Followed the rules and still disqualified !!

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

02/02/2006 05:35:08 PM · #251

Originally posted by hokie:

Well, just like all things..people have an easier time accepting what they know.

Grunge and "Dragan" style has become an accepted practice and so people don't get as freaked out as they did when the first few people used the look.

I'm tempted to change my entire outlook on editing, based on this.

Qart

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/02/2006 05:41:42 PM · #252

Originally posted by Qart:

Originally posted by hokie:
Well, just like all things..people have an easier time accepting what they know.

Grunge and "Dragan" style has become an accepted practice and so people don't get as freaked out as they did when the first few people used the look.

Even common looks like High Key had to go through a phase of acceptance.

Understood... but the question still remains, isn't the image being altered drastically enough to warrant a dq regardless of the level of acceptance. Just thinking about a Joey Lawrence entry of his father that was so effected that I wonder what the altering threshold is.

LeeD

Canon EOS-30D

02/02/2006 05:46:46 PM · #253

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
...we have quickly disintegrated from a well thought out and civil debate on the ineptitude of the site council...

Gee, thanks for making me feel all warm and fuzzy. When can we get back to politely discussing our incompetence? :-(

LOL... All in good fun man... besides, I'm on your side... the comment was directed at those of you who make poor DQ decisions!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

02/02/2006 05:48:58 PM · #254

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Gordon:
My problem with this is you are defining 'photography' as essentially everything that happens up until the shutter opens and then closes again.

Nobody's saying that post processing isn't important, but shouldn't an entry in a photo contest basically look like the scene you took a photo of?

deapee

Kodak V803

02/02/2006 05:52:03 PM · #255

I think you got dq'd because your name wasn't joey lawrence or bear_music...unfortunately, voting on DQ's is not an 'anonymous' process -- which it should be.

Sucks man...and those two examples you gave compared to yours...insane...I'd be angry.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/02/2006 05:57:33 PM · #256

Although this debate rages, I do believe there is need of an IMMEDIATE rules change. I've noticed that several DQ's and conflicts arise over the "removal" of major elements. But a careful reading of said rule states nothing explicitly about removing.

"However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."

I suggest the following change be implemented ASAP

"However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, move or remove major elements of your photograph is not permitted."

Just to add some clarification. As some do not quite grasp that to remove is still to move.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, my dear SC...just remember no good deed goes unpunished!

"Thank you" for your time and effort. And forebearance....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"My definition of a photographer is one who has at least once in there life, has done it professionally. I'm not talking about the weekend warrior. One who has on a daily baisis, had to shoot multiple jobs for multiple clients and deliver an end product."

And I say that's hogwash....

Why? Because what you are referring to is merely a professional...

a) There are superb photographer's who do so for the mere art of photography.

b) There are professionals who SUCK!!!!!!! Even though they do it every day.

I see no point in the above philosophy.

I am a web developer, and yet, I've seen some unbelievable websites that were done superbly by individuals who never did it for their day job. Just a hobby. On the other hand, I've seen professional work that's crap.

Is that not a true statement? Is there a person on the SC that does photography as their main source of income?

Oh, please, let's never go there. If being a "professional photographer" becomes a requirement for being on the SC. Let's just shut DPC down. Or better yet, send the Brent's to ProDPC.com where only Professionals can enter and only Professionals judge.

Would you please show your proof of membership in either of the exclusive clubs, Canon Professional or the Nikon Professional.

And what happens when someone retires...are they automatically ineligable for remaining a SC member? This is just moronic & egotistic IMHO.

02/02/2006 05:58:56 PM · #257

Originally posted by deapee:

I think you got dq'd because your name wasn't joey lawrence or bear_music...

Funny... I wonder if Joey Lawrence and Bear-Music got DQ'd because their name wasn't Samanwar? Seriously, it makes ZERO difference whose entry it is. None. Librodo, Kiwiness and JJBeguin have all been DQ'd at some point.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

02/02/2006 06:00:35 PM · #258

Originally posted by theSaj:

You are just adding words, not clarity.

Remove is already covered by 'move'

remove (v): To move from a place or position occupied

If someone reading doesn't understand English, adding more English isn't going to help much.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 18:00:57.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/02/2006 06:02:30 PM · #259

Originally posted by deapee:

Excuse ME? I've never submitted an entry that was even remotely close to being DQ'd on editing grounds; my single DQ came on a ribbon-winning entry shot with my 20D shortly after I bought it, because I didn't check the date stamp closely enough after the store set it 12 hours out of synch.

I don't use "filters" to warp things. Never have, never will. I use "glow", I use gaussian blur, or I used to anyway, to mask the flaws of my P&S, but in my 20D days I haven't even done that. I'm a VERY straight shooter, in my own opinion. I play with color saturation a lot, that's about it.

R.

02/02/2006 06:02:34 PM · #260

Originally posted by theSaj:

I've noticed that several DQ's and conflicts arise over the "removal" of major elements. But a careful reading of said rule states nothing explicitly about removing. As some do not quite grasp that to remove is still to move.

