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

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> DQ'ed question
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 192, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/13/2008 11:17:42 PM · #1
I have been reading this thread and trying to refrain from posting anything because when I did I put a huge X right on my back with the SC, or so it seems.

For all those out there that do not want the rules changed and think that "I'll just keep asking the SC about what I can and can't do" because you aren't COMPLETELY sure about the rules. Don't worry, I do ask SC if I think something might cross the line.

For all those that think that I was DQ'd wrongfully thanks for seeing my point of view. I am still trying to come up with some new wording that would pin point the exact amount of editing allowed before a disqualification.

And for some others that thought my picture shouldn't be in a photo contest, Thanks.. I guess... I mean the challenge was called "AUTOMOBILE AD", not hey lets just take a picture of any car and hope it scores well.
Originally posted by AngryEwok:


The image is nice, Dirt, I don't know that anyone has doubted this art would be adequate as a commercial device... I just don't think it belongs in a photography contest.


Here's what I was actually thinking, before, during and after the shoot.

When I saw the car challenge I knew EXACTLY what I was going to take the picture of. I just didn't know how I wanted to do it. The dealership that I went too was actually the one that my wife bought her car from before we got married, so kinda new the guys there. Oh yeah and we were also in one of their commercials (link) too so they knew who I was. I knew that they had the mustang on the showroom floor (2 actually) so I thought what a better looking car to shoot. I drove over there and starting shooting (outtakes) the cars from all different angles. When the clouds moved out of the way it lit up the whole showroom and right then and there I knew EXACTLY what my shot was going to look like when I was done with editing (final image). While I was there I was thinking about the rules the whole time. I knew that I was going to clone out non-prominent items and I thought I would pass with flying colors. Well after editing I was so happy with my shot, I actually looked at it like I had a top 10. The final product looked so much like an automobile ad I was jumping for joy.

When the scores started coming in I knew I wasn't going to get a top 10. Like all the crazy's out there I was hitting the update button about every 5 minutes. I tracked my score like a bloodhound tracks a duck. I was all over it like white on rice. you get the point. Anyway, I was watching my score go all over the place and then the validation request came. Still thinking I was okay I was still watching the score and BOOM!!!!! like a ton of bricks I was DQ'd.

Even if SC removed the DQ and I got last place I would be okay with it. I just don't like having to watch my back on every challenge or at least for the next 25. Anyway long story even longer...

I want to change the rules this year to make it crystal clear what you can and can not edit in and out of your pictures.
01/08/2008 09:11:06 PM · #2
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Originally posted by scalvert:

The only prominent object in the background of Danny's photo was a car, which is still there. Everything else was extremely recessive in the original.


Sorry, I guess you're right. I looked again and hardly noticed the loading ramp, set of stairs, cement wall and 8000 cubic yards of concrete. My mistake.


LOL Dave!!! You had me chuckling there!

Shannon, if I'm to overlook the removal of the loading ramp, stairs, railing, building, a ton of concrete and windows because it was "recessive" and say that the only thing that mattered was still there...the car.....then, I'm afraid that I'd have no problem overlooking the "dark object" and "recessive" showroom doors that Diver removed from his shot either! Those things being removed did NOT change my perception of the car in Diver's shot either. The car is still there in Diver's shot as well. He had the sense to leave in part of the showroom floor and the doors on the left hand side of his shot.

I can't look at Danny's shot and overlook that fact and not do the same with Diver's shot.

(Edited to break up one paragraph long, run-on sentence! And, I still haven't done a great job at it! ;))

Message edited by author 2008-01-08 21:17:08.
01/08/2008 03:31:53 PM · #3
Originally posted by scalvert:


The crap you referenced would be a rephrased version of the same rule (an element major enough to change a basic description of the photo). The only prominent object in the background of Danny's photo was a car, which is still there. Everything else was extremely recessive in the original. You're welcome to propose better crap.

I think the problem I have with this ruling is that any one of the details besides the car is insignificant. Cloning parts of the garage windows or stairs only and I think few people would see that as a problem. But if you remove all of the non-prominent items in the photo which is every thing that isn't a car, I have a hard time seeing how that doesn't change the viewer's description.
01/08/2008 03:05:53 PM · #4
Originally posted by scalvert:

The only prominent object in the background of Danny's photo was a car, which is still there. Everything else was extremely recessive in the original.


Sorry, I guess you're right. I looked again and hardly noticed the loading ramp, set of stairs, cement wall and 8000 cubic yards of concrete. My mistake.
01/08/2008 02:31:08 PM · #5
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

The last set of rules or the lastest says nothing about removing "Major elements." This hasn't been around since version 4 of the rules. Instead they changed it to some crap about "changing a typical viewers description."

The crap you referenced would be a rephrased version of the same rule (an element major enough to change a basic description of the photo). The only prominent object in the background of Danny's photo was a car, which is still there. Everything else was extremely recessive in the original. You're welcome to propose better crap.
01/08/2008 02:10:25 PM · #6
The last set of rules or the lastest says nothing about removing "Major elements." This hasn't been around since version 4 of the rules. Instead they changed it to some crap about "changing a typical viewers description."
01/08/2008 08:45:37 AM · #7
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)


Yep. All he had to remove were several garage doors, some steps, a ramp, winshield washers and a concrete pad with expansion joints in it.


Actually he didn't remove anything. He just hid it with a curves adjustment. If you were to save it as a PSD file go