| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2006 03:01:42 AM · #1 |
We just wanted to offer a quick status update on the DPChallenge rules rewrite. The drafts we are working on are not yet ready for public review, but we have a good enough picture of where we're going that we can share some information about that direction with you.
First, you will notice that I have called this a rewrite, not a revision. Every previous DPC rules revision has been accomplished by editing (mostly adding to) the previous version of the rules. This was literally a rewrite, and could really be considered a version 2.0 of the challenge rules.
The most noticeable change is that the format is completely new. Rather than the long and sometimes confusing paragraphs in the current version, we've organized the rules into bulleted lists. The lists are organized by what you can and cannot do, and broken into sections of what you "must," "may," and "must not" do to comply with the rules.
Since the Voting Rules are the same across all challenges, we have broken these into a separate document. These have also been rewritten and follow a similar format to the challenge rules.
You'll also notice that the new rules are much shorter. Our current draft of the Advanced Rules, for example, is currently 30% shorter than the non-voting sections of the current version, and about half the size of the full document. At the same time, we've set clearer standards for subjective concepts such as major elements, and better described the criteria we'll use to judge those concepts.
We want to be clear up front that this is a change in the rules. Some things that are legal under the current rules will not be legal under the new rules, and vice versa. This will make more sense once the revision is released, and of course the Site Council will gladly address any questions or doubts.
Most importantly, we'd like to solicit your suggestions. If there is anything you would like to see in the new rules, now is the time to voice it!
To help keep things moving, I ask only the following:
- Bear in mind that anything posted here is a suggestion. We will carefully consider any suggestions posted, but we do reserve the right to reject any suggestion for any reason. Most often this would be because of enforceability issues or because they don't fit with where we see the site progressing.
- Suggestions should be solutions, not problems. For the most part, we all know where the problem areas are in the rules. A statement that such-and-such section needs to be fixed does little to keep the discussion moving forward. What really helps is to suggest a specific improvement.
Thanks!
Site Council |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:06:30 AM · #2 |
The biggest thing I'd love to see is to allow cloning out sensor dust in basic editing. Sensor dust is a problem on dSLR's and even one little speck can give reason for a voter to rate lower.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:07:41 AM · #3 |
Make Neat-Image illegal.
BUWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAH! J/K! I don't want to start a holy war! ;)
I guess in light of recent threads, I'm guessing whole filter issue will be a bit more clear?
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 03:08:01.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:10:22 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
The biggest thing I'd love to see is to allow cloning out sensor dust in basic editing. Sensor dust is a problem on dSLR's and even one little speck can give reason for a voter to rate lower. |
Agree with Jennifer after my blue II submission. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:15:21 AM · #5 |
i agree with the sensor dust cleaning idea
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 03:16:39. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:23:04 AM · #6 |
is that in the rule !
you mast be a joker :)
Originally posted by JRalston:
The biggest thing I'd love to see is to allow cloning out sensor dust in basic editing. Sensor dust is a problem on dSLR's and even one little speck can give reason for a voter to rate lower. |
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:32:26 AM · #7 |
I'll take the opposite view and say no cloning of sensor dust should be permitted in basic.
If someone is concerned enough about sensor dust then they should clean their sensor. It only takes a couple of minutes.
Keep basic editing as basic as possible.
bazz. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:39:40 AM · #8 |
Third-party filters and Actions
I would like to see an area pertaining to third-party filters and actions. Listing what is legal, not legal, or maybe legal. Some filters edit pictures where the photographer cannot explain the process and we don't know if any major elements have been moved or removed.
Borders
A clearer understanding on borders such as feathering, triptych, etc. Also if adding to the canvas size to create a border, when legal or not legal.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 03:47:57.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:41:24 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by southern_exposure:
Borders
A clearer understanding on borders such as feathering, triptych, etc. Also if adding to the canvas size to create a border, when legal or not legal. |
I'd like to see this as well. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:42:00 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
I'll take the opposite view and say no cloning of sensor dust should be permitted in basic.
If someone is concerned enough about sensor dust then they should clean their sensor. It only takes a couple of minutes.
Keep basic editing as basic as possible.
bazz. |
In that case one should increase contrast in camera and not be allowed to via software.
As long as it's just sensor dust I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed, but make sure it's not abused to remove any dust speck in the photo though.
I'd like to see a standard watermark that people could use if they please. Not required too. Something that just says dpchallenge.com or similiar. No user names or real names.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 03:42:56. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 03:49:28 AM · #11 |
Agree on spot editing for sensor dust only and (this will go over like a lead balloon) for advanced editing allow the removal of major elements like background items or things that are not relevant to the challenge entry - such as the lighting stand someone was DQ'd for awhile back. Adding elements still not allowed.
ps - I appreciate you guys taking the time to do this and hopefully will remove a good portion of ambiguity and subjectivity. Good luck. :) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:19:53 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Agree on spot editing for sensor dust only and (this will go over like a lead balloon) for advanced editing allow the removal of major elements like background items or things that are not relevant to the challenge entry - such as the lighting stand someone was DQ'd for awhile back. Adding elements still not allowed. |
I think this sounds like a good idea too. If they were MY rules, I'd write them to allow things like DrJOnes's photo while still disallowing the removal of props in a way that creates the illusion of defying the laws of physics (e.g., cloning out large support structures or the like). |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:43:50 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
...while still disallowing the removal of props in a way that creates the illusion of defying the laws of physics (e.g., cloning out large support structures or the like). |
Agree - even cloning out small, but significant objects that make the shot should be disallowed. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:51:57 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by mycelium:
...while still disallowing the removal of props in a way that creates the illusion of defying the laws of physics (e.g., cloning out large support structures or the like). |
Agree - even cloning out small, but significant objects that make the shot should be disallowed. |
Just playing Devil's Advocate here:
Do you think if this became something that was allowed, it would place less of an emphasis on photographic technique and more on Photoshop skills?
