| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2023 10:02:08 PM · #1 |
I've been around here for awhile now. Have seen plenty of interesting and awesome work entered in challenges over the years.
Since joining Site Council I've have the opportunity to see behind the curtain that comes with the process of validating the
Top 5 images from every challenge. Let me tell you ... WOW! There are some very talented artists on this site. If you're
one of those that I'm refering to, don't worry, you're secret recipes are safe. :-)
I thought it might be a worthy project to work through some of the editing rules together. Hopefully this will be helpful to
some of you. I know I've looked at editing with a different outlook since learning more about what we're allowed to do (or not).
Not that I'm any good at it yet, but I do have a bit more freedom to try ideas now.
So ... images will be posted with a before / after presentation, and the ruleset to apply it against.
My fellow SC peeps will be helping with this, and if we run into something that needs time to digest, we'll collaborate and present
our findings.
Discussion and ideas are encouraged. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
05/11/2023 10:04:43 PM · #2 |
Standard Ruleset
Original:  ... Edit: 
Legal or not?
ETA - Ruling
Message edited by author 2023-05-12 09:10:51. |
|
|
|
05/11/2023 10:16:11 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Original: ... Edit:
Legal or not? |
I'd say illegal. Though out of focus, the person removed is a major element of the scene that would likely be part of someone's description of the scene: "A dog with 2 people in the background". |
|
|
|
05/11/2023 10:56:21 PM · #4 |
I’d think that it would not be acceptable with the Standard Edit rules because it’s more than an incidental part of the scene.
Message edited by author 2023-05-11 22:57:23. |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 12:49:27 AM · #5 |
I'd think that it would be acceptable with Standard Edit rules because they allow one to "use cloning or similar tools to remove unwanted objects from your image. Objects removed must be replaced with with what actually would be visible if the distracting object were not there in the first place."
I'm not sure where the "incidental part of the scene" or "major element of the scene" comes in. I don't see this in the rule guidelines.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2023 01:22:05 AM · #6 |
| I recall a few years back (before the editing rules had been updated) someone said he would show the image to his child and if the element he wanted to remove was in the kid's description, it was too major to be removed. That may no longer apply, but I still use it as a rule of thumb for standard editing. |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 06:26:18 AM · #7 |
| Two votes for NOT legal, One vote says it is a legal edit. Any more takers before the reveal? |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 06:59:19 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by nam:
I'd think that it would be acceptable with Standard Edit rules because they allow one to "use cloning or similar tools to remove unwanted objects from your image. Objects removed must be replaced with with what actually would be visible if the distracting object were not there in the first place."
I'm not sure where the "incidental part of the scene" or "major element of the scene" comes in. I don't see this in the rule guidelines. |
I have to agree with this. If this edit is not an intended result of the rules then they need to be rewritten. |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 07:24:48 AM · #9 |
Based on this rule it would appear legal to me. On that basis you could remove both people.
"use cloning or similar tools to remove unwanted objects from your image. Objects removed must be replaced with with what actually would be visible if the distracting object were not there in the first place." |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 08:46:28 AM · #10 |
| It's my understanding that the rules were loosened and you pretty much can get rid of anything as long as you are replacing it with what would be the actual background. Which still seems a little bit loose, in my opinion, but I believe that's what the rules state now. |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 08:59:56 AM · #11 |
I think that is permitted
I'm fully on  P-A-U-L's side |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 09:06:45 AM · #12 |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 09:08:10 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
It's my understanding that the rules were loosened and you pretty much can get rid of anything as long as you are replacing it with what would be the actual background. Which still seems a little bit loose, in my opinion, but I believe that's what the rules state now. |
Quite a change, I’m thinking of when it was limited to things like telephone wires. |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 09:17:33 AM · #14 |
| Well, I guess I may be more flexible with my object removal in the future! |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 09:19:21 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Well, I guess I may be more flexible with my object removal in the future! |
 |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 11:43:37 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Well, I guess I may be more flexible with my object removal in the future! |
|
That's a primary goal of this thread. Barry came to the realization that many members are not aware of how much less restrictive the rules are now. A BIG thanks to him for proposing and implementing this topic!
Message edited by author 2023-05-12 11:44:21. |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 06:00:13 PM · #17 |
Round 2
(please pardon my quick and clumsy editing - it's the concept I'm going for)
Standard Editing ruleset
Original:  ... Edit: 
Legal or not? |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 06:48:02 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Round 2
Legal or not? |
Legal. Just the flick of a switch. ;-) |
|
|
|
05/12/2023 10:07:30 PM · #19 |
| Although the bulbs were there before, this seems that a major element has effectively been added that wasn't there previously. I'm on the border over this as it can be considered just a color change. But I'll go with legal I got ripped up and down many years ago for a shot where I only did a color change but it made leaves and smoke look like flames and explosions. But SC validated it as legal. |
|
|
|
05/13/2023 03:42:08 AM · #20 |
I cannot see anything in the common or standard editing rules prohibiting a selective edit like this so assume it is legal
I did note that Extended editing rules include the following
You may
“Use any feature of image processing software to manipulate/enhance the images in your submission.”
Perhaps some clarification is needed how standard editing differs on this rule |
|
|
|
05/13/2023 04:18:23 AM · #21 |
| It's a major element. I'm not convinced it's legal. |
|
|
|
05/13/2023 07:26:41 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by GinaRothfels:
It's a major element. I'm not convinced it's legal. |
Where in the rules does it mention "major element"? I have seen a few people refer to "major element" so perhaps I am being blind and missing this rule. |
|
|
|
05/13/2023 08:20:26 AM · #23 |
| I'm thinking it's legal, since it's just a color change (from what I can see.) Old rules seem to say that a color change on an object was ok as long as you weren't introducing a new object (coloring part of the lips, but not the whole lips, I believe was one instance where it wasn't ok) |
|
|
|
05/13/2023 08:39:29 AM · #24 |
| I used similar ideas on many of my entries, never been DQ'd on those that made it to top 5. It is just a localized highlight, although I usually had only one streetlight, the goal was to change the boring daytime to a nice night atmosphere. |
|
|
|
05/13/2023 10:03:37 AM · #25 |
| Wow. All I can say is things sure have changed with the rules! This should be fun! LOL |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/16/2024 01:15:28 PM EDT.
