DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> DQ - duck
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 31, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/05/2005 12:47:11 PM · #1


My entry was dq'ed... here was the reason given

"Your photograph must contain water and one rubber duck. The grapes also appear to be olives."

While I disagree with the decision I accept site council's decision as final. I would also like to thank everyone who voted and commented on my image; I was sitting at a personal best of 7.2 when I got dq'ed. I have added the image to my portfolio.

Thanks again,
Nick

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 12:47:39.
 04/05/2005 12:51:11 PM · #2
how did you do the water bit?
 04/05/2005 01:07:53 PM · #3
how did you acheive the lighting affect under basic editing?

i requested validation, and voted it a 7...


04/05/2005 01:09:32 PM · #4
What? THis was one of my top picks. Were they really olives? If they were grapes, it seems like you could have / should have taken a flash shot of the setup for proof. Not sure if that would've satisfied though - I saw another DQ because the grapes weren't green enough.
 04/05/2005 01:10:55 PM · #5
That's bad luck, I thought yours was the best of the challenge!
 04/05/2005 01:16:55 PM · #6
This was an amazing picture! Very creative and intensive. I like it very much. You gave life to the picture by the way you choose the ducks face, water bitting and others.
Well, despite of it, I remember the challenge rule here:
April showers bring rubber duckies! Your challenge is to photograph one rubber ducky on a blue background. You must use at least 3 light sources. You must have water and exactly 5 green grapes in the photograph. You must use an aperture between f/6 and f/10 (for typical point and shoot cameras, this setting can be achieved using your landscape mode). Be creative and have fun!

You had used to a very complex light effect to be aquired. I´m not tell that it was "created" in digital dark-room, because people are creative and we are sawing great jobs here. But... Did you use 3 light sources?
 04/05/2005 01:28:37 PM · #7
Since nico isn't on to defend the image, I'll try to share what I know. From what I know, Nico didn't cheat. The shot was not edited illegally, as some have questioned here. I don't know the light sources. He never gave us the details on that, so that is not the reason for his DQ. He mentioned his DQ reason as being "Your photograph must contain water and one rubber duck. The grapes also appear to be olives."
In my opinion, the DQ message should not have mentioned the fact that the grapes look like olives, since we had no proof of that, we could not DQ just for that.
I agree that this shot was one of the best in the challenge, and certainly hate DQing it.
That being said, I don't feel right telling WHY it WAS DQed, since under normal circumstances, we don't just go telling the public why people's shots were DQed, so I'll leave that up to Nico if he wants to share why.
04/05/2005 02:35:23 PM · #8
why nico?
 04/05/2005 02:46:00 PM · #9
It looks to me like the duck and water are being projected or is an image on a monitor/TV. That would "technically" mean that there is no duck or water used in the picture, only an image of both. I noticed this when I first saw it during voting but I may be wrong.
 04/05/2005 03:08:26 PM · #10
Wow--that was my only 10 in this challenge. Too bad.
 04/05/2005 03:51:33 PM · #11
I also requested validation for the same reason and was hoping it was not advanced editing as I was waiting to give it a 10

Originally posted by soup:
how did you acheive the lighting affect under basic editing?

i requested validation, and voted it a 7...
04/05/2005 04:01:50 PM · #12
I had also given it a 10. Sorry about your DQ.
 04/05/2005 04:25:29 PM · #13
Originally posted by K-Rob:
It looks to me like the duck and water are being projected or is an image on a monitor/TV. That would "technically" mean that there is no duck or water used in the picture, only an image of both. I noticed this when I first saw it during voting but I may be wrong.


It didnt specify that they couldnt be images. It stated the objects had to be in the image but not how to obtain those objects.
 04/05/2005 04:48:01 PM · #14
Originally posted by moodville:
Originally posted by K-Rob:
It looks to me like the duck and water are being projected or is an image on a monitor/TV. That would "technically" mean that there is no duck or water used in the picture, only an image of both. I noticed this when I first saw it during voting but I may be wrong.


It didnt specify that they couldnt be images. It stated the objects had to be in the image but not how to obtain those objects.


Yep, there are quite a few examples of entries (and ribbon winners) using this technique and it did not specify to that detail in the rules. I have used this technique (not very well) and yet, I do think it should generally be disallowed since it really opens up a huge can of worms. But maybe that's another topic.

Where's Nico?? He has some 'splainin to do. ;-)
04/05/2005 04:54:59 PM · #15
Technically, photos do not 'contain' things; they depict or represent things. So all photos would have to be DQ'd on request. In light of this, who says an olive cannot be used to depict or represent a grape. Especially if you cannot quite tell the difference from the photo?

I found it impossible to take the requirements of this challenge seriously. All of the ones mentioned above are wierd, most are unenforcable. "You must use an aperture between f/6 and f/10 (for typical point and shoot cameras, this setting can be achieved using your landscape mode)." is completely loopy. I simply did not enter because I thought the whole thing was a joke. And if DQ's for this competition remain part of the official record I will be very upset.

