Rules Update 08/08/2008

[Elsinore]

The voting has closed on the proposed rule changes, and it was 20 votes in favor and 4 against. We’re in the process of updating our How To Participate and The Rules pages, as well as submitting the changes to Fark. For now, the pages here have been udpated (though the html isn’t very pretty, particularly on the How To Participate page). Propagating the changes to Fark may take a few days, but hopefully will be completed before next week’s contest.

Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the new guidelines. On the whole, you’ll have greater latitude with your image editing, though adding or removing major photo elements (other than through cropping) will still not be allowed. The focus is more on allowing image corrections where needed.

We may find at some point that these new guidelines need further refinement or clarification, so if you have suggestions (or even just questions), please don’t hesitate to post in the Pub. Thanks everyone.

[Elsinore]

The new guidelines have been posted to Fark, so they are officially in effect from this point forward.

[Killerclaw]

I don’t see how removing stray hairs and blemishes is different from removing a stray twig.

[Elsinore]

A twig is generally quite a bit bigger than a stray hair or pimple. It’s a scale issue.

But feedback is good–if you have suggestions on refining the rules, we’d love to hear it over on the pub board. Open up a discussion and let’s talk 🙂

[jpatten]

I have several pictures from the 4th of July, spectacular fireworks images… That have a streetlight in the way. I cloned it out of some… better pics now I think but not fark legal

[Killerclaw]

A twig is generally quite a bit bigger than a stray hair or pimple. It’s a scale issue.

Well it’s the same concept though isn’t it?

Like, there is a tiny tiny outhouse in my Fuji picture over in the Panoramics thread that I’d LOVE to get out. In this case the scale of mountain/outhouse is similar to pimple/face.

My point being that the outhouse doesn’t affect the composure of the photograph, it’s a little blemish over on the side.

Spot the outhouse: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v219/killerclaw/?action=view&current=fuji1-1.jpg

[schnee]

I’m pretty much the author of that rule.

I was trying to strike a balance between portrait and journalistic ethics. No one likes to have a portrait done that does not present themselves at their best, consequentially, portrait photographers tend to do a significant amount of post-production work on those images.

Photojournalists shoot the world as it is (and if they don’t, there are consequences). Many nature photographers tend to follow a photojournalistic ethic.

I recognize that a compromise such as this will not satisfy everyone and/or every situation. That is the nature of a compromise. I’d like to converge on a win-win for everyone, but I’m not sure how to get there. On one end is pure photojournalism and the other is something like was recently posted on Strobist. Take a look at all the artwork done to that image of the baseball pitcher.

And I’m not too full of myself either. I don’t think that my FSM-itude gives me any special say in the Farktography program, nor does my reasonably long-term participation portfolio. I’m just some guy who picked up a ball and ran with it. If the rule doesn’t work, it doesn’t work and it should be modified. I humbly suggest, however, that we go with the new rule set for a bit and see what happens.

[Killerclaw]

Don’t mean to cause trouble. I was just busy during the rule modifications =(

[Author]

Posts