DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Followed the rules and still disqualified !!
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 375, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/02/2006 08:40:17 AM · #1
This is my "Best of 2005" entry, and this is the original shot:
281857.jpg 284270.jpg
My entry was disqualified (according to the SC) because I used a radial blur filter in Photoshop to create the motion effect. Now get this, this is what the Advanced Editing Rules says:

[[Filters: At your discretion, you may apply filters to your photo, in whole or part. (Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.) ]]

What makes matters worse is that this unjust disqualification isn't even applied evenly, here are at least 2 photos that used the same filter:
171632.jpg 243795.jpg
These two entry placed 1st and 4th in their challenges, mine was scoring at 6.6 until it was disqualified, I tried my best reasoning with several SC members but it didn't change the outcome.

The reason I kept getting for the DQ is that the filter changed the way the original image looked!! I just don't get how in earth you can follow a rule that is written very clearly and still get disqualified based on another imaginary rule.

I never thought that any thing can ever turn me off about DPC, but this one did it, my heart is broken and I don't think I have any desire in participating in any challenges again ..
02/02/2006 08:53:47 AM · #2
I am sorry to se this happened to you. In my mind, the filtering on your image was less dramatic as the one below that finished 1st in it's challenge.
02/02/2006 08:57:01 AM · #3
Hmmm... that's a tough one. FWIW, I would have to agree with you and ShutterPug. Is this one that SC can reconsider?
02/02/2006 09:04:25 AM · #4
Ooh, tough call. The filter in your shot looks a lot stronger to me than in the two non-DQ'd shots below. It's even more exaggerated by the colour change and having the gulls safe on their own layer. Glad I'm not an SC.

edit- very nice shot, by the way!

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 09:05:27.
02/02/2006 09:06:14 AM · #5
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Ooh, tough call. The filter in your shot looks a lot stronger to me than in the two non-DQ'd shots below. It's even more exaggerated by the colour change and having the gulls safe on their own layer. Glad I'm not an SC.


But regardless how dramatic the filter is, the rules says nothing against using filters other than that it won't be received well by voters. Why judge outside the context of the rules?
02/02/2006 09:15:56 AM · #6
The processing seemed quite dramatic in this shot from tribute, for example;

284540.jpg

I can't understand why yours was disqualified based on this rule.
02/02/2006 09:17:03 AM · #7
I think the SC contention might be that the filter you used has a) moved too many pixels, or b) created a major element. Still both very subjective points. The wording of that part of the rules is at odds with a & b, IMO.

I can see how you'd be turned off about DPC over this, but I don't think you should let it curb your desire to participate. It's very subjective stuff sometimes.
:-(
02/02/2006 09:27:37 AM · #8
Why not ban 'distortion' filters entirely from 'Advanced Editing' and create another catergory to allow filters that 'distort' the original pixels?
02/02/2006 09:29:50 AM · #9
Originally posted by Strikeslip:

I think the SC contention might be that the filter you used has a) moved too many pixels, or b) created a major element. Still both very subjective points. The wording of that part of the rules is at odds with a & b, IMO.


That better not be the SC's excuse to disqualify this image. All filters effectively 'move' pixels around. If that is grounds for disqualification, then what's the point of having advanced editing rules? And why are so many other not getting disqualified for the same reason? This is very disturbing to me. Hopefully this was just a mistake.
02/02/2006 09:30:29 AM · #10
Dang, it was a nice shot. The only thing that I can think of is that using the filter made the background unidentifiable to some, and that might be considered removing a major element (to some). In the original, you can tell that it's trees and a lake in the background, but can't really tell what it is in the edited version.

In the plane shot below, there is a lot of radial blur going on, but you can still tell that the plane is on a runway, etc.

Just my 2 bits. Sorry to hear about the dq.
02/02/2006 09:36:44 AM · #11
Originally posted by Telehubbie:

Dang, it was a nice shot. The only thing that I can think of is that using the filter made the background unidentifiable to some, and that might be considered removing a major element (to some). In the original, you can tell that it's trees and a lake in the background, but can't really tell what it is in the edited version.

In the plane shot below, there is a lot of radial blur going on, but you can still tell that the plane is on a runway, etc.

Just my 2 bits. Sorry to hear about the dq.


I would have to say that you can still tell its a bird with trees etc... in the background on the one that was DQ'd. Infact the radial blur was used in much the same way as in the plan shot to emphasise the movement of the birds. The big difference is the color cast added to the background and not to the birds, but I don't see how that would go against the rules. I think the DQ is a bit harsh on this one.
02/02/2006 09:39:38 AM · #12
I can't speak for the SC, but I recall some controversy a while back over the use of motion blur in challenges. I think there was a decision to tighten up on this particular filter in future challenges. But yes, it's not clear at all in the rules.
02/02/2006 09:40:34 AM · #13
<--- Paging SC... Any SC members want to voice some opinions/input/advice?
02/02/2006 09:40:41 AM · #14
Telehubbie's explanation is correct. The image WAS reconsidered, but just didn't get the votes to pass. FWIW, this was a borderline case: Sam's entry was barely DQ'd and the other two were barely validated. Most SC probably voted consistently for or against all three, but a few swing votes makes a difference. :-(

A revision to the rules is in the works, which should makes things clearer for all.
02/02/2006 09:41:44 AM · #15
Wow, that was quick... thanks for the explanation!
02/02/2006 09:46:46 AM · #16
i don't usually disagree with the SC's decision to DQ but this time, i do. it just seems that this particular rule is too arbitrarily enforced.
02/02/2006 09:47:23 AM · #17
Originally posted by samanwar:

Originally posted by Strikeslip:

Ooh, tough call. The filter in your shot looks a lot stronger to me than in the two non-DQ'd shots below. It's even more exaggerated by the colour change and having the gulls safe on their own layer. Glad I'm not an SC.


