Je souhaiterais savoir s’il est autorisés ou non de modifier une image numériquement, dans le seul but de cacher une plaque d’immatriculation ?
Par exemple, j’ai pris un panneau annonçant un stade de foot, sauf qu’une fois rentrée chez moi, je m’aperçois qu’il y a une plaque d’immatriculation de visible à côté de lui, et elle est totalement identifiable.
Puis-je donc cacher cette plaque d’immatriculation avant de l’utiliser (bien entendu proprement), ou est-ce que je dois refaire une nouvelle photo ?
Voici la photo modifiée, j’ai déjà caché la plaque. Mais puis-je y utiliser ?
You are not altering the image to make the actual subject change from ineligible. Example: If you removed text on the sign that stated it was on “School Property”.
Obviously, @elijustrying 's suggestion is simple and 100% so I would still suggest doing that.
I would also crop out the license plate, as it’s part of background that’s unneeded in the photo. Cropping is allowed, and it’s something I do on almost every main photo I take to best center on the POI in question, as well as remove any unneeded foreground/background.
I disagree that blurring a tiny license plate makes an image rejectable. Cropping is a great option in this case, but for a license plate taking up that little of the image, i have no problem approving it if you blur it.
Just an opinion but I see “obviously doctored” is when someone is altering the image to make it look like it is either something it is not or vice versa in an attempt to get the waypoint accepted.
Although I agree that cropping is a better option both show a sign with a car behind it. The car is not the subject of the nomination and is just in the background so I don’t see a problem with blanking out the plate.
It would be a different matter if the car was in front of the sign and a major part of the image.
I really hate situations where even ambassadors disagree with each other on something that seems clear from the guidelines to me. I hope staff chooses to weigh in on blocking the license plate in this manner.
There are a lot of situations where there are no set answers just individual opinions.
Differences of opinions when there is a range of interpretation I look at as healthy.
I do understand that the degree of uncertainty can feel very uncomfortable too.
agree. but this is very clear. “obviously edited or doctored photos” “should be rejected.” and adding this block is an obvious edit. or don’t the guidelines mean what they say?
Crops, small colour, exposure changes are all “obvious edits” but are accepted. People have stated that they often use HDR to enhance which is another “obvious edit”…
OP, I would mark this as the solution if this were my topic
You may be able to get away with your original based on the answers here that have me flabbergasted, but I would not recommend blocking the license plate in such a visible manner. I would even prefer you use an ai eraser tool to remove the car to doing that. The guideline is “obvious” edit if anyone is actually following the guidelines.
I think the emphasis in the guideline is on the “doctored” part, since it is also recommended to have a properly exposed photo etc. so minor adjustments seem to be acceptable
Removing PII that is not the subject of the photo and takes up 2-5% of the image does not meet the standard of “obviously doctored,” in my opinion. I agree that “obviously doctored” carries an implication of deception.
In my opinion, this is similar to the former “live animal” rejection not applying to a random bird or squirrel that happened to fly or run through the photo.
Does your phone have a “object eraser” option? In my Gallery, I can edit, go to “tools,” and use an eraser that can remove specific content. Using it, I erased your edit. In my opinion, it’s cleaner than the solid white box.
The thing is, with your picture, it is noticeable. Personally, I’m not sure I would have noticed it without it having been pointed out. But, now that it is, I can see it.
As suggested, you could crop the license plate out - that also cleanly removes the person in the background, too. But the “object eraser” has helped me a lot.
One important thing with nominating is removing as many chance at rejection. If this was rejected and you tried to appeal it, do you think staff would similarly notice it, once pointed out to them?
Salut! Tu as reçu plein de commentaires sur comment gérer la photo, mais pour revenir sur l’objet, je voulais cautionner un peu sur la proposition elle-même. Je n’ai pas cherché ou analysé l’endroit, mais étant donné que tu dis qu’il s’agit d’un plan d’accès à un stade de football, si le stade de football a déjà été proposé, je ne verrais pas nécessairement la proposition comme éligible. En général pour les panneaux qui indiquent comment aller vers quelque chose d’intéressant, on suggère de proposer l’objet intéressant à la place.
C’est entièrement possible qu’il y ait un contexte ou des détails qui m’échappent vu que je n’ai pas vu la proposition en détail, mais c’est juste pour rappeler de penser plus largement à l’éligibilité en plus de la modification de photos.
Oui je viens de voir à l’instant toutes les réponses mon post a eu.
Même si je comprend certains points de vue, je trouve cela bizarre de me dire qu’il suffirait de recadrer pour ne pas modifier l’image, alors que le recadrage est déjà en soit une modification.
Pour répondre a ta question, j’ai dit que c’était un plan d’accès à un stade mais je l’ai décrit grossièrement (c’était chiant d’écrire sur le forum via l’iPhone), mais c’est un panneau annonçant les lieux avec un plan montrant les multiples installations de l’espace sportif (terrain de basket, de handball, de football, la zone de tir à l’arc) qui a été récemment installé, puisque le précédent que j’avais créé en 2019 a été supprimé pour y installer un mémorial a Victorine Dartois.
