Sound IV Results Recalculated - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

01/04/2024 07:47:28 PM · #1

The former Blue Ribbon entry was DQ'd for adding an element that didn't exist in the original. Congratulations to the new Ribbon and HM winners.

tate

Apple iPhone 14 Pro

01/05/2024 12:10:06 AM · #2

I just wanna say that I'm glad we are DQing people. Rules inspire creativity. <3

01/05/2024 07:07:21 AM · #3

OK, I am engaging here to object - I don't know if this is the right place. But I really, really thought this through when I did it and when I submitted it.

Some time ago I asked something regarding Standard editing (sorry, can't remember the detail, I ALWAYS ask stuff :-D), and I was told "you can use any filter". I specifically photographed the needles in my original image so I could apply the filter to the needles. I could have applied a motion blur to the needles and masked the "stripes" out - there are many ways to achieve this. I did NOT "draw a new line" to create the sound waves (which is what the video does). I used my needles to apply the filter to them (to 1 of them to be precise).
I was also told I can colour any element of my image as much as I like (paraphrasing). So I coloured the wave, not the ear phones.

I did not add anything that wasn't there before, I merely transformed it.

Message edited by author 2024-01-05 07:08:15.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

01/05/2024 09:31:30 AM · #4

Hi Gaby.

Just some thoughts from one SC person ...

When I first viewed your image when voting I thought it was a pair of earbuds sitting on top of a printed piece of artwork.

I was quite shocked upon viewing your original for validation after rollover. I was looking at a photo of two earbuds (one next to, and the other sitting on top of, a pair of knitting needles). In essence, you replaced the knitting needles with something entirely different that did not exist in the original photo. We allow removal of an object, but it has to be replaced with what would show behind the object once removed (which would be just a black background in this case). Yes, filters are allowed, but not to create new objects.

It would be awesome if you cared to share your original with the audience here to give some background to what is being discussed.

Best regards,
Barry

GinaRothfels

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

01/05/2024 09:51:43 AM · #5

Originally posted by glad2badad:

When I first viewed your image when voting I thought it was a pair of earbuds sitting on top of a printed piece of artwork.

I thought the same. Would that have been legal?

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/05/2024 10:05:25 AM · #6

Originally posted by GinaRothfels:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
When I first viewed your image when voting I thought it was a pair of earbuds sitting on top of a printed piece of artwork.

I thought the same. Would that have been legal?

It's debatable.
Here's the actual rules for that ...

Common Editing Ruleset
You may ...
"include existing artwork in your entry, but photo-realistic artwork such as printed photos, monitor images or realistic illustrations must either be clearly presented as artwork or used only as a minor supporting element. Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification."

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/05/2024 10:48:22 AM · #7

You should bring back this rule, because you are using it even though you're not stating it anymore:

"use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

01/05/2024 11:12:26 AM · #8

Originally posted by posthumous:

Ahh, nope.
The basis for the DQ here was the creation of a "new" object. It is true that there was a physical object in the original that was used as a basis or starting point for the colored "waveform" however the changes applied to it essentially rendered it a completely different object.
Resurrecting the quoted rule would re-open a big can of worms, and limit editing in ways we have determined are not value-added. The current rules have proven imminently workable; there are few cases where we have to debate "how much change is too much?"

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/05/2024 01:41:42 PM · #9

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by posthumous:
You should bring back this rule, because you are using it even though you're not stating it anymore:

"use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

Ahh, nope.
The basis for the DQ here was the creation of a "new" object. It is true that there was a physical object in the original that was used as a basis or starting point for the colored "waveform" however the changes applied to it essentially rendered it a completely different object.
Resurrecting the quoted rule would re-open a big can of worms, and limit editing in ways we have determined are not value-added. The current rules have proven imminently workable; there are few cases where we have to debate "how much change is too much?"

oh, I see. the rule is You may not... create a new object. Hmm.... I don't see that....

