| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/28/2014 12:56:30 PM · #1 |
Just want to get a feel for how other members think of this DQ - and if you'd done the same, would you be clear on that its against the Advanced Editing rules?
I had this entry DQ'd over use of double-exposure, a built-in feature of my camera that falls under Advanced editing rules, "You may use any feature of your camera":
I pointed out to the site council that i also have another earlier entry which uses double-exposure and that was challenged as well and upon submission of my proof, was validated and deemed OK:
Upon learning this, the site council graciouly DQ'd my other entry as well! I am not mad at this (well, not anymore since its been a while), just that the rules were not explicit on double-exposure. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 01:07:37 PM · #2 |
That WAS an unfortunate situation, wasn't it? The first one never should have been validated, but somehow it was :-(
As far as the rules go, "You MAY use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry. In-camera features applied after the capture are subject to normal editing rules."
That's pretty clear, IMO: by definition, merging two images into one is done "after the capture" of the first image, and we don't allow double-exposure montages in post production under the advanced ruleset. Sure, we COULD *specify* double exposures in the rule, but there are a LOT of "in camera special effects" that are not legal, and if we start specifying which are NOT legal we are beginning to imply that whatever's NOT on that list IS legal. It's not as simple as it seems.
In a related vein, we're having to deal with hipstamatic/snapseed-type shots from phone cameras now, and those bring in their own issues, not least the fact that many of those effects are achieved with texture overlays, which up to this point are only allowed in expert editing. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 01:16:17 PM · #3 |
Well seems you didn't read far enough in the rules...sorry
Message edited by author 2014-03-28 13:19:18. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 01:22:01 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well seems you didn't read far enough in the fules...sorry |
It seems like he wasn't the only one who didn't read far enough in the rules?
If the first image was validated first and then DQ'd few months later then I have no more questions about the whole process. Mind blowing. Sorry  MEJazz :(
Message edited by author 2014-03-28 13:25:26. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 01:31:56 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well seems you didn't read far enough in the rules...sorry |
I maybe wrong but i suspect the part that reads, "In-camera features applied after the capture are subject to normal editing rules" might be added AFTER my DQ as site council promised to clear this rule up and announce it as well.
Message edited by author 2014-03-28 13:32:19. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 01:34:47 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by MEJazz:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well seems you didn't read far enough in the rules...sorry |
I maybe wrong but i suspect the part that reads, "In-camera features applied after the capture are subject to normal editing rules" might be added AFTER my DQ as site council promises to clear this rule up and announce it as well. |
No, that's been in the rule all along. No changes have been made to the rules in the interim. This all takes a lot of time, or chaos starts to happen.
ETA: Here's the actual text of your DQ message on the first image:
"You MAY use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry. In-camera features applied after the capture are subject to normal editing rules. You may NOT combine captures of different scenes, move or change a feature between frames, or combine different captures to create a new scene. Regardless of the fact that your camera is able to composite the image internally, it is still comprised of two different captures and this is not allowed in advanced editing."
Message edited by author 2014-03-28 13:37:52. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 01:40:38 PM · #7 |
By the way, in my comment I wasn't questioning the rule. I was just wondering how the SC "missed" that rule at the beginning and validated the entry.
ETA. And I'm not surprised that he took another picture using double exposure since the first time it was validated.
Message edited by author 2014-03-28 13:42:31. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 01:58:20 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by beatabg:
By the way, in my comment I wasn't questioning the rule. I was just wondering how the SC "missed" that rule at the beginning and validated the entry.
