| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/22/2009 03:40:06 PM · #1 |
The results of the 'Geology' challenge have been recalculated, due to the disqualification of the former yellow ribbon image for use of illegal data layers and filters. Congrats to our new yellow ribbon winner!
|
|
|
|
07/22/2009 03:46:25 PM · #2 |
This thread is meaningless unless it's to award the Blue Ribbon to me.
;-P
Message edited by author 2009-07-22 15:47:01.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2009 03:55:24 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
This thread is meaningless unless it's to award the Blue Ribbon to me. |
That you scored a 4.2 on a topic within your own field of expertise surely merits recognition. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/22/2009 04:00:33 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
This thread is meaningless unless it's to award the Blue Ribbon to me. |
That you scored a 4.2 on a topic within your own field of expertise surely merits recognition. ;-) |
Thank you, thank you... ;-)
Here's a shot I took of some gold in drill core (through a hand lens for artistic merit). It's probably more DPC friendly.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2009 04:16:00 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
This thread is meaningless unless it's to award the Blue Ribbon to me. |
That you scored a 4.2 on a topic within your own field of expertise surely merits recognition. ;-) |
Hey, even I scored better than that! ;-) |
|
|
|
07/22/2009 04:17:48 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
This thread is meaningless unless it's to award the Blue Ribbon to me. |
That you scored a 4.2 on a topic within your own field of expertise surely merits recognition. ;-) |
Hey, even I scored better than that! ;-) |
Now THAT is a shocker! ;-D
|
|
|
|
07/22/2009 04:19:54 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Now THAT is a shocker! ;-D |
Probably a 6.8 on the Richter Scale ... ;-) |
|
|
|
07/22/2009 04:25:15 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Now THAT is a shocker! ;-D |
Probably a 6.8 on the Richter Scale ... ;-) |
GUFFAW! There was a 7.9 near New Zealand last weak that moved it 30cm closer to Australia! //www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/earthquake-moves-new-zealand-closer-to-australia/article1227075/
|
|
|
|
07/22/2009 04:44:46 PM · #9 |
Geezus, we're trying to keep them out - now they are even closer!
Call the navy, incoming sheep molesters! |
|
|
|
07/22/2009 04:50:56 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by daryn:
Geezus, we're trying to keep them out - now they are even closer!
Call the navy, incoming sheep molesters! |
I think they're just trying to run away from Slippy. |
|
|
|
07/22/2009 06:16:35 PM · #11 |
Woo-hoo!
It's been a while, but I now get to update my signature to reflect another Top 10 finish. he-he!
I hate that it had to happen this way. It's never a good thing to be DQ'ed. :-(
Message edited by author 2009-07-22 18:18:29.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2009 07:51:29 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
That you scored a 4.2 on a topic within your own field of expertise surely merits recognition. ;-) |
I have it! Simply devise some trumped up reason to DQ the bottom 4, then slippy will have the brown! |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:11:39 PM · #13 |
| I'm confused now. I thought I'd figured out what she'd done wrong but I see pretty much the same editing steps on the new 3rd place entry. So what WAS wrong? |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:16:59 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I'm confused now. I thought I'd figured out what she'd done wrong but I see pretty much the same editing steps on the new 3rd place entry. So what WAS wrong? |
I would assume it was the soft focus filter which she used?
Matt
But yeah I think the new 3rd place according to the edit notes will also be a DQ.
Message edited by author 2009-07-23 13:17:53. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:19:17 PM · #15 |
| You made me go and look, Bee Cee. I suspect we will see another DQ in the next day or so if the steps used were as described. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:33:52 PM · #16 |
| I thought the top five got validated off the top. Based on the soft light/opacity in the edit steps I think we may see another DQ as well. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:35:25 PM · #17 |
| Depends on if "soft light" is an adjustment layer. If it has to be done as a duplicate raster layer, then there may be another dq coming. I dunno. Janine texted me from the airport yesterday afternoon. She got the dq email but did not know what she had done to violate editing rules. I've not heard from her since. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:39:00 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Depends on if "soft light" is an adjustment layer. If it has to be done as a duplicate raster layer, then there may be another dq coming. I dunno. Janine texted me from the airport yesterday afternoon. She got the dq email but did not know what she had done to violate editing rules. I've not heard from her since. |
I don't think you can change the blending mode of an adjustment layer, and isn't that what you would have to do to make a soft light adjustment?
Matt |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:39:33 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Depends on if "soft light" is an adjustment layer. If it has to be done as a duplicate raster layer, then there may be another dq coming. I dunno. Janine texted me from the airport yesterday afternoon. She got the dq email but did not know what she had done to violate editing rules. I've not heard from her since. |
Blending mode must be normal even in fade. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:46:20 PM · #20 |
yes, that is what I did...I think...
I did the gaussian blur then I choose the soft light (which I thought was legal...but now am really questioning that) and reduced the opacity...
I have asked SC to be more specific if they have the time as I never want to repeat this embarrassing moment again!!
Truly I thought it was legal...I am so very new to all of this (which is no excuse)...I am beating myself for my stupidity....
my husbands first words to me when he saw the original was "why didn't you leave it just like that"....hmmmm |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:49:56 PM · #21 |
| Unfortunately, in basic you can only use normal mode, not ones like soft light, overlay, multiply etc. That's what bit ya :( |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:53:13 PM · #22 |
I feel so totally stupid!!!
At least now I have a better idea what I did...
Message edited by author 2009-07-23 13:53:43. |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:53:34 PM · #23 |
| What about opacity on adjustment layers? is it legal is basic to reduce the opacity on any layer? |
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:55:19 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Ja-9:
yes, that is what I did...I think...
I did the gaussian blur then I choose the soft light (which I thought was legal...but now am really questioning that) and reduced the opacity...
I have asked SC to be more specific if they have the time as I never want to repeat this embarrassing moment again!!
Truly I thought it was legal...I am so very new to all of this (which is no excuse)...I am beating myself for my stupidity....
my husbands first words to me when he saw the original was "why didn't you leave it just like that"....hmmmm |
You should NOT be embarrassed by this. It was an honest mistake. Just learn from the DQ, go back and re-read the rules, and see that it does not happen again.
As others have said, at least you have a wonderful photo for your portfolio.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2009 01:59:37 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by AndyMac24:
What about opacity on adjustment layers? is it legal is basic to reduce the opacity on any layer? |
Yes, you can fade the layer, as long as it's in normal mode. |
|
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: 04/23/2024 10:20:46 PM EDT.
