When I was voting for the Fill the Frame challenge I came by the "Angel Eyes" admission and I left a comment then pertaining to the fact that the eyes were a copy of each other,flipped; and the clone was so unprofessional, because the reflection of the window in both eyes was in the inside for both of them, while it should have been from one direction, meaning: on the inside for one eye and on the outside for the other.
After the photo won I went back and took a closer look at the photo just to find out that not only the eye was poorly cloned, but half of the face was cloned into the other half.
I wonder should this affect the result of the contest or should we just call it "Angel EYE"
When I was voting for the Fill the Frame challenge I came by the "Angel Eyes" admission and I left a comment then pertaining to the fact that the eyes were a copy of each other,flipped; and the clone was so unprofessional, because the reflection of the window in both eyes was in the inside for both of them, while it should have been from one direction, meaning: on the inside for one eye and on the outside for the other.
After the photo won I went back and took a closer look at the photo just to find out that not only the eye was poorly cloned, but half of the face was cloned into the other half.
I wonder should this affect the result of the contest or should we just call it "Angel EYE"
I truly think it is a little late for this discussion. You caused problems with the voters during the challenge vote and now you give a delayed complaint to the same challenge but afterwards..
The problem is...you have obviously not done your homework. Had you read the entire challenge you would be well informed as to the extent of this challenge. Which now, makes me fear that you voted improperly. Most people with such a determined attitude towards a particular challenge would at least have done their homework and if found to be incorrect in their thinking would at the very least apologise. But I doubt you would do that!!!!!
So with that...I do still stand by my decision in saying that you are entitled to your own opinion...but considering the circumstances, you should accept that you are now going to have to face others opinions even more strongly then if you had just kept your opinion to yourself. Especially when it is wrong.
Judi cut the crap and tell em their a.... yeah i know site council doesnt like cutting people down. Good explanation judi and way to go on keeping it clean!
I truly think it is a little late for this discussion. You caused problems with the voters during the challenge vote and now you give a delayed complaint to the same challenge but afterwards..
The problem is...you have obviously not done your homework. Had you read the entire challenge you would be well informed as to the extent of this challenge. Which now, makes me fear that you voted improperly. Most people with such a determined attitude towards a particular challenge would at least have done their homework and if found to be incorrect in their thinking would at the very least apologise. But I doubt you would do that!!!!!
So with that...I do still stand by my decision in saying that you are entitled to your own opinion...but considering the circumstances, you should accept that you are now going to have to face others opinions even more strongly then if you had just kept your opinion to yourself. Especially when it is wrong.
Thanks, but this does not change the fact that it is half a face and is only ONE eye not eyes.
Thanks, but this does not change the fact that it is half a face and is only ONE eye not eyes.
So what. He used one eye! I see two eyes.....read that....EYES!! Therefore...to me it is TWO EYES!
Tihadi...I compliment you on your determination...but just leave it...it is not going to get you anywhere except in an argument...and to be honest...I really don't want any part of that.
So fight by yourself...I don't wanna know anymore...this is too pathetic an argument to bother with.
Thanks, but this does not change the fact that it is half a face and is only ONE eye not eyes.
So what? Expert editing allows you to do whatever you want, and you can title your image whatever you want. There is no problem. Point me to where in the rules you can't edit how you feel it should be or title how you would like.
I think this is something you should communicate to the SC if it's an issue for you. Not that anybody's photos should be used to rant about the rules but Qart in particular has seen his photos used a lot in this regard so leave the guy alone. It was an acceptable image to enter in that ruleset.
It doesn't need to be two eyes. That is part of the point with the extended rule set. It begins to leave photography and starts to be digital art.
Im not sure if it exist on the market but making a lense that mirrors 50% of what it see's can be built and used on a film camera.... has nothing todo with digital.
The idea is that even with "expert editing" you have to produce a photo that abides by the rules of physics and nature. The reflection in the eyes is wrong.
But then, may be some of you are so defenses because you missed it. Who knows!
The idea is that even with "expert editing" you have to produce a photo that abides by the rules of physics and nature. The reflection in the eyes is wrong.
But then, may be some of you are so defenses because you missed it. Who knows!
physics and nature......
sorry SC i was holding back for a long time. HAVE you NOT... HEARD of...a..... MIRROR!
Message edited by Konador - Please refrain from personal attacks, thanks.
The idea is that even with "expert editing" you have to produce a photo that abides by the rules of physics and nature. The reflection in the eyes is wrong.
But then, may be some of you are so defenses because you missed it. Who knows!
I see in the Expert Editing rules that "You are encouraged to keep your entries photographic in nature, and voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly.". This same idea is repeated further down: "keep your entry photographic in nature. Though violating this guideline is not grounds for disqualification, voters are encouraged to rate entries accordingly."
But I also see in the "You may" section:
- use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry.
- combine multiple photographs to produce your entry.
- apply a full range of editing tools to all or part of your entry.
Simply put, I think you have misunderstood the rules. The rules say nothing of "physics and nature", and they go out of their way to indicate that a full range of editing including compositing multiple images is permitted.
This is a very strange thread. It would appear OP does not quite understand the "expert" rules, or perhaps he just lives in a different mindset than the rest of us.
Anyway, re: the "misplaced catchlight", for what it's worth here's what the image looks like with the catchlight moved and the eye "repaired":
Does anyone have an opinion as to which version is "better"? I was one of the ones who caught the discrepancy and commented on it during voting, but this was nevertheless one of my highest scores given. At the time I thought the catchlight was an irksome flaw, now I'm not so sure. It does lend a certain otherworldly effect to the whole, perhaps :-)
