| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2006 02:26:31 PM · #126 |
back on topic
i consider all three of the blurs to be added elements and my votes have consistently reflected that.
there has only been one blurred shot that i have voted to not disqualify, as the motion blur in that one enhanced what was already there.
the background of sam's shot was blurred, yes, but not RADIALLY blurred. he added a radial blur that did not exist in the original. to my apparently amateur and untrained eye, that's an added element. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:28:03 PM · #127 |
One of the biggest things wrong with the society we live in is the prevalent attitude that one's only worth is determined by whether or not they make money with their skills.
Taking it too personally? No, I don't really care what one person decides to define something as, but it certainly shows one major flaw in the way people live today.
IMO. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:28:43 PM · #128 |
I fail to see how it's out of line. If the SC is going to determine whether a shot breaks photographic rules then they should be somewhat qualified.
Some people need to grow a thicker skin...
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:29:53 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Am I qualified now? |
I would say so, but you're still a dork.
:D
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:30:14 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
back on topic
i consider all three of the blurs to be added elements and my votes have consistently reflected that.
there has only been one blurred shot that i have voted to not disqualify, as the motion blur in that one enhanced what was already there.
the background of sam's shot was blurred, yes, but not RADIALLY blurred. he added a radial blur that did not exist in the original. to my apparently amateur and untrained eye, that's an added element. |
Added element or use of filter?
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.)
Edit Pretty clear cut case of following the rules to me... The only penalty would be the photo "not being well received by voters" and voted down as a result... No mention of disqualification.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 14:32:58. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:32:28 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
back on topic
i consider all three of the blurs to be added elements and my votes have consistently reflected that.
there has only been one blurred shot that i have voted to not disqualify, as the motion blur in that one enhanced what was already there.
the background of sam's shot was blurred, yes, but not RADIALLY blurred. he added a radial blur that did not exist in the original. to my apparently amateur and untrained eye, that's an added element. |
Did you add pixels that weren't there to begin with or did he modifiy what was already present?
Adding an element is actually adding something, not modifying.
Using the gradient tool would be adding information not already there.
Using the cloud filter would be adding information not already there.
If using gaussion blur is okay, then all types of blurs should be okay.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:32:30 PM · #132 |
With all due respect, you're simply twisting the words to come up with maginary rules that are not written, and I go by written rules.
Written rules did not say you can use filters but not blur so much!!
If I apply your logic, then burning the sky and dodging the clouds should also be disqualified because it add the element of high contrast. Cloning strings that are holding objects so that the object appear as floating should be disqualified because it add the element of floating, and so on.. This is just unfair .. You get the idea, or maybe not ..
Originally posted by muckpond:
back on topic
i consider all three of the blurs to be added elements and my votes have consistently reflected that.
there has only been one blurred shot that i have voted to not disqualify, as the motion blur in that one enhanced what was already there.
the background of sam's shot was blurred, yes, but not RADIALLY blurred. he added a radial blur that did not exist in the original. to my apparently amateur and untrained eye, that's an added element. |
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:33:25 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Am I qualified now? |
I would say so, but you're still a dork. :D |
...but I'm an AMATEUR dork. ;-P |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:33:51 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
But in this case he didn't break the rules, the SC decided he did. That's different. And if you really coinsidered photography your main source of income, then you wouldn't have graphic designer first in your bio. |
I didn't think he broke the rules either, but a majority did. I changed my bio, too. Am I qualified now? |
Much more than before...jk.
Lighten up people.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:36:26 PM · #135 |
too much?
too much?
 |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:38:44 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I fail to see how it's out of line. If the SC is going to determine whether a shot breaks photographic rules then they should be somewhat qualified.
Some people need to grow a thicker skin... |
And, I suppose that to you the qualification would consist of having done photography as a full-time job?
That's like saying that to be a judge in criminal court you must have been a criminal first.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:40:24 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
I fail to see how it's out of line. If the SC is going to determine whether a shot breaks photographic rules then they should be somewhat qualified.
Some people need to grow a thicker skin... |
And, I suppose that to you the qualification would consist of having done photography as a full-time job?
That's like saying that to be a judge in criminal court you must have been a criminal first. |
No. A judge should of been a lawyer first. Actually practicing the law he will be using to judge people.
