| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/04/2005 08:15:07 PM · #1 |
The image in second place has been disqualified under the "removal of major elements" rule.
Congrats to aKiwi on his new ribbon, and to nico_blue and falc on their new top 5 and top 10 placements, respectively!
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 08:20:41 PM · #2 |
Oh snap!! I moved up to 41st!!!
hehe
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 08:23:28 PM · #3 |
I might go under the firing squad for this statement.. but where's the DQ of first place for "removal of major elements"? They got rid of an entire background there, and you *cannot* tell me that it didn't affect the photo in a major way.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 08:25:20 PM · #4 |
That one was my favorite. Bummer. Hopefully it won't discourage future creativity.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 08:27:07 PM · #5 |
for those who have forgotten what photo(s) were DQ'ed look at the last page of the challenge itself.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 08:27:11 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
I might go under the firing squad for this statement.. but where's the DQ of first place for "removal of major elements"? They got rid of an entire background there, and you *cannot* tell me that it didn't affect the photo in a major way.
Just my two cents. |
Like any other top-5 shot, it is under review. Since it is actively under review, I can't discuss specifics, but you're assuming a lot. And you know what they say about the word "ass-u-me" ;-)
Remember, "innocent until proven guilty."
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 08:28:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Artyste:
I might go under the firing squad for this statement.. but where's the DQ of first place for "removal of major elements"? They got rid of an entire background there, and you *cannot* tell me that it didn't affect the photo in a major way.
Just my two cents. |
Like any other top-5 shot, it is under review. Since it is actively under review, I can't discuss specifics, but you're assuming a lot. And you know what they say about the word "ass-u-me" ;-)
Remember, "innocent until proven guilty." |
Hehe.
I'm not assuming a dang thing.
He says he removed stuff in the write-up.. but I understand your position..
*whistles innocently*
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 09:32:42 PM · #8 |
Here's what appears in the Photographer's Comments:
"Hey Everyone...thanks for the comments...I'm really happy to have cracked the secret of 7 at least for the moment. I take back the evil thoughts I've been having about the site lately ;)
As you can tell, I'm writing this post challenge as I decided to submit something about 30 minutes before deadline. I had taken the pic at the beginning of the week and hadn't thought much about it until late.
I knew what I wanted compositionally and emotionally, but the lighting was very harsh (it was taken at 2pm) An S curve adjustment in photoshop and I was blown away by the details in the wood...I'm guessing I need to thank my 20D for that. With a tree lined background and a deep shadow on the right rail I brought down the levels in those areas to black to really bring out the strength of lighter areas. I needed to tone down the rail a bit with a burn and tone up the man in spots with a dodge. I cloned out some specs, but missed a few due to time.
Sorry, to the photo reality purists...photoshop was used to bring out the beauty of what I saw in my mind but which was trapped under the physical limitations of the true scene. I'm glad I decided to revisit this before it ended up in obscurity on my hard drive.
This is Bow Bridge in Central Park, NYC"
I think Artyste may have a valid point.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 09:47:25 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I think Artyste may have a valid point. |
I think y'all need to wait until SC is done with it's review. :)
Isn't there an outtake thread you can post to? ;)
Clara |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 09:57:54 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by muur88:
...I brought down the levels in those areas to black... |
He did not remove anything, I hope it doesn't get DQ'd.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 10:05:40 PM · #11 |
Why DQ it first? Why not wait for a vote...just a question.
I thought it may be just because of this the blur is all photoshop; i applied the radial blur to all but the guy in the distance.
But, a very cool shot.
Message edited by author 2005-07-04 22:07:24. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 10:11:12 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by tyt2000:
Originally posted by muur88:
...I brought down the levels in those areas to black... |
He did not remove anything, I hope it doesn't get DQ'd. |
He says a tree lined background and a shadow on the right rail were there in the original -- they are not there in the final image. To be fair, the shadow on the right rail may still be there -- but the rail is not. The method of removal does not matter -- all tools and techniques are governed by the 'major elements' clause. It remains to the SC to determine if a tree lined background and the right rail of the bridge are to be considered major elements.
David
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 10:19:43 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
Why DQ it first? Why not wait for a vote...just a question. |
i'm not sure if you're talking about the shot that was disqualified, but the SC compared the submission to the original and DID vote on it. the radial blur used was shown to create a major element, as well as obscure major elements of the photo when compared to the original.
for ribbon winners we try to be expedient in our debate so that "new" winners that move up can have their time in the spotlight. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 10:22:19 PM · #14 |
it's really premature to discuss the status of the blue ribbon photo, so i'm sure the photographer would appreciate limiting the public debate about it.
no offense, but it's nearly impossible to determine violations of the major element rule until you see the submission compared to the original. the photographer's comments can often be misleading.
we are looking into it. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 11:07:38 PM · #15 |
glad to see the rule of law really matters around here... but apparently "appearances" are all that are required. I'm glad you all aren't on any juries.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 11:11:11 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I'm glad you all aren't on any juries. |
Me too, I would not want to make those decisions.