You aren't the first to notice. It was brought up at least as far back as last May. Heck, there was no mention of Borders in Advanced Editing until just a couple of weeks ago. It'll all be fixed in time.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/02/2006 06:05:15 PM · #261

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Excuse ME?

I think he was just trying to imply that there is favoritism in the validation process. There simply isn't, and even SC members have been DQ'd.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

02/02/2006 06:06:59 PM · #262

My two cents: why is it such a problem to "remove" major elements? That's not so much digital art to me, whereas adding "elements" (not fill), is the real problem that is "digital art".

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

02/02/2006 06:07:49 PM · #263

Originally posted by theSaj:

I am a web developer, and yet, I've seen some unbelievable websites that were done superbly by individuals who never did it for their day job. Just a hobby. On the other hand, I've seen professional work that's crap.

Hey Mr. Pro-web developer. Fix the url in your prolfile so I can see your stuff!

And I don't think I'll be showing CPS OR ASMP info to ya. ;o)

Pentax DA L 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL

02/02/2006 06:08:45 PM · #264

Originally posted by Gordon:

...shouldn't an entry in a photo contest basically look like the scene you took a photo of?

What if you shot it in infrared ? Ultraviolet ? I can't even see in those ranges of light spectra, but I can take pictures of them. So should the entry look anything like the scene you took the photo of ? [/quote]

You could also take a really long exposure to illuminate the darkness or show motion. In any of those cases, the scene DID actually look like that to your camera.

thomaspeople

Pentax K50

02/02/2006 06:10:32 PM · #265

Back again (still not offering my opinion on the issue at hand).
I have to go home now. I've watched this thing go for better than nine hours today, and most entry's are from only a few of you.
I feel guilty for the time I've spent just reading this thing. Doesn't anyone have work to do?
Has anyone heard the phrase "beat a dead horse?"
I repeat my original contention that this issue will never resolve to the satisfaction of all.

Thanks, I needed to say that. I still respect you all (or at least your photos).

Now go home.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 18:11:07.

02/02/2006 06:12:53 PM · #266

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Excuse ME?

I think he was just trying to imply that there is favoritism in the validation process. There simply isn't, and even SC members have been DQ'd.

Anyone want to talk about major elements ? :)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/02/2006 06:14:19 PM · #267

Originally posted by scalvert:

You could also take a really long exposure to illuminate the darkness or show motion. In any of those cases, the scene DID actually look like that to your camera.

Why's that important ?

and I don't mean it in some glib way. Really - why is it important ?

People define photography in different ways. If you include darkroom work (digital or otherwise) as part of photography, then anything you do in a digital darkroom is photography - no ?

If not, then why not.

These aren't easy questions. If it takes you 10 seconds to answer it, you either aren't thinking carefully or don't understand the history of photographic work.

Did Uelsmann do photography ?

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 18:16:37.

Marjo

Canon EOS-7D

02/02/2006 06:14:59 PM · #268

Originally posted by Imagineer:

I say ban motion blur and effects filters...

Why have 'em in a photography challenge contest?

I agree!

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/02/2006 06:15:29 PM · #269

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Hey Mr. Pro-web developer. Fix the url in your prolfile so I can see your stuff!

And I don't think I'll be showing CPS OR ASMP info to ya. ;o)

Thank you for pointing out that DPC automatically adds http: prefix to the website entry. Okay, now that I have fixed the link. Please fix the above sentence. It's "profile" not "prolfile".

:P

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/02/2006 06:15:32 PM · #270

Originally posted by Gordon:

Anyone want to talk about major elements ? :)

No.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

02/02/2006 06:15:36 PM · #271

Originally posted by Gordon:

[quote=scalvert]
You could also take a really long exposure to illuminate the darkness or show motion. In any of those cases, the scene DID actually look like that to your camera.

Why's that important ? Most fashion photography looks nothing like the model, these days. [/quote

True story I make mine look like goddesses

02/02/2006 06:15:37 PM · #272

Originally posted by Gordon:

Anyone want to talk about major elements ? :)

Color shifts have always been allowed. All the elements (smoke, matchsticks) were in the original� only their attributes (the color) has changed. Selective desaturation is no less of an edit.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/02/2006 06:15:43 PM · #273

Originally posted by scalvert:

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. :-(

Shannon, in the original shot you can tell there are trees and a lake and bushes. In the submitted image none of those features are there... I would say removing a lake would be a major element.

samanwar

02/02/2006 06:17:34 PM · #274

Shannon, many people (including myself) agree that the filter I applied moved the photo a bit away from photography and toward digital art, this is not the argument, let's drop that point. The point is that the rules don't include any grounds for the DQ (according to most comments on this thread). The SC can keep argue about what is and what is not photography, but the bottom line is that almost no one so far can find anything I did that violated the "written rules" except the SC.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Gordon:
...shouldn't an entry in a photo contest basically look like the scene you took a photo of?

What if you shot it in infrared ? Ultraviolet ? I can't even see in those ranges of light spectra, but I can take pictures of them. So should the entry look anything like the scene you took the photo of ?

You could also take a really long exposure to illuminate the darkness or show motion. In any of those cases, the scene DID actually look like that to your camera. [/quote]