If the image was DQ'd because Nico used an image instead of a real duck, I would be doubly upset. There is nothing in the challenge rules that say one cannot do this. And if the DQ is based on the normal rules, I disagree because I question whether this is a 'literal representation' of a work. I have had multiple occasions to question the judgement or clarity of expression of what constitutes 'literal' vs 'creative' interpretation of other works. I may or may not agree with the official position, but I certainly believe that DPC needs a much more precise expression of the rule with lots of clear, representative examples of what would constitute infractions and what practices are safe ground.

I have been working on a brief argument for a standard that requires not aesthetic judgement. But that is the subject of another discussion.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 16:58:39.
 04/05/2005 05:08:54 PM · #16
The reason for the dq was that I took a photo of a photo of a duck. I thought since a) it is a technique that has been used quite often here I would give it a try and b) since my photo did technically depict a duck and water that would fulfill that requirement.

The grapes were grapes and not olives. I took 'green grapes' to mean green grapes and I had the liberty to present them how I wanted rather than grapes that had to be presented in a green color in the picture.

I gave up trying to fight my case with SC because I was informed that the dq was unaminous - 14 to 0... so yeah. It is kinda painful, it sucks, but I cant really do anything.

Nick
 04/05/2005 05:23:18 PM · #17
I just read through the post...

- I did not do any illegal editing, the only editing I did was levels, neat image and crop
- my three light sources where my monitor, and a tiny bulb behind each grape

- Like moodville said "It didnt specify that they couldnt be images. It stated the objects had to be in the image but not how to obtain those objects." That is how I entepreted the challenge as well. (its kind of funny that in art we are always taught that there is no right and wrong, but this is one of those cases where my intepretation was clearly wrong)

- "Your challenge is to photograph one rubber ducky on a blue background"
I thought I had photographed one rubber ducky on a blue background, but I was wrong.

- "You must have water in the photograph"
Again I thought my photograph had water but I was wrong again.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 17:24:56.
 04/05/2005 05:47:20 PM · #18
Nico, I thought your image was among the best. Sorry to see it DQ'd.

I believe this was a special case since the challenge desciption specified that you had to take a photo of a rubber ducky (not a photo of a PHOTO of a rubber ducky), and that not meeting the challenge would result in DQ (it normally wouldn't). Getting these odd objects into the photo at the risk of a DQ was the April Fool's joke. This doesn't appear to be a "literal artwork" issue, and in any other challenge you probably would have been fine.

Message edited by author 2005-04-05 19:09:04.
 04/05/2005 06:52:23 PM · #19
to elaborate - feeling the pain...

i haven't finished voting, so far it was the most interesting image presented. sorry for
04/05/2005 07:19:12 PM · #20
=[

It was one of my fav's too. A little disturbing since I used the same method here:



To achieve my 4th highest score yet.
 04/05/2005 08:04:06 PM · #21
Originally posted by nico_blue:

- "Your challenge is to photograph one rubber ducky on a blue background"
I thought I had photographed one rubber ducky on a blue background, but I was wrong.


Was it your picture of the duck and water on the monitor?
 04/05/2005 08:10:38 PM · #22
Originally posted by moodville:


Was it your picture of the duck and water on the monitor?


As far as I know the image of the duck and water was public domain i.e. copyright and royalty free... plus I had modified it from the original, plus I wasnt using it for any commercial use to begin with.
04/05/2005 08:13:23 PM · #23
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by moodville:


Was it your picture of the duck and water on the monitor?


As far as I know the image of the duck and water was public domain i.e. copyright and royalty free... plus I had modified it from the original, plus I wasnt using it for any commercial use to begin with.


Dammit! I wanted to know how you levitated that duck on the fountain. =]
 04/05/2005 08:24:05 PM · #24
Originally posted by scalvert:


I believe this was a special case since the challenge desciption specified that you had to take a photo of a rubber ducky (not a photo of a PHOTO of a rubber ducky), and that not meeting the challenge would result in DQ (it normally wouldn't). Getting these odd objects into the photo at the risk of a DQ was the April Fool's joke. This doesn't appear to be a "literal artwork" issue, and in any other challenge you probably would have been fine.


You may be right. Yet I would never have gotten that from the wording of the challenge.

If we are to parse the wording this carefully then I wonder whether all photos that depict a rubber duck 'against' a blue background rather than 'on' a blue background should be DQ'd? Based on my reading of the American Heritage DIctionary, relevant interpretations of 'on' suggest or require physical contact. 'Against' does not.
 04/05/2005 09:22:42 PM · #25
Originally posted by srbrubaker:
Based on my reading of the American Heritage DIctionary, relevant interpretations of 'on' suggest or require physical contact. 'Against' does not.


On a 2D monitor it is making contact with whatever it is against, pixel by pixel.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 02:59:55 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 03/13/2025 02:59:55 AM EDT.