Message edited by author 2005-07-04 23:17:23. |
|
|
|
07/04/2005 11:41:17 PM · #17 |
where are ken and slippy with the riot mob when you need them :-p ?
|
|
|
|
07/04/2005 11:44:01 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by frisca:
glad to see the rule of law really matters around here... but apparently "appearances" are all that are required. I'm glad you all aren't on any juries. |
Well, I just might be in the middle of the month but not in your area, so no worries.
I had started another thread about this very thing asking what was considered major and not. I would also love to see the original of the blue ribbon, especially if it stays a blue ribbon simply because of the photographer's own comments made me wonder just how much was changed. I said in the other thread, had I time to vote on this challenge I would have submitted a DQ request on that shot because the right side and the background look very unnatural to me personally and the lines seperating the rail and the walkway look forced on my monitor. But alas, I did not have time so hence the after the vote discussion.
Deannda
Must be a heck of a debate going on over this one |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:31:15 AM · #19 |
well, i am thoroughly disappointed. :(
i did clone out something; there were a number (about 4 or 5, i'm not at my computer at the moment) of light fittings in the middle of the ceiling, pretty small (finger nail size), which i thought, were obviously "minor distracting elements".
someone kindly pmd me and said that radial blur might be the reason, but i doubt that would be it as i used it on the zoom setting, which is the same as a motion blur but down to a point rather than across the shot. i thought "Filters: At your discretion, you may apply filters to your photo, in whole or part." meant i could use a filter at my discretion.
thing is, after an exciting week watching the score and the jubilation of doing well, a semi-automated impersonal response telling you, frankly, that you suck and you're a cheat and you're a liar (i might be reading too much into it) is kind of depressing. some clarity about what they found offending might be useful to avoid any repeat errors. i now don't know which of the two things above got their goat. if one of the SC could actually take the time out to write to you to say what's amiss, i think it might be appreciated.
i'm not going to harp on about it. it doesn't do me or anyone else any good. judgement is done, and thats the end of it. still sucks though. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:38:47 AM · #20 |
David - I understand your disappointment and I'm sorry about your disqualification. We certainly never enjoy doing that. And we most definitely do not think that you suck or that you're a liar. Your photo was disqualified because of your use of radial blur. The majority of the SC felt that the use of the blur violated the major elements rule - it essentially obliterated every detail of the photo with the exception of the man on the phone.
I am beginning to see that perhaps the rules are not clear as the major elements clause and filters clause appear in two separate paragraphs and I think that maybe people are not adding the two together. However, the major elements bit does apply to any sort of editing - spot editing, filters, etc. I'm going to bring this lack of clarity up with the other SC and see if we can't refine things a little.
Hopefully this explains the situation a little more...
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:47:21 AM · #21 |
Fair Question.perhaps SC can answer.Originally posted by Artyste:
I might go under the firing squad for this statement.. but where's the DQ of first place for "removal of major elements"? They got rid of an entire background there, and you *cannot* tell me that it didn't affect the photo in a major way.
Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:50:43 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by kiwinick:
Fair Question.perhaps SC can answer. |
I think these responses pretty much covered it.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Like any other top-5 shot, it is under review. Since it is actively under review, I can't discuss specifics, but you're assuming a lot. And you know what they say about the word "ass-u-me" ;-)
Remember, "innocent until proven guilty." |
Originally posted by blemt:
I think y'all need to wait until SC is done with it's review. :)
Isn't there an outtake thread you can post to? ;)
Clara |
Originally posted by muckpond:
it's really premature to discuss the status of the blue ribbon photo, so i'm sure the photographer would appreciate limiting the public debate about it.
no offense, but it's nearly impossible to determine violations of the major element rule until you see the submission compared to the original. the photographer's comments can often be misleading.
we are looking into it. |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:51:33 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by kiwinick:
Fair Question.perhaps SC can answer.Originally posted by Artyste:
I might go under the firing squad for this statement.. but where's the DQ of first place for "removal of major elements"? They got rid of an entire background there, and you *cannot* tell me that it didn't affect the photo in a major way.
Just my two cents. |
|
If you have read the thread, you know that, like all top 5 images, the first-place image is under review. It's inappropriate for me to say anything specific, but please give the photographer the benefit of the doubt. If you have not seen the original, you cannot assume anything, even given the details. Please stop speculating.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:51:52 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by kiwinick:
Fair Question.perhaps SC can answer.Originally posted by Artyste:
I might go under the firing squad for this statement.. but where's the DQ of first place for "removal of major elements"? They got rid of an entire background there, and you *cannot* tell me that it didn't affect the photo in a major way.
Just my two cents. |
|
Just like all top 5 photos, this one too is being reviewed.
I will state though, that if a background is 99.9% black blob to begin with, when you darken it even further, it doesn't affect the photo much at all.
Edit to add that that this is only an example of one way that removing an 'entire background' may not affect a photo much.
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 01:55:03. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:56:33 AM · #25 |
redmoon, really really sorry about your dq. I think it sucks a lot of get that far and find out your image has gotten disqualified.
If possible could you post your original, resized shot for comparison as a learning guide for others (including myself). I think it would be very helpful.
I think your image was really great, and most of the voters did as well. Even though you might not have gotten the little virtual ribbon you still managed to create of work of art that spoke to people and no doubt inspired others. Best of luck in future challenge!
|
|
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 05:38:10 AM EDT.
