| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2014 03:45:14 PM · #1 |
The results of the 'Toothpicks' challenge have been recalculated, due to the disqualification of the former 2nd place image for creating objects/features that were not in the original. In this case, lighting effects were added to the mirrored candles in post-processing to make them appear to be lit and glowing. Congrats to our new ribbon winners & honourable mentions!
Message edited by Bear_Music - amplified the reason for the DQ. |
|
|
|
08/20/2014 06:51:28 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
08/20/2014 09:01:21 PM · #3 |
| Aw, that sucks (no pun intended). Though I thought it might be something else done in pp that could be problematic. Ah well. |
|
|
|
08/20/2014 10:03:26 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
08/20/2014 10:05:25 PM · #5 |
| Ya know, Manic, Bear includes a link to the challenge... |
|
|
|
08/20/2014 10:10:55 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 01:22:57 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Ya know, Manic, Bear includes a link to the challenge... |
Bear is a well trained Bear :)
Manic, well, he's up and down...
Message edited by author 2014-08-21 01:25:51. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 06:42:43 AM · #8 |
| Not a subtle transgression of the rules either. Very surprising from the DPC veteran. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 07:18:46 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Garry:
Not a subtle transgression of the rules either. Very surprising from the DPC veteran. |
how can you know without seeing orig? |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 07:25:37 AM · #10 |
i thought it would have been dq'd for the fact that he printed out a picture and took a picture of it, thus circumventing post processing rules...
|
|
|
|
08/21/2014 07:28:15 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i thought it would have been dq'd for the fact that he printed out a picture and took a picture of it, thus circumventing post processing artwork rules... |
Fixed that for you. I thought the same thing.
Tim |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 07:46:30 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i thought it would have been dq'd for the fact that he printed out a picture and took a picture of it, thus circumventing post processing rules... |
As long as the photo is taken within the challenge dates it is fine. I have done the same and received validation (for just such a method of putting a picture in a mirror actually). Several other DPCers have done the same some placing in the top 5 and passing inspection. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 08:07:21 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by CNovack:
Originally posted by Mike:
i thought it would have been dq'd for the fact that he printed out a picture and took a picture of it, thus circumventing post processing rules... |
As long as the photo is taken within the challenge dates it is fine. I have done the same and received validation (for just such a method of putting a picture in a mirror actually). Several other DPCers have done the same some placing in the top 5 and passing inspection. |
maybe i misread the rules or they changed without announcement that i saw, but you can use the artwork rule to circumvent editing. the key is how prominent a role the offending image plays in the image.
now i haven't seen Christophe original, so i dont know what he edited, but his description leads me to believe he printed the image to circumvent an editing rule, my guess is to clone out some stuff.
granted i speculating a lot, but i'm still confused as hell what constitutes legal when it comes to printing out stuff and using it in your image.
on a personal note i was hoping he wouldn't have gotten a DQ for printing out the image (and he didn't) as my argument in the other thread is that it would stem creativity and rob us of images like this one.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2014 08:11:56 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i thought it would have been dq'd for the fact that he printed out a picture and took a picture of it, thus circumventing post processing rules... |
i had the same thought. "isn't this exactly what shannon was saying about art's dq and using printouts to circumvent advanced/expert editing?" |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 08:27:05 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by RyanW:
Originally posted by Mike:
i thought it would have been dq'd for the fact that he printed out a picture and took a picture of it, thus circumventing post processing rules... |
i had the same thought. "isn't this exactly what shannon was saying about art's dq and using printouts to circumvent advanced/expert editing?" |
Yes, it would have been DQ'd for violating the Artwork rule, too, but lighting up those candles was incontrovertible. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 08:54:42 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yes, it would have been DQ'd for violating the Artwork rule, too, but lighting up those candles was incontrovertible. |
thanks for that clarification. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 10:26:47 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Yes, it would have been DQ'd for violating the Artwork rule, too, but lighting up those candles was incontrovertible. |
thanks for that clarification. |
Very nice clarification indeed.
I wonder, can the DQ description on the photo itself be updated to say this? I ask for future reference, as I'm sure we can all imagine another "artwork" debate and this image coming into play. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 10:37:29 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
I wonder, can the DQ description on the photo itself be updated to say this? I ask for future reference, as I'm sure we can all imagine another "artwork" debate and this image coming into play. |
We're close to an update on the Artwork rule wording, and that should address future issues. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 10:43:38 AM · #19 |
is it possible to have the original image posted when there is a DQ so we can clearly see for ourselves where the limits are? might be hard for expert though with multiple files...
just throwing it out there.. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 10:49:11 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Mike:
is it possible to have the original image posted when there is a DQ so we can clearly see for ourselves where the limits are? |
We can't post originals without permission from the photographers, and asking to do that after a DQ is rather awkward. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 11:20:31 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
is it possible to have the original image posted when there is a DQ so we can clearly see for ourselves where the limits are? |
We can't post originals without permission from the photographers, and asking to do that after a DQ is rather awkward. |
SC asked me... and I didn't think it was awkward. I knew I could have said no, and SC would not post in public that I had denied permission.
Or ... at least I assumed so. :D
|
|
|
|
08/21/2014 11:47:45 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
is it possible to have the original image posted when there is a DQ so we can clearly see for ourselves where the limits are? |
We can't post originals without permission from the photographers, and asking to do that after a DQ is rather awkward. |
SC asked me... and I didn't think it was awkward. I knew I could have said no, and SC would not post in public that I had denied permission.
Or ... at least I assumed so. :D |
Of course, come to think of it, any of us could probably PM the photographer who had been DQed and ask if s/he would post the original. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 03:25:03 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Garry:
Not a subtle transgression of the rules either. Very surprising from the DPC veteran. |
how can you know without seeing orig? |
He lit candles that weren't originally lit, using PS. Don't need to see the original to know the Advanced Editing rules were obviously broken. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 03:42:42 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Garry:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Garry:
Not a subtle transgression of the rules either. Very surprising from the DPC veteran. |
how can you know without seeing orig? |
He lit candles that weren't originally lit, using PS. Don't need to see the original to know the Advanced Editing rules were obviously broken. |
You've already changed the description from what Shannon said, without seeing the original. Soon, you'll be accusing him of burning down the Reichstag. |
|
|
|
08/21/2014 03:46:28 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Garry:
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Garry:
Not a subtle transgression of the rules either. Very surprising from the DPC veteran. |
how can you know without seeing orig? |
He lit candles that weren't originally lit, using PS. Don't need to see the original to know the Advanced Editing rules were obviously broken. |
You've already changed the description from what Shannon said, without seeing the original. Soon, you'll be accusing him of burning down the Reichstag. |
Please. So dramatic, Don.
In Manics original post " . In this case, lighting effects were added to the mirrored candles in post-processing to make them appear to be lit and glowing "
Message edited by author 2014-08-21 15:47:28. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/02/2025 04:40:49 PM EDT.
