on a white background, right? Is that how you would describe her original? It's no longer in her portfolio, but I doubt that anyone would ever consider the original a woman on a white background. Obviously, a major element was removed that affected the essence of the photo. That would be the couch.



Steve's final image could be reasonably described as a row of mailboxes in a desert scene. Most people would describe the original the same way. I think the confusion stems from people trying to define "major" as a percentage of the image area or some concrete measure of noticeability. It's more a matter of common sense in determining how important an element is to the composition and essence of the photo. It's difficult to articulate, but Steve's last post was a pretty good outline.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 19:16:21.
 04/05/2005 07:09:08 PM · #63
This has been an excellent thread! Especially with pictures (before and after) I've only entered one challenge....but I had wanted to take out the lampost that was in it...but I was afraid it might not be legal(plus I'm still learning/figuring out PSE2)

I will be printing this thread out! Thanks!!!
 04/05/2005 07:20:21 PM · #64
Originally posted by scalvert:

I disagree. The couch was an essential part of the scene. Don't believe me? Think of it this way... KDO's final entry could be reasonably described as a woman on a white background, right? Is that how you would describe her original? It's no longer in her portfolio, but I doubt that anyone would ever consider the original a woman on a white background. Obviously, a major element was removed that affected the essence of the photo. That would be the couch.


I think you're taking that one statement a little out of context.

I was referring to Bear Music's post, where he said, "It's not really important, IMO, whether or not the trash can COULD have been removed; it's just that the can really has nothing to do with subject or topic of the picture, and thus it's minor, or extraneous." Based on that difinition, KDO's couch was extraneous. Just ask her.

The couch was not the subject or the topic of the image she intended to portray.

I don't disagree with the DQ. There was virtually nothing else in her picture but her & the couch. I'm just questioning Bear's position. Actually, in the example image in this thread, the garbage can annoys the crap out of me, so I'd have to call it a major part of the shot, even though it's obviously not intended to be.
 04/05/2005 07:45:58 PM · #65
Kust let me caution that I'm not really "taking a position" on KDO's (or any other) image. A DQ is a DQ, it's arrived at fairly by definition; i.e. SC studies and votes, and the result it what it is. I'm just studying, as it were, the permutations here. In effect the position has been taken that the background couch was a more important element, in that picture, than were the model's cheeks and forehead in the "eye" picture.

And, for what it's worth, it had been pointed out in the thread on KDO's image that had she thrown a white sheet over the couch before shooting, the removal of the resultant white BG element would not have been questioned...

Essentially, in traditional photographic terms, both images have been "vignetted", and so the decisions would seem to suggest you can legally vignette similalrly-toned elements but not contrasdting elements...

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 19:49:52.
 04/05/2005 07:54:14 PM · #66
I'm a little nervous now. Here is my very first challenge submission:



Here is the original:



Did I go too far in my editing? Was the duckie a major element??
 04/05/2005 08:00:11 PM · #67
LOL

I don't believe that a duckie is ever a major element.
 04/05/2005 08:02:08 PM · #68
Nor do I believe the duckie was in the original... :-)

R.
 04/05/2005 08:03:32 PM · #69
Robt.

I understand completely. Please also understand that I'm not trying to cause problems, either. That post you made just struck me & I felt the need to comment.

Gotta go for the day. "See" you all tomorrow.
 04/05/2005 08:05:39 PM · #70
No, of course not, we're talking abour duckies now, of offense can possibly be taken... jejeje�

R.
 04/05/2005 08:22:07 PM · #71
Originally posted by bear_music:
...it had been pointed out in the thread on KDO's image that had she thrown a white sheet over the couch before shooting, the removal of the resultant white BG element would not have been questioned...


...because then it would have been a woman on a white background- the same basic description as the final entry.
 04/05/2005 09:00:35 PM · #72
I'm following along with the reasoning except the swans on the water. (Sorry to bring it up.) The original was swans on the water. The edited was swans in a puddle in a snowstorm. I'm truly not being sarcastic. I would like to understand.
 04/05/2005 09:05:52 PM · #73
Marjo, the original was swans on a white background. The entry was swans on a whit[er] background. The texture was so close to white to begin with that fading it out further didn't change the essence of the photo.

I hope I'm not getting on anyone's nerves by "debating" the issue too much. ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 21:11:57.
 04/05/2005 09:11:52 PM · #74
That helped. I just couldn't get past thinking water was a major element. White water and swans I understand. :D
A beautiful image, btw.
 04/05/2005 09:42:49 PM · #75
I'm finding this thread very helpful. There is some amount of judgement involved and to understand it deeply, it seems you have to have a strong working knowlege of the cultural history and judicial precedence of works near the dividing line.

Don't mean to change the topic, but I wonder if there is an analogous thread on 'literal representation' vs 'creative interpretation' of existing 'works of art?'
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 11:15:15 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 11:15:15 AM EDT.