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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> DQ'ed why??
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 168, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/13/2006 01:25:21 AM · #1
Now usually, these "why did I get DQ'ed" threads start out contentious and go downhill from there. I hope to avoid that while also getting some kind of reasonable explanation from SC for my DQ aside from the canned response I have attached to my entry.

Anyway, this is my entry:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/444/thumb/291181.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/444/thumb/291181.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

and this is the original:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10686/thumb/295002.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/10686/thumb/295002.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

As you can see from the notes, all I did was rotate, resize twice, tweak hue and sat, save for web and submit. This is the canned reason I received:

Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.

I don't see how that applies to what I did. I just want some explanation of the reasoning behind the DQ. Resizing, to my understanding is not illegal or everyone would have to select a 640 by XXX crop from their fullsize image. I doubt many do that. If it's a matter of degree, I think clarifying that would make a excellent addition to the new rules.

I'm not looking for an opinion on the image, the voters took care of that during the challenge. In some ways the DQ was a blessing, at least when it comes to my average score.
02/13/2006 01:28:43 AM · #2
Should be obvious. It doesn't look like a photo and it doesn't look anything like your original...
02/13/2006 01:29:35 AM · #3
Originally posted by TooCool:

Should be obvious. It doesn't look like a photo and it doesn't look anything like your original...


Those reasons have never been agasint the rules before.
02/13/2006 01:30:37 AM · #4
So, basically this is a 24 pixel version of the original image... can't see a justifiable means for DQ myself.

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 01:37:15.
02/13/2006 01:31:13 AM · #5
This might turn into one of "those". if you know what I mean.....SO....

I just wanted to chime in and say it was great idea and interesting regardless. Keep that imagination flowing.
02/13/2006 01:31:33 AM · #6
Originally posted by TooCool:

Should be obvious. It doesn't look like a photo and it doesn't look anything like your original...


I'm assuming it was for the abstract challenge, and zooming into and making a photo of the actual pixels is not a reason for a DQ.

It's pretty funny though.
02/13/2006 01:33:31 AM · #7
Should not have been DQ'd.

I think it's brilliant...and a very good idea, not many people around here dare to think that far outside the box. I like it.
02/13/2006 01:33:43 AM · #8
It's probably the nearest rule to "this is a photography site - submit a photograph OF an abstract, not submit an abstraction that used to be a photograph".
02/13/2006 01:34:01 AM · #9
When you consider the topic, especially, it's quite funny :-) I mean, they DID say "Abstracts are about lines, shapes and colors. If it is recognizable as an object - it is not an abstract.", and what is this if not a complete abstraction of shapes and colors? Personally, I thought it was a great experiment, albeit certainly a doomed one as far as the voters went...

Robt.
02/13/2006 01:34:13 AM · #10
Originally posted by TooCool:

Should be obvious. It doesn't look like a photo and it doesn't look anything like your original...


I duplicated, created or moved nothing, only resized.

Many entries I see here don't look like the original photos either, that did not get those shots DQ'ed.
02/13/2006 01:36:50 AM · #11
Originally posted by conglett:

It's probably the nearest rule to "this is a photography site - submit a photograph OF an abstract, not submit an abstraction that used to be a photograph".


Funny, I didn't see that in the rules.

You may not think it's a photograph, but that's your opinion. I don't think the entries that have been NI'ed to death are photographs either.

02/13/2006 01:38:00 AM · #12
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

So, basically this is 24 pixels from the original image... can't see a justifiable means for DQ myself.


NO, he took the ENTIRE IMAGE, resized it to 6 pixels x 4 pikels, then blew THAT back up to 640x400, resulting in 24 "blocks" of color since the 640 was created from a 24-pixel image :-)

R.
02/13/2006 01:39:05 AM · #13
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

So, basically this is 24 pixels from the original image... can't see a justifiable means for DQ myself.


NO, he took the ENTIRE IMAGE, resized it to 6 pixels x 4 pikels, then blew THAT back up to 640x400, resulting in 24 "blocks" of color since the 640 was created from a 24-pixel image :-)

R.


Yeah, just caught that and editted my comment, was hoping noone would catch me ;-) Not quick enough for ya ,Bear ;-)
02/13/2006 01:43:15 AM · #14
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by conglett:

It's probably the nearest rule to "this is a photography site - submit a photograph OF an abstract, not submit an abstraction that used to be a photograph".


Funny, I didn't see that in the rules.

You may not think it's a photograph, but that's your opinion. I don't think the entries that have been NI'ed to death are photographs either.


I actually agree. There are quite a few submissions that are NI'ed beyond photography, you just went the other direction. Like you said, you took a chance.
02/13/2006 02:01:12 AM · #15
Firstly it should not have been DQ for breaking any rules.

Secondly it was voted on by the SC and the majority have voted it illegal which is also in the rules.

The rules as they stand can allow SC to use their discretion and if the majority decides its out so be it.

Starting to sound very hypocritical.
02/13/2006 02:05:53 AM · #16
Originally posted by keegbow:

Firstly it should not have been DQ for breaking any rules.

I would say it falls under the all-encompassing major element rule :)

I can see why it was DQ'ed. Wouldn't this be akin to blurring a photo out of obscurity with gaussian blur?
02/13/2006 02:07:57 AM · #17
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Originally posted by keegbow:

Firstly it should not have been DQ for breaking any rules.

I would say it falls under the all-encompassing major element rule :)

I can see why it was DQ'ed. Wouldn't this be akin to blurring a photo out of obscurity with gaussian blur?


No tools were used ? I don't know how to explain this one
02/13/2006 02:08:45 AM · #18
the pixels were not moved, they are simply magnified. No major elements were moved. I disagree with the DQ.
02/13/2006 02:11:52 AM · #19
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say.
02/13/2006 02:11:56 AM · #20
I don't think it should have been DQ'ed. Great idea, in my opinion well within the rules. It was an 'abstract' challenge after all.
02/13/2006 02:13:25 AM · #21
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/61/thumb/11552.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/61/thumb/11552.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Another with this technique.......
02/13/2006 02:16:21 AM · #22
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say.


There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot.
02/13/2006 02:24:08 AM · #23
Way creative dude, and I'll just throw another voice out there that I see absolutely no reason for DQ.
02/13/2006 02:26:46 AM · #24
Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say.


There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot.


and it's very abstract!
02/13/2006 02:27:36 AM · #25
Originally posted by keegbow:

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say.


There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot.

I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.

Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/05/2020 07:04:47 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/05/2020 07:04:47 AM EDT.