The results of the 'Best of 2012' challenge have been recalculated, due to the disqualification of the former 4th place image for both adding new features & removing major elements. Congrats to our new honourable mentions!
As I don’t understand, it would be kind if someone could explain with a few words if the crop tool was used illegally or the border was responsible for the disqualification. I put the original image also, to make clear for everyone what the illegal move in processing was.
Thank you in advance, Paschalis
I don't believe it is the crop. I suspect it was the border. If it was a white or black border, you would've been okay, but your choice of border makes it look as though you have expanded the original image.
I don't believe it is the crop. I suspect it was the border. If it was a white or black border, you would've been okay, but your choice of border makes it look as though you have expanded the original image.
I don't think that's it. It's clearly a border. But I think it was the way the border was made.
I don't believe it is the crop. I suspect it was the border. If it was a white or black border, you would've been okay, but your choice of border makes it look as though you have expanded the original image.
I don't think that's it. It's clearly a border. But I think it was the way the border was made.
I think you are correct, it's how the border was made. Which is somewhat ridiculous because he could have just as easily created the border with a gradient and it would have been fine.
Add border - produced by blurring a copy of the image, resize it and put it at the background
Originally posted by DQ Reason:
You may not 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), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.
You may not use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photographTHAT WOULD CHANGE A TYPICAL VIEWER'S DESCRIPTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH (aside from color), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.
Isn't the continuation of that sentence the important part?
That's sad. It probably took more work to make the border using a copy of the image, than it would have to use a gradient. Both would look identical, yet the easier method is legal.
I have a feeling this disqualification follows the letter of the rule, not the intent of the rule. Then again with limited time (freely donated) from the site council, I don't know if determining "intent" for each rule violation is feasible.
To me, this rule warns off doing fancy stuff in borders. To me it says, "no image as a border."
Originally posted by Rule:
You may not: add graphics, clip art, computer-rendered images or parts of other photographs to your entry or its border during editing (except for combining photos as allowed by the multiple capture rules above).
Well, in fact I didn't duplicate an element of the photograph, but I used a blurred copy of the same photograph as a border. So no element is duplicated... From an other sight, if this disqualification is correct, then the point of view of the whole image is changed with any kind of border, but only this style is forbidden (as it seems). Furthermore, as Venser pointed, the typical viewer's descrpition of the image don't change when the specific border is added. I still don't understand.
Finally my opinion is that an image should be disqualified when everything illegal is absolutely clear. When serious doubts are arising, this should act in favor of the image, not in favor of its disqualification.
Just my humble opinion, thanks again (everyone) for your time.
I know the rules states you cannot reproduce elements of the photograph but it also states for the reason of not changing the typical viewer’s description of the photograph. To me that implies not to extend the photograph beyond what it originally was (e.g. to extend the sky up to achieve better balance). To me this is clearly a boarder and the actual photograph has not changed (and I believe I’m a typical viewer). I have never said this before, but I feel SC may not have applied the intent of the rule in this case. I’m happy to be corrected.
Well I was on SC for four-plus years, and I would certainly have voted that this was legal. There is nothing but a gradient in the border. I don't care *how* it was created, because this is Advanced Rules, where the methods are not supposed to matter. I care what the end result was, and the result is that there is a gradient in the border, which is perfectly legal. IMO, of course, and my opinion currently counts for squanto.
Well, in fact I didn't duplicate an element of the photograph, but I used a blurred copy of the same photograph as a border. So no element is duplicated... From an other sight, if this disqualification is correct, then the point of view of the whole image is changed with any kind of border, but only this style is forbidden (as it seems). Furthermore, as Venser pointed, the typical viewer's descrpition of the image don't change when the specific border is added. I still don't understand.
Depending on their wording, simply using the bi-color filter in Color Efex like you did, to the entire image, would change a typical viewer's description of the image and should be grounds for a DQ. Here I thought it was a sunrise or sunset, but you tricked me.
I didn't vote on this one, but the reeds were the most prominent element in the photo (by far) and they've been removed. So either the border was a continuation of the image with a very prominent element removed by blurring, or the border was made by pasting in a different part of the photo. That would be against the rules either way.
Depending on their wording, simply using the bi-color filter in Color Efex like you did, to the entire image, would change a typical viewer's description of the image and should be grounds for a DQ.
I didn't vote on this one, but the reeds were the most prominent element in the photo (by far) and they've been removed. So either the border was a continuation of the image with a very prominent element removed by blurring, or the border was made by pasting in a different part of the photo. That would be against the rules either way.
Are you saying that creating an identical border using a gradient map instead of the photo is illegal? What about the photos with black backgrounds - that have a thin white stroke separating the image from its fat black frame?
If you crop out the reeds, then blur and paste back in the same area you cropped out, then you didn't really crop it. If you paste in a different part of the photo, then that's not legal either. If the border looks like part of the image, then that image area is subject to the same rules as any other part of the entry, including removal of major elements.
I guess I've been confused all these years as I didn't think cropping out undesirable portions of your image was a rules violation, even large portions of the image. How much can you crop out? I know that even when you are using a telephoto for wildlife, people frequently have to crop out trees, bushes, etc to get a close up view of the critter they are trying to capture. I can see a DQ for copying the image, blurring the cropped part and using it for the border would be a rules violation, but not cropping out that blurred bush itself. If he had no border but just cropped it the way he did, would it still be DQ'ed?
