Proposed Modifications to the Farktography Rules

Forums Forums Farktography General Chat Pollage Proposed Modifications to the Farktography Rules

This topic contains 17 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Elsinore 11 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1374

    Elsinore
    Keymaster

    For those of you who don’t hang out in the Pub board, there recently has been a healthy discussion about revisiting the Farktography rules in order to make them more fair to film and digital shooters, to recognize that some amount of photo editing really isn’t that bad a thing, and to generally simplify what honestly is a pretty overwhelming list, especially for newbies. To that end, here are the proposed new guidelines:

    ** These are the Submission Guidelines for all Farktography Contests,
    unless otherwise stated in a theme description.

    * Submissions must be photographs. Screen captures do not count as photographs.
    * You must be the original photographer of your entry. Do not submit anyone else’s photography as your own.
    * You are only allowed to enter a photograph once. Do not submit the same photo to another contest later.
    * Up to 3 photos can be entered into each contest, as long as each photo is of a different composition.
    Please post each photo separately so they can be voted for individually.

    ** General Photographic Guidelines (The number of the counting shall be 3):
    * Compositional changes, particularly those that involve adding or
    removing elements of the photo, are bad. No adding Elvis, no erasing
    utility lines.

    * Image corrections are accepted. Color or value correction?
    Perspective? Pin cushion? Unsightly blemishes? Stray hairs
    falling over your model’s alabaster face? Fix these. That’s cool.

    * You should strive to keep your results in the realm of the realistic.
    Cartoonish results from turning the saturation up to 3000, selective
    coloring (we can see your boyfriend’s pretty green eyes without
    turning everything else black and white), and the use of “artistic”
    filters that turn your photos into paintings or drawings are not what
    we’re going for here. Such use of these otherwise acceptable tools
    is discouraged and may subject your photograph to disqualification.

    ** Unacceptable Modifications (These are right out):

    * Combining exposures in post-processing is not allowed (e.g. HDR,
    stitching, stacking negative, &c – not allowed). However,
    multiple exposures produced in-camera are always acceptable.

    * Removing or adding compositional objects or textures via cloning
    or copying. Cropping is fine, but no removing the branch that
    seems to be growing out of Aunt Edna’s head.

    * DO NOT divide by zero

    If you have any questions about the acceptable modifications, or if
    you’d just like to chat and learn more about photography, feel free to
    drop by the forums at Farktography.net or email
    questions@farktography.net.

    We will have this poll open to voting for one week. Please take a few minutes to read through the original discussion thread for some of the reasoning and justifications for the changes that are being proposed. The original thread is here:
    http://www.farktography.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=1380&start=75

    #18055

    linguine
    Participant

    While Im fine with the changes, the wording of no compositional changes makes it sound to me like cropping is not allowed instead of being allowed like it currently is.
    Im not sure what a better wording would be, Ill give it a shot tomorrow when Im more awake.

    #18056

    Elsinore
    Keymaster

    Maybe we can just say “Compositional changes that involve adding or removing elements of the photo are bad.” Doesn’t change the meaning, just is more clear. Don’t think we’d need to resubmit the whole thing all over again for that reason.

    #18057

    Choc-Ful-A
    Participant

    I think the changes described in the “Image corrections allowed” are a bad idea at least as written The line between what can be removed and what can’t is too ambiguous. I think the change will inevitably result in the line pushing father and farther until removing significant elements from the image and even creating something to fill in the missing area become common. Without a clear definition of what can and can’t be done on a selected area of the image (as opposed to global changes) that drift will happen even with people who are trying to follow the rules.

    So a long way of saying I’m not in favor of the changes as written due to the vagueness of the do/don’t line and concerns about where this slippery slope leads.

    #18058

    Elsinore
    Keymaster

    That’s a fair comment. There is definitely some ambiguity, though the examples given are meant to clarify.

