| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/08/2007 12:59:20 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by breadfan35:
Originally posted by kirbic:
There's a strong sense in the community and on the SC that complete digital art is not what we wanted in that rule set. |
Then why create the Expert Editing rules set at all? What was wrong with just leaving the ones we had?
It seems to me that Expert Editing is just that, a Digital Art rules set. Or at least that is what it wants to be. If digital art isn't what you wanted, why create Expert Editing. |
Assembling pieces of photographs taken during the challenge period is not "digital art" -- it is photographic composition. I think Expert is intended to allow the photographer unlimited use of the photos they take during the specified time limits.
Using painting or editing tools to create shapes or images which never existed in any original frame captured during the challenge period *is* digital art, IMO, and is what we are trying to eliminate in some logical way which doesn't prohibit cloning out dust bunnies.
I don't care if someone wants to create a Warhol-like flock of birds, but it should have started as a photo of a bird taken during the challenge period. It should *not* be from an archival capture/clip art or painted-in from scratch, or by selectively editing pixels to create a new shape. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:01:30 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You guys make such a big deal over this. Clearly the rule is 'you may hand draw birds, but you may not hand draw stars'.
Come on guys. |
You've never made a mistake or changed your mind about anything? You must be a rare bird indeed ... |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:02:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You guys make such a big deal over this. Clearly the rule is 'you may hand draw birds, but you may not hand draw stars'.
Come on guys. |
You've never made a mistake or changed your mind about anything? You must be a rare bird indeed ... |
You made a mistake? Seems you all are in a position to easily correct it then. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:03:14 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You guys make such a big deal over this. Clearly the rule is 'you may hand draw birds, but you may not hand draw stars'.
Come on guys. |
That was exactly my thought.
This really needs to be a consistent ruling. Period. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:04:21 PM · #30 |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:16:15 PM · #31 |
Please remember that the expert editing rules have been a "trial" set of rules all along. We've been trying to sort out what to do about them. Yes, they were applied inconsistently. Human beings make mistakes.
As the expert rules are now, drawing in objects (stars, planets, birds) that are not originally part of a photo is DQable. All parts of the final image need to have basis in an actual digital photo. Textures are different than drawing in objects, although it is difficult sometimes to differentiate them. Bear's birds came early on, in the first expert challenge - it was a split (and contentious) decision. Since this is a trial set of rules, that decision should not be used as a precedent. At least that's the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:22:49 PM · #32 |
i think if you would have explained more how you added the stars, not just saying a tutorial, you could have watermarked a picture of stars in, or done a 50% occupacity of another picture to put them in, they might of DQ'd it cause you didnt give a good enough source as to where the stars came in from, brusing them in is as easy as putting a photo of a star in and softening and blending it into the background, probably be more clear next time as where they came in, just state hand drawn, if it was judged at this conclusion, there being no origional photo from where the stars are also would be taken into consideration, them are my thoughts. Jimbo:!)
Bear music stated for his winter sunset: "gull selections hand-drawn in PS on this layer"
silverfoxx stated for his n 27(07) Étude d'un femme vue en buste, inachevé:
"well, I combined three images here, plus lots of painting after."
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 13:26:01. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:29:36 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
i think if you would have explained more how you added the stars, not just saying a tutorial, you could have watermarked a picture of stars in, or done a 50% occupacity of another picture to put them in, they might of DQ'd it cause you didnt give a good enough source as to where the stars came in from |
As soon as I got the validation request, I linked SC to the tutorial and explained which parts of it I had used - and it's really very little more than I explained in the next sentence, about various sized brushes and opacities. The tutorial just got specific about the numbers.
That's not really what the argument is about, anyway.  ursula said it best, though I do think if there's going to be an all new interpretation or application of existing rules and precedents, then some kind of announcement should have been made beforehand. Expecting the entire site to disregard precendent for every challenge using a Trial ruleset is a bit much to ask, since it pretty much implies that the rules come second to SC's whims.
On the other hand, I can see where discussion might not necessarily have happened until mid-challenge when someone submitted the photo for validation.
Eh, I'm not all screaming mad about it. The photo is getting tons more views now than it would have if it had passed validation and landed somewhere on page five. ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 13:34:31.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:33:57 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
i think if you would have explained more how you added the stars, not just saying a tutorial, you could have watermarked a picture of stars in, or done a 50% occupacity of another picture to put them in, they might of DQ'd it cause you didnt give a good enough source as to where the stars came in from |
As soon as I got the validation request, I linked SC to the tutorial and explained which parts of it I had used - and it's really very little more than I explained in the next sentence, about various sized brushes and opacities. The tutorial just got specific about the numbers.