ETA. And I'm not surprised that he took another picture using double exposure since the first time it was validated. |
No, of course not. He had every reason to believe it was OK. As to how it got validated in the first place? Someone goofed. We apologized profusely to him, we waived the penalty for multiple DQs, there's nothing else we can do except try to make sure it doesn't happen again. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 02:01:52 PM · #9 |
| I didn't know the penalty was waived. I'm glad. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 02:09:55 PM · #10 |
| I love using the in-camera double exposure. Just have to remember to wait for an expert editing challenge. Sometimes I forget... And it is so different from combining on the 'puter, which I have yet to learn. And different cameras do it differently. Maybe we should have a side challenge. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 02:16:55 PM · #11 |
A like the side challenge idea  tnun. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 02:17:31 PM · #12 |
Yes, thankfully the penalty was waived. I agree people make mistakes. But to DQ an entry that was already validate long after the challenge was over - wishing i'd be issued a warning and let it slide this one time :) That was my only 6.x scoring entry :(
|
|
|
|
03/28/2014 02:24:16 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MEJazz:
Yes, thankfully the penalty was waived. I agree people make mistakes. But to DQ an entry that was already validate long after the challenge was over - wishing i'd be issued a warning and let it slide this one time :) That was my only 6.x scoring entry :( |
We would love to have done that, but the problem is it would have encouraged others who encountered the image in passing to do the same thing, believing it legal :-( |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 02:26:34 PM · #14 |
i'm really hesitant to contribute to these conversations as i don't participate in the challenges, but i think this is a grave injustice to retroactively dq the first image. this is no different than referees and umpires blowing calls and it being shown over and over and over again on sportscenter, etc, but having the original call still stand with the implicit understanding that we all make mistakes.
here, the sc blew the initial call and they, the sc should have to live with it, as opposed to being allowed to go back in time and clean up their mistake. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 02:28:48 PM · #15 |
FWIW, as former SC, I don't feel that the DQ of the previous entry was absolutely necessary, however there is no "statute of limitations." In this case, the greater good is probably served, because if the older entry stood, it might have misled other folks to conclude that the "editing" was legal.
It really sucks to be on the receiving end of this, but good on you for being forthright and for being a really good sport.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2014 02:46:02 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Skip:
this is no different than referees and umpires blowing calls and it being shown over and over and over again on sportscenter, etc, but having the original call still stand with the implicit understanding that we all make mistakes. |
This year the replay umpire in New York baseball central will be able to overturn the umpire's calls in many situations (e.g. force plays, tag plays, etc.). The NFL and NHL have been overturning calls via replay for years.
The ultimate goal in every case is to get it "right" -- I don't see why this should be different. We've already mitigated any effect on the photographer by waiving any penalties (that DQ "doesn't count" in that way) and subjected ourselves to the humiliation and derision of the masses by explaining openly what's happened -- you want to dock our pay or something too? |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 02:59:23 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We've already mitigated any effect on the photographer by waiving any penalties (that DQ "doesn't count" in that way) and subjected ourselves to the humiliation and derision of the masses by explaining openly what's happened -- you want to dock our pay or something too? |
wet noodle lashes |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 03:04:26 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by LN13:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We've already mitigated any effect on the photographer by waiving any penalties (that DQ "doesn't count" in that way) and subjected ourselves to the humiliation and derision of the masses by explaining openly what's happened -- you want to dock our pay or something too? |
wet noodle lashes |
As close as I can come ...  |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 04:17:05 PM · #19 |
while i can see both sides to it, i, personally, have always been a fan of human error as part of the game...
all the same, more power to you as you swim in the sea of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't ;-) |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 04:42:16 PM · #20 |
Just wondering if it would be legal to do a long exposure, cover the lens for part of the time then uncover while catching a changed scene?
|
|
|
|
03/28/2014 04:50:00 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Just wondering if it would be legal to do a long exposure, cover the lens for part of the time then uncover while catching a changed scene? |
Absolutely. That's all a single capture. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 04:50:43 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Just wondering if it would be legal to do a long exposure, cover the lens for part of the time then uncover while catching a changed scene? |
I have made illusions of double exposures just by pausing and then quickly moving without covering the lens. I would almost eat my lens cap if this were not legal. |
|
|
|
03/28/2014 04:52:15 PM · #23 |
Thanks Bear. Good to know.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2014 04:53:51 PM · #24 |
Another question. What about panoramic sweep?
|
|
|
|
03/28/2014 07:04:13 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jomari:
Another question. What about panoramic sweep? |
Assuming it's stitching together a series of images in-camera, that's a no-go. And I don't see how it could be otherwise, given the fixed physical size of the sensor. |
|
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: 04/19/2024 10:29:23 AM EDT.