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/05/2024 02:51:01 PM · #10

Originally posted by posthumous:

oh, I see. the rule is You may not... create a new object. Hmm.... I don't see that....

Here's the problem, or one of them anyway: We've been allowing people to create gradients to darken skies, or vignettes to darken corners. Some would argue "That's something that wasn't there before, not legal!" But it's an accepted "photographic" technique from the time of printmaking. We're allowing people to create a catchlight in a portrait subject's eyes. We're allowing the use of various distortion filters to morph shapes a bit (or a lot), considering these to be within the realm of photography because, so far, folks have morphed stuff into exaggerations of itself, if you get my drift?

In other words, we're trying, and have tried for a long time, NOT to be anal nit-pickers and stifle photographers' creative visions.

Still, the key needs to remain "photography" or we need to explicitly change what this site is and what it does. We took a big step when we loosened the standard editing rules and they've worked well for us. We took a big step when we created, and opened up even wider, expert/extended editing, which allows people to combine photographic work with more graphical work whilst still remaining photography-centered.

If we look the other way and allow this creation of a major defining feature of the image out of whole cloth, which is basically what's happened here, we've left standard editing behind and gone into extended territory.

So in a sense, this is the same argument we've been having about allowing AI in DPC submissions; do we remain a site for "photography", and how do we define "photography"?

I'd be the first to acknowledge that, the way things are developing in the real world, we may find that we need to somehow expand our criteria to incorporate new approaches and techniques, but it's not an easy task and we're not ready to make that leap yet.

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

01/05/2024 03:51:58 PM · #11

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

In other words, we're trying, and have tried for a long time, NOT to be anal nit-pickers and stifle photographers' creative visions.

Thank you for not picking my nits anally, Bear.

:)

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

01/06/2024 11:41:25 AM · #12

So, nitt picking and all that ... From what I have understood:

If I had photographed a strip of white paper between the earbuds and subsequently masked it OUT (with a wave created as I have, but inverted to create a mask ... that would have been legal??

Message edited by author 2024-01-06 11:48:34.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

01/06/2024 12:29:12 PM · #13

Originally posted by kasaba:

Nope.
You can remove whatever you want, but you cannot in doing so create a new object in the image. The Standard Rules are not about how something is done, only the end result. Wholesale creation of content by any method is disallowed, with the following exceptions:
- Creation of background to fill in after removal of an object (must be consistent with what would have been there in the first place)
- Creation of small areas to fill blank areas near canvas edges after corrections such as perspective

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

01/06/2024 01:22:49 PM · #14

never mind

Message edited by author 2024-01-06 13:30:27.

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

01/06/2024 01:32:15 PM · #15

Originally posted by vawendy:

never mind

Didn't give a guy a chance to respond. :-)

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

01/06/2024 01:50:54 PM · #16

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by vawendy:
never mind

Didn't give a guy a chance to respond. :-)

Decided not to weigh in. You guys were handling it fine.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/06/2024 01:59:21 PM · #17

Originally posted by kirbic:

You can remove whatever you want, but you cannot in doing so create a new object in the image. The Standard Rules are not about how something is done, only the end result. Wholesale creation of content by any method is disallowed, with the following exceptions:
- Creation of background to fill in after removal of an object (must be consistent with what would have been there in the first place)
- Creation of small areas to fill blank areas near canvas edges after corrections such as perspective

This is pretty good. I don't see it in the rules. You should put it in.

01/08/2024 01:39:55 AM · #18

[quote=kirbic]

The Standard Rules are not about how something is done, only the end result.

OK, I like this explanation the best ....
Still leaves a gazillion holes, but it is the best so far.
Thanks for engaging. I know I am a little "out in the left field" in DPC ;-). I just see photography a little different to most of you. :-)

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

01/08/2024 04:15:38 PM · #19

Originally posted by kasaba:

...I just see photography a little different to most of you. :-)

Different is good!