    I myself am not so sure about the blemishes and hairs part, but on the whole I’m ok with the proposal. I think the intent (and the examples touch on this) is that minor corrections like a pimple are ok to fix, while big things (utility poles or lines) are not. Ultimately either with our current rules or the proposed changes, people are always going to be on their honor, and there are almost certainly people who have violated the rules (knowingly or not) without our ever knowing the difference. But I think the vast majority of people follow the rules, and I think that will continue whether or not we change them.

    Thanks for your input, Choc-Ful-A. You make good points.

    #18059

    jpatten
    Participant

    Given the skill some people have with photoshop, we are going to have to hope most everyone is willing to follow the spirit of the law where the letter is vague. Though I think you’re right… Some people are going to push it as far as they think they can. Others may think they are OK and get slapped down. But I think the second instance will be rare and they can always make the case of why they think they are right.

    #18060

    schnee
    Participant

    To take a recent example, here’s a wonderful photo from corsec67

    the green oval contains a sensor spot – removing that would be within the rules as they now stand.

    the green polygon contains a shadow (or something) which when removed would help the image. the image’s finish in the theme probably would not have changed, but the overall quality would go up. (I’m not picking on corsec67 – it is a good image). i have an image in the Everything for a Dollar theme that has the issue – an almost white background with some gradients creeping in. oh how I would have like to have been able to correct those (which I did when I made a print)

    I’d like to include corrections like in the green polygon.

    #18061

    staplermofo
    Participant

    schnee‘s example has put my mind at ease.
    +1

    #18062

    linguine
    Participant

    Maybe we can just say “Compositional changes that involve adding or removing elements of the photo are bad.” Doesn’t change the meaning, just is more clear. Don’t think we’d need to resubmit the whole thing all over again for that reason.

    Yeah, that seems a clearer to me.

    #18063

    Choc-Ful-A
    Participant

    Maybe we can just say “Compositional changes that involve adding or removing elements of the photo are bad.” Doesn’t change the meaning, just is more clear. Don’t think we’d need to resubmit the whole thing all over again for that reason.

    Yeah, that seems a clearer to me.

    That’s definitely an big improvement IMO. It clarifies the intention, which is the biggest challenge.

    #18064

    soosh
    Participant

    I’m staunchly pro-polygon type correction.

    #18065

    SilverStag
    Participant

    I’m staunchly pro-polygon type correction.

    Darn Polygonists.

    #18066

    jpatten
    Participant

    Almost as bad as those Hedronists… always poking out into the 3rd dimension.. Its not natural !!! 🙂

    #18067

    anneb
    Participant

    Folks, thanks for putting all the time and effort into bashing this out. I can appreciate the headaches of getting a consensus with a large group, especially when everyone’s personal style comes in to play.

    I’m for the spirit of the changes, wholeheartedly. I think they do clear up a lot of ambiguity. I’ve voted yes, because I think on the whole, that they’re an improvement on what we have now- but I agree with the folks asking for some clarifications, and I’d love to have them addressed.

    Maybe we can just say “Compositional changes that involve adding or removing elements of the photo are bad.” Doesn’t change the meaning, just is more clear. Don’t think we’d need to resubmit the whole thing all over again for that reason.

    Yeah, that seems a clearer to me.

    Not entirely to me- cropping is removing elements of a photo that are “bad” or at least, just don’t belong there, too!

    I’m not overly wedded to the 8×12 form factor of my CCD, but even if I stuck with 8×12, may I crop? Or may I only post full-frames or full-frames corrected for off-kilter shooting angles?

    Also, while this is at the top of people’s thoughts-
    Gradients across the whole photo on layers such as brightness/color. Ok or not?

    Like with white balance correction, it’s going to apply to every pixel in the image, just obviously some pixels are more affected than others.
    (Since I’m starting to play with that a little bit for light correction, I’d love to know whether or not to have that to work with… hoping the answer to this clears rather than muddies the waters)

    Thanks!

    #18068

    soosh
    Participant

    I’m not overly wedded to the 8×12 form factor of my CCD, but even if I stuck with 8×12, may I crop? Or may I only post full-frames or full-frames corrected for off-kilter shooting angles?

    this is currently allowed. You can crop to whatever perspective you wish.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.