That's not really what the argument is about, anyway. ursula said it best, though I do think if there's going to be an all new interpretation or application of existing rules and precedents, then some kind of announcement should have been made beforehand.
On the other hand, I can see where discussion might not necessarily have happened until mid-challenge when someone submitted the photo for validation.
Eh, I'm not all screaming mad about it. The photo is getting tons more views now than it would have if it had passed validation and landed somewhere on page five. ;-) |
In hindsight, yes, it would have been good to make some sort of an announcement on this. It wasn't made. I'm sorry about that.
FWIW, Rebecca, it's a beautiful image you made there :) |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:37:36 PM · #35 |
Can the popcorn challenge be expert editing?
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:38:42 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Can the popcorn challenge be expert editing? |
Hey, did you know that popcorn can make you very, very sick? I heard on the TV that microwave popcorn might need some expert editing in real life. |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:40:58 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by ursula:
As the expert rules are now, drawing in objects (stars, planets, birds) that are not originally part of a photo is DQable. All parts of the final image need to have basis in an actual digital photo. Textures are different than drawing in objects, although it is difficult sometimes to differentiate them. Bear's birds came early on, in the first expert challenge - it was a split (and contentious) decision. Since this is a trial set of rules, that decision should not be used as a precedent. At least that's the way I see it. |
So does that mean if someone hand draws something, takes a digital image of it, then applies that digital image to another image, it's allowed?
I know in the past there have been pictures taken in front of other pictures to get the combined effect, so I was just wondering.
Mike
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:41:10 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Can the popcorn challenge be expert editing? |
Hey, did you know that popcorn can make you very, very sick? I heard on the TV that microwave popcorn might need some expert editing in real life. |
Likely wasted words on someone who has a penchant for the solidified leavings of rotting milk... |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:42:34 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I heard on the TV ... |
Not a convincing start to a story for me. LOL. Much like, I read on the Internet....
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:49:42 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Originally posted by ursula:
As the expert rules are now, drawing in objects (stars, planets, birds) that are not originally part of a photo is DQable. All parts of the final image need to have basis in an actual digital photo. Textures are different than drawing in objects, although it is difficult sometimes to differentiate them. Bear's birds came early on, in the first expert challenge - it was a split (and contentious) decision. Since this is a trial set of rules, that decision should not be used as a precedent. At least that's the way I see it. |
So does that mean if someone hand draws something, takes a digital image of it, then applies that digital image to another image, it's allowed?
I know in the past there have been pictures taken in front of other pictures to get the combined effect, so I was just wondering.
Mike |
I don't know the answert to this right now. If it were a picture of a picture, yes, it's been done, and it's OK. But if the picture to include were one of a drawing or of created digital art, with the express intent to bypass the no drawing in of objects decision, I don't know. I don't have the answer right now. I'm hoping a wiser SC can come in and answer.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:53:29 PM · #41 |
I originally had the background I created as the background of this image. Someone reminded me that I'd get DQ'd for that, so I took a photo of my computer monitor :-)
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:55:29 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by ursula:
I heard on the TV ... |
Not a convincing start to a story for me. LOL. Much like, I read on the Internet.... |
Someone read it on the Internet .... |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 01:58:14 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by breadfan35:
Originally posted by kirbic:
There's a strong sense in the community and on the SC that complete digital art is not what we wanted in that rule set. |
Then why create the Expert Editing rules set at all? What was wrong with just leaving the ones we had?
It seems to me that Expert Editing is just that, a Digital Art rules set. Or at least that is what it wants to be. If digital art isn't what you wanted, why create Expert Editing. |
Assembling pieces of photographs taken during the challenge period is not "digital art" -- it is photographic composition. I think Expert is intended to allow the photographer unlimited use of the photos they take during the specified time limits.
Using painting or editing tools to create shapes or images which never existed in any original frame captured during the challenge period *is* digital art, IMO, and is what we are trying to eliminate in some logical way which doesn't prohibit cloning out dust bunnies.
I don't care if someone wants to create a Warhol-like flock of birds, but it should have started as a photo of a bird taken during the challenge period. It should *not* be from an archival capture/clip art or painted-in from scratch, or by selectively editing pixels to create a new shape. |
Just for the sake of argument, let me ask you this: suppose my birds in that shot had begun life as a photographed bird. Suppose I had cloned the single bird and pasted it several times. Then suppose I burned the snot out of each pasted bird so they were all black. Then suppose I used filters to warp the shape of the individual birds to create different articulations.