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 04:56:59 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by mycelium:
...while still disallowing the removal of props in a way that creates the illusion of defying the laws of physics (e.g., cloning out large support structures or the like). |
Agree - even cloning out small, but significant objects that make the shot should be disallowed. |
Can either of you propose a relatively bulletproof wording that accomplishes this? |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:00:57 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
If someone is concerned enough about sensor dust then they should clean their sensor. It only takes a couple of minutes. |
Doing so is not always possible.
I know at least one user who has dust on the sensor in his fixed-lens camera. Removing it would be a costly repair.
Many dSLR owners are uncomfortable with the idea of cleaning their own sensors (or unable to do so if they don't have steady enough hands), and prefer to have it done professionally. This is costly and something that can only be done periodically.
It's also possible to clean one's sensor but pick up dust while out shooting for the day, ruining a potential challenge entry.
Finally, speaking personally, I had major sensor dust issues when I was vacationing in Arizona for a week last year. A lot of shooting, and a lot of lens changes, and I couldn't clean my sensor, since I did not have my supplies to do so with me. I flew there, and it's illegal to transport Eclipse by air.
~Terry
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 05:02:52.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:06:51 AM · #17 |
I would like to see the use of motion blur and gaussian blur ALLOWED in advanved editing. I have heard no good reason yet which convinces me that the use of blur etc is wrong.
I'm sure the fundementalists will scream and shout about this, but as long as the tool is available to everyone and the rules are clear where the line is drawn then there is no problem.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:10:59 AM · #18 |
| As far as sensor dust goes, would this also apply to 'dead pixels'? My primary camera generates a lot of those, and cloning or just a plain desat is the only way to remove them. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:16:31 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Can either of you propose a relatively bulletproof wording that accomplishes this? |
Relatively Bulletproof in reference to written rules on this site would be the equivalent of a windbreaker. ;-)
I tried to write something but it always comes down to using words like significant, relevant, major, minor, etc. I am not sure you can ever get away from the subjectivity completely - but I would propose that the latitude be given to the photographer - like requiring a super majority or unanimous vote by the SC to DQ since not DQ'ing has little or no consequence to any one individual, but DQ's can get people suspended or banned. Benefit of the doubt should go to the photog.
Hot or dead pixels should be in the same category as sensor dust and I say yes to any blur filters in advanced or no to all of them. I prefer to have them legal, but if not one or if there are arnitrary constraints on the use, then none should be legal.
That's about all I can contribute - I am not that passionate about changing things or keeping them the same - I'll go with the flow and just complain a little once in awhile. :) |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:25:55 AM · #20 |
I don't know if it is an issue of rules more so a method statement or a more justified process on how the Site council votes on images that have a DQ request put in.
In my view the current method is cumbersome and riddled with the potential of conflict of interest and allegations of bias. These problems can be eliminated if the process is simplified my suggestions are as follows;
When an image is requested for a DQ, site council review this image and if they can not make a clear decision immediately that the image is then moved to a sub-committee that is made up of 3-5 of the most experienced site council who have not seen the image previously and do not know who owns it.
This sub-committee would remain anonymous and would vote on all images referred to them any decision made by them would be final. All other debate in the forums regarding the DQ image would not involve any site council member; they should not be allowed to make any comment as an individual or site council member on that image.
The rules should be clear and defined enough so if you required a validation before a challenge you should be able to get an exact answer as long as you give site council enough time before a challenge closes.
Just a suggestion.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:29:03 AM · #21 |
How about the following wording for advanced :
The use of pixel moving filters to in advanced editing is allowed where applied to background in order to enhance or introduce elements to the context of the main subject. This includes motion and gaussian blur. The use of pixel moving filters should not be allowed on the main subject.
Message edited by author 2006-02-12 05:29:49.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:38:12 AM · #22 |
I think basic editing should remain as is, I can't see any issue with these rules and I feel it is a fundamental of how these challenges have existed. If people don't like the basic rules they can pay the money and become a member.
The real problem comes in for the paid members in the advanced editing; this in my view should have two categories, one to cater for more post processing and the other for limited post processing.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:45:48 AM · #23 |
I would like to make one suggestion....but I don't know if it is along the lines of which you are speaking of.
Please....when somebody has a photo in for validation and the image doesn't get validated until after the voting finishes can SC please notify the photographer. I know the photographer gets notified in the case of a DQ....but I know of many photographers who sit on the edge of their chair waiting for that confirmation that their image passed the inspection. I know from experience that validation does sometimes take longer than 48 hours....but even so....4 days after submitting is a long time for someone to be uncertain of the outcome.
I think you will find many members will be in agreeance with this suggestion.
Judi |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:48:07 AM · #24 |
| I really would like to see dodge&burn allowed in basic editing and,maybe, if I don't ask to much, we should be able to use adjustment layers in other blending modes than normal. |
|
|
|
02/12/2006 05:56:33 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
The biggest thing I'd love to see is to allow cloning out sensor dust in basic editing. Sensor dust is a problem on dSLR's and even one little speck can give reason for a voter to rate lower. |
I agree that I would like to see the rules in basic editing changed as JRalston suggests. |
|
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 05:28:07 AM EDT.