Great example
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:40:45 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Am I qualified now? |
I would say so, but you're still a dork. :D |
...but I'm an AMATEUR dork. ;-P |
Is amateur dork better - at least you got a nice purple hat thingie on your "icon". Common - re-enter the mans photo and make the rules more clear. Admit that a mistake was made.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:41:10 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
Written rules did not say you can use filters but not blur so much!! |
Well, actually they do...
"...using ANY editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
Just because you can use the blur filter doesn't mean you can apply a huge Gaussian Blur to the entire shot and turn it into one big smudge or blank color. That much should be common sense. How much is allowed isn't quite so clear, and that's why we have a group of people to vote on it. The SC is made up of people with diverse backgrounds and opinions, and so you'll get different views on what's allowed (as demonstrated within this thread). The result this time was unfortunate (or justified, depending upon where you stand), but the next rules revision should be much clearer. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:41:56 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
too much?
too much?
|
OK, I'll give you those examples.... BUT, the image in question had a radial blur filter and hue adjustments done to the background only and according to the rules... the filter can be applied to the entire image or a part of the image. The background is still discernable, the filter did not change the fact that it was a "wooded background".
Can we agree the background is a forest? Can you not tell that it is a forest in the final image? Is the "major element" not the forest? If the major element is still identifiable as said forest, would it not still be the same major element in the original image? Following this line of thought, what "major element" was added? What "major element" was removed? |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:41:58 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
too much?
too much?
|
No to my taste, but well within the current written rules. Why not let the voters decide on them?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:41:58 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
If using gaussion blur is okay, then all types of blurs should be okay. |
well, I don't agree with this.
I think it's fine to say this tool is ok and that one is not.
However, if they do not have measurable limits placed for the tool, it should ether be legal, or not legal.
Kinda legal, sometimes, just isn't working well. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:43:11 PM · #143 |
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.)
He followed the rules. If you don't like the rules, change them, but you can't just ignore them because you don't like them.
You can't tell someone that the speed limit is 65 and then give them a ticket for going that fast!
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:45:47 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Why not let the voters decide on them? |
Voters have no way of knowing the effect was creating in PS. How would you feel if you actually managed a good motion blur in-camera and got beaten by someone who just drew it in? |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:46:41 PM · #145 |
I think the DQ was unfair as well.
The examples below are too much for my taste but not too much according to the way the rules read for the use of filters to my understanding.
Oh..BTW...I am not a professional photographer, although I made more money last year shooting photos than a lot of my Professional Photographer friends did so I guess that screws the whole theory up :-/
Originally posted by muckpond:
too much?
too much?
|
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:46:49 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
[quote=muckpond] back on topic
Edit The only penalty would be the photo "not being well received by voters" and voted down as a result... No mention of disqualification. |
exactly
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:48:30 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Why not let the voters decide on them? |
Voters have no way of knowing the effect was creating in PS. How would you feel if you actually managed a good motion blur in-camera and got beaten by someone who just drew it in? |
I would feel like I was competing in a DIGITAL photography contest. ;o)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:48:36 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by hopper:
I wasn't trying to prove anything, just pointing out that your delivery of a sentence could be the difference between someone respecting you for your experience and intelligence ... or just thinking your a jerk.
|
I'm much less jerky in person. I'm too lazy to type a round about response to appear less jerky. So I just get right to it. ;o) |
You need to work on reducing your jerkiness online, too, Brent. You come across as a serious elitist jerk with this.
I really respect your work as a professional photographer, but your online persona really needs to be culitvated with some of that professionalism. One of us might be a client of yours someday. Sorry.
No insult intended here, just calling it as I see it. :) |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:49:15 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Ombra_foto:
You can't tell someone that the speed limit is 65 and then give them a ticket for going that fast! |
Actually, that's pretty good analogy... except that we didn't tell anyone they could drive 65. You are allowed to use the accelerator pedal (the tool). Be aware that some people don't like sudden speed changes and may vote you low for it. Using ANY part of your car to break posted traffic laws is still illegal, though.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 14:53:28. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:50:40 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Why not let the voters decide on them? |
Voters have no way of knowing the effect was creating in PS. How would you feel if you actually managed a good motion blur in-camera and got beaten by someone who just drew it in? |
This is exactly why I quit entering "in-the-camera" type effect shots. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 11:19:42 AM EDT.
