"Filters: At your discretion, you may apply filters to your photo, in whole or part. (Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.) "
"Filters: At your discretion, you may apply filters to your photo, in whole or part. (Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.) "
which is nuts- and maybe hindsight is 20/20, because now we know that voters go cuckoo for altered looking photographs!
"Filters: At your discretion, you may apply filters to your photo, in whole or part. (Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.) "
also from the rules:
"use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s)."
Seems that this violates "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."
This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"
Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...
Seems that this violates "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."
This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"
Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...
This has been validated, so it can't be the same. In any case you haven't seen the original, so you can't say how much it has been removed.
This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"
No, it didn't. The only thing cloned out was a bit of one leg peeking out in the background.
Well, the SC obviously gets the final word on validity... but the change "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head" is still accurate. The leg in the background clearly made it a different image to the perception of the viewer.
Seems that this violates "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."
This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"
Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...
This has been validated, so it can't be the same. In any case you haven't seen the original, so you can't say how much it has been removed.
ETA: Scalvert and I have written together :)
I did not see where it had been validated -- it wasn't posted anywhere :)
Seems that this violates "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."
This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"
Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...
This has been validated, so it can't be the same. In any case you haven't seen the original, so you can't say how much it has been removed.
ETA: Scalvert and I have written together :)
I did not see where it had been validated -- it wasn't posted anywhere :)
You're right. mitalapo was a WPL friend so I knew he received a validation request and that the image was validated.
Seems that this violates "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."
This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"
Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...
This has been validated, so it can't be the same. In any case you haven't seen the original, so you can't say how much it has been removed.
ETA: Scalvert and I have written together :)
I did not see where it had been validated -- it wasn't posted anywhere :)
just updated the entry description to clarify this.
This is not the appropriate place to question validations since members who haven't seen the original files, validation votes and background discussions aren't really in a position to answer. Please submit such questions as tickets to avoid the speculation and confusion that arises from incomplete information or false assumptions.
Case in point:
Originally posted by klkitchens:
... but the change "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head" is still accurate.
That's not how the rule works. An image such as this looks essentially the same before and after editing, and a typical viewer's description would be "girl holding her own head" even in the original. The editing merely perfected an already convincing illusion. You couldn't clone out a wall to make an object levitate, but if you used nearly invisible fishing line the object would already look like it was hovering (even if close inspection revealed the support).
This is not the appropriate place to question validations since members who haven't seen the original files, validation votes and background discussions aren't really in a position to answer. Please submit such questions as tickets to avoid speculation and confusion.
Did that and never got an answer.
I think, at least in my case, I was curious how they pulled it off within the rules. I asked in a comment and I asked in a ticket. Like I said, it's a great photo, but like a magic trick could not figure out how it was achieved.
The SC ruled and said it was valid by the rules -- it was done as I expected (no magic) and would disagree with them that it met the rules, but that's all in good, honest disagreement.
As far as I can tell, you didn't. I just went through every ticket you ever submitted, and there were no such questions aside from your own inquiries about vignettes and fixing typos in challenge titles (all of which were promptly answered).
As far as I can tell, you didn't. I just went through every ticket you ever submitted, and there were no such questions aside from your own inquiries about vignettes and fixing typos in challenge titles (all of which were promptly answered).
You might be right... I think I did it on "Report Post" where the photographer answered how they did it... Since that included a "confession" of sorts (of something that apparently was ok to do), I did it that way to include that information.
I don't think its reasonable to say that cropping something out of a picture creates an improper illusion and is a violation.
Only what is left in the viewable area can create the DQ- not what has been cropped out. That's just an
unreasonably broad reading of the rule.