In no way is this bird any longer significantly "photographic" in nature. So I fail to see a real, qualitative difference between that workflow and just drawing the danged selections by hand. As far as I can see, you can photograph anything and morph it into anything legally. I can photograph a LEAF and morph it into birds and burn it black, but it's not cool just to draw the bird silhouettes?
I'm not complaining or anything, I just don't think it's that simple of a call, I don't see how it can be done rationally.
R.
But I've been known to be dense.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:02:11 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Bear's birds came early on, in the first expert challenge - it was a split (and contentious) decision. Since this is a trial set of rules, that decision should not be used as a precedent. At least that's the way I see it. |
And it's worth noting that I asked for a ruling from SC before submitting the image, so... They are just evolving the ruleset and I have no problem with that. I'm just not sure the distinction that is being drawn actually makes sense, if you can turn a leaf into a bird legally.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:02:33 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
So does that mean if someone hand draws something, takes a digital image of it, then applies that digital image to another image, it's allowed? |
Originally posted by ursula:
...I'm hoping a wiser SC can come in and answer. |
I'm not wiser, but I am a wise-ass!
IMO, as Leroy points out, a piece of artwork, no matter how it's displayed, can be used within a photo. That's true in Advanced, and it true in Expert. From the Advanced Rules:
You May:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:05:40 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
...., I just don't think it's that simple of a call, I don't see how it can be done rationally.
|
Well, usually SC is all there, analytical, balanced, calm, cerebral, circumspect, cognitive, collected, cool, deductive, deliberate, discerning, discriminating, enlightened, far-sighted, impartial, intellectual, intelligent, judicious, knowing, level-headed, logical, lucid, normal, objective, perspicacious, philosophic, prudent, ratiocinative, reasonable, reasoning, reflective, sagacious, sane, sensible, sober, sound, stable, synthetic, thinking, thoughtful, together, well-advised, AND wise, especially ratiocinative, but when it comes to parts of the expert rule-set we've just been going krazeeeeee :) |
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:06:37 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm not wiser, but I am a wise-ass!
IMO, as Leroy points out, a piece of artwork, no matter how it's displayed, can be used within a photo. That's true in Advanced, and it true in Expert. From the Advanced Rules:
You May:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph. |
In other words, draw the birds in photoshop (or any program for that matter), photograph the screen, and then copy the photographed birds into the finished work.
In other words, I could have used my EXACT IMAGE, taken a photo of it, removed the birds layer from the original, and pasted in THE EXACT SAME BIRDS legally because I'd have an exif'ed image of them.
Does that strike anyone as fairly ridiculous nit-picking, if we go in that direction?
R.
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:08:44 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm not wiser, but I am a wise-ass!
IMO, as Leroy points out, a piece of artwork, no matter how it's displayed, can be used within a photo. That's true in Advanced, and it true in Expert. From the Advanced Rules:
You May:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph. |
In other words, draw the birds in photoshop (or any program for that matter), photograph the screen, and then copy the photographed birds into the finished work.
In other words, I could have used my EXACT IMAGE, taken a photo of it, removed the birds layer from the original, and pasted in THE EXACT SAME BIRDS legally because I'd have an exif'ed image of them.
Does that strike anyone as fairly ridiculous nit-picking, if we go in that direction?
R. |
Welcome to positivist law theory!
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:10:46 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by ursula:
I heard on the TV ... |
Not a convincing start to a story for me. LOL. Much like, I read on the Internet.... |
Someone read it on the Internet .... |
Got it... sniffing popcorn bad...
|
|
|
|
09/08/2007 02:11:46 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm not wiser, but I am a wise-ass!
IMO, as Leroy points out, a piece of artwork, no matter how it's displayed, can be used within a photo. That's true in Advanced, and it true in Expert. From the Advanced Rules:
You May:
include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph. |
In other words, draw the birds in photoshop (or any program for that matter), photograph the screen, and then copy the photographed birds into the finished work.
In other words, I could have used my EXACT IMAGE, taken a photo of it, removed the birds layer from the original, and pasted in THE EXACT SAME BIRDS legally because I'd have an exif'ed image of them.
Does that strike anyone as fairly ridiculous nit-picking, if we go in that direction?
R. |
Yeah, it does.
The problem (as I and others I think too see it) with the expert ruleset as it is now is that it combines all sorts of stuff that maybe should not be together. True HDR (combining multiple exposures in high contrast situations for one correct overall exposure) can be done only in expert right now, and it seems weird to have it, a very valid way to go about stuff in photography, together with drawing in of birds.
But, as said before, the expert ruleset is a "trial ruleset". It will change.
BTW - "ridiculous" is the new cool, like those wedding dress trashing parties.
Message edited by author 2007-09-08 14:12:40. |
|