But regardless how dramatic the filter is, the rules says nothing against using filters other than that it won't be received well by voters. Why judge outside the context of the rules?

I agree with Strikeslip when he says that the filter has had a more dramatic effect on your shot than on the other two shown. However I think the SC made the right call as I see your use of the filter as making quite a big difference in how the shot appears. You have done more than enhance what was there. You have made the shot look quite a bit different, not just slightly better. The rules, both Basic and Advanced are intended to encourage photogs to bring out the best in their images while limiting them in a way that preserves the integrity of the original image. It is sometimes a grey area, but, IMHO, in this case the line was clearly crossed and SC did the right thing by DQ'ing the image. In other words, I think your manipulations of the image have gone too far toward digital art and too far away from your shot as it came from the camera. Maybe I have been looking at too many wildlife images lately but I think your shot could have scored fairly well with just minor touch-up editing rather than such a dramatic rendering.
02/02/2006 09:49:15 AM · #18
Originally posted by sher9204:

i don't usually disagree with the SC's decision to DQ but this time, i do. it just seems that this particular rule is too arbitrarily enforced.


I'm with you on this one. IMHO, SC should've followed the trend set by the other two examples listed in the OP. Oh well, at least they recognize there is a problem and are addressing it. It'll be interesting to see how the rule revisions will help clarify something that truly is very subjective.
02/02/2006 09:52:31 AM · #19
Originally posted by sher9204:

i don't usually disagree with the SC's decision to DQ but this time, i do. it just seems that this particular rule is too arbitrarily enforced.


I didn't agree with this one either, and I'm not usually in the minority. Some SC thought the background (a major element) was obscured by the blur, which you can't do with any tool, but I thought it was pretty blurry to begin with. We try our best, but we're only human. :-(
02/02/2006 09:52:38 AM · #20
Originally posted by coolhar:

...You have done more than enhance what was there. You have made the shot look quite a bit different, not just slightly better. The rules, both Basic and Advanced are intended to encourage photogs to bring out the best in their images while limiting them in a way that preserves the integrity of the original image. It is sometimes a grey area, but, IMHO, in this case the line was clearly crossed and SC did the right thing by DQ'ing the image...


I must disagree with this statement. With all due respect to Mr. Lawrence (whose work I have great respect for), your criteria for the DQ could be extended to this image.

171632.jpg

Making this example illegal according to those guidelines.
02/02/2006 09:54:11 AM · #21
i think they all should have been dq'd ... but then, i'm not the SC

:)

ps ... my comment is regarding the filter. no offense indended to those who use it.
02/02/2006 10:03:25 AM · #22
I could have been swayed either way. I think by the letter of the rules, the photo editing is within the rules and should not have been dq'd.

In the spirit of the rules, seen the "before" and "after" shots, the entry is more of a photoshop editing entry than a photographic entry (which is not what this site is about).

I think I would've given the photographer the benefit of the doubt on this one, but would recommend editing the rules and clarifying what is and is not acceptable.
02/02/2006 10:09:36 AM · #23
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

Originally posted by coolhar:

...You have done more than enhance what was there. You have made the shot look quite a bit different, not just slightly better. The rules, both Basic and Advanced are intended to encourage photogs to bring out the best in their images while limiting them in a way that preserves the integrity of the original image. It is sometimes a grey area, but, IMHO, in this case the line was clearly crossed and SC did the right thing by DQ'ing the image...


I must disagree with this statement. With all due respect to Mr. Lawrence (whose work I have great respect for), your criteria for the DQ could be extended to this image.

171632.jpg

Making this example illegal according to those guidelines.
I haven't seen the original of that one nor the runway pic so I'll not comment on whether they should have been DQ'ed. I would point out that in his Photgrapher's Comments on Anger Unleashed Joey said "Seems on the border of digital art".

But just looking at the three edited versions, I feel comfortable saying that the filter's effect is more prominant in The Fast and the Furious than in either of the other two.
02/02/2006 10:13:27 AM · #24
To me it has nothing to do with applying filters but creating a major element. The blur has taken over the image meaning that a major element has been added, therefore DQ.

I'm sure the SC vote was not unanimous.
02/02/2006 10:13:53 AM · #25
I think we need to have opportunity to appeal, just a more fairness in that system for all .

ice


Message edited by author 2006-02-02 10:14:27.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 12/14/2017 08:29:32 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2017 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/14/2017 08:29:32 AM EST.