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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> how did this get validated?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/30/2012 03:11:31 PM · #1
i was just looking through some older images and i came across this ribbon winner.

can someone explains how this is legal (motion blur in advanced editing), or was it at some point and not any longer?

05/30/2012 03:16:19 PM · #2
Copied from rules.

"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.) "
05/30/2012 03:18:26 PM · #3
Originally posted by JuliBoc:

Copied from rules.

"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.) "


which is nuts- and maybe hindsight is 20/20, because now we know that voters go cuckoo for altered looking photographs!
05/30/2012 03:19:53 PM · #4
It squeaked by at the time, but would probably be DQed under current rules.
05/30/2012 03:20:11 PM · #5
Originally posted by JuliBoc:

Copied from rules.

"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.) "


also from the rules:

"use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s)."

:)
05/30/2012 03:30:15 PM · #6
Same with this one:



Seems that this violates "use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"

Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...
05/30/2012 03:40:14 PM · #7
That one's crop makes the edit legal, I think... from the thumb, you wouldn't notice the girl ducked behind.

This one has a object added through processing, so I was amazed that it was validated:
05/30/2012 04:07:18 PM · #8
Originally posted by klkitchens:

Same with this one:



This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"

No, it didn't. The only thing cloned out was a bit of one leg peeking out in the background.
05/30/2012 04:07:31 PM · #9
Originally posted by klkitchens:

Same with this one:



Seems that this violates "use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"

Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...


This has been validated, so it can't be the same. In any case you haven't seen the original, so you can't say how much it has been removed.

ETA: Scalvert and I have written together :)

Message edited by author 2012-05-30 16:08:16.
05/30/2012 04:07:41 PM · #10
Originally posted by LydiaToo:

This one has a object added through processing, so I was amazed that it was validated:

It wasn't validated.
05/30/2012 04:09:50 PM · #11
Originally posted by scalvert:

It wasn't validated.

Don't the top three have to get validated?

CS
05/30/2012 04:14:15 PM · #12
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by klkitchens:

Same with this one:



This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"

No, it didn't. The only thing cloned out was a bit of one leg peeking out in the background.


Well, the SC obviously gets the final word on validity... but the change "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head" is still accurate. The leg in the background clearly made it a different image to the perception of the viewer.
05/30/2012 04:14:54 PM · #13
Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by klkitchens:

Same with this one:



Seems that this violates "use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"

Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...


This has been validated, so it can't be the same. In any case you haven't seen the original, so you can't say how much it has been removed.

ETA: Scalvert and I have written together :)


I did not see where it had been validated -- it wasn't posted anywhere :)
05/30/2012 04:17:11 PM · #14
Originally posted by klkitchens:

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by klkitchens:

Same with this one:



Seems that this violates "use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"

Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...


This has been validated, so it can't be the same. In any case you haven't seen the original, so you can't say how much it has been removed.

ETA: Scalvert and I have written together :)


I did not see where it had been validated -- it wasn't posted anywhere :)


You're right. mitalapo was a WPL friend so I knew he received a validation request and that the image was validated.

Message edited by author 2012-05-30 16:19:11.
05/30/2012 04:17:31 PM · #15
Originally posted by klkitchens:

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by klkitchens:

Same with this one:



Seems that this violates "use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."

This went from "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head"

Great idea under expert rules... but seems to violate advanced...


This has been validated, so it can't be the same. In any case you haven't seen the original, so you can't say how much it has been removed.

ETA: Scalvert and I have written together :)


I did not see where it had been validated -- it wasn't posted anywhere :)

just updated the entry description to clarify this.
05/30/2012 04:17:38 PM · #16
Ooooh, a witch hunt! I'll be back in a few........ >:)
05/30/2012 04:17:39 PM · #17
This is not the appropriate place to question validations since members who haven't seen the original files, validation votes and background discussions aren't really in a position to answer. Please submit such questions as tickets to avoid the speculation and confusion that arises from incomplete information or false assumptions.

Case in point:
Originally posted by klkitchens:

... but the change "girl ducked behind another girl" to "girl holding her own head" is still accurate.

That's not how the rule works. An image such as this looks essentially the same before and after editing, and a typical viewer's description would be "girl holding her own head" even in the original. The editing merely perfected an already convincing illusion. You couldn't clone out a wall to make an object levitate, but if you used nearly invisible fishing line the object would already look like it was hovering (even if close inspection revealed the support).

Message edited by author 2012-05-30 16:36:18.
05/30/2012 04:22:08 PM · #18
Originally posted by scalvert:

This is not the appropriate place to question validations since members who haven't seen the original files, validation votes and background discussions aren't really in a position to answer. Please submit such questions as tickets to avoid speculation and confusion.


Did that and never got an answer.

I think, at least in my case, I was curious how they pulled it off within the rules. I asked in a comment and I asked in a ticket. Like I said, it's a great photo, but like a magic trick could not figure out how it was achieved.

The SC ruled and said it was valid by the rules -- it was done as I expected (no magic) and would disagree with them that it met the rules, but that's all in good, honest disagreement.

Message edited by author 2012-05-30 16:49:55.
05/30/2012 04:46:59 PM · #19
Originally posted by klkitchens:

Did that and never got an answer.

As far as I can tell, you didn't. I just went through every ticket you ever submitted, and there were no such questions aside from your own inquiries about vignettes and fixing typos in challenge titles (all of which were promptly answered).
05/30/2012 04:49:02 PM · #20
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LydiaToo:

This one has a object added through processing, so I was amazed that it was validated:

It wasn't validated.


If it wasn't validated, how does it still have a yellow ribbon?
05/30/2012 04:51:31 PM · #21
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by klkitchens:

Did that and never got an answer.

As far as I can tell, you didn't. I just went through every ticket you ever submitted, and there were no such questions aside from your own inquiries about vignettes and fixing typos in challenge titles (all of which were promptly answered).


You might be right... I think I did it on "Report Post" where the photographer answered how they did it... Since that included a "confession" of sorts (of something that apparently was ok to do), I did it that way to include that information.
05/30/2012 05:11:17 PM · #22
Originally posted by larryslights:

If it wasn't validated, how does it still have a yellow ribbon?

cra s cks
cra l cks
cra i cks
cra p cks
cra p cks
cra e cks
cra d cks
05/30/2012 05:13:43 PM · #23
What about this one?



I mean, it's no doubt legal, but it's boring as heck! Shirley there's a validation process for creativity or just plain common sense?
05/30/2012 05:21:45 PM · #24
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by larryslights:

If it wasn't validated, how does it still have a yellow ribbon?

cra s cks
cra l cks
cra i cks
cra p cks
cra p cks
cra e cks
cra d cks


LOL...
05/30/2012 05:24:45 PM · #25
I don't think its reasonable to say that cropping something out of a picture creates an improper illusion and is a violation.
Only what is left in the viewable area can create the DQ- not what has been cropped out. That's just an
unreasonably broad reading of the rule.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 07:24:38 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 07:24:38 AM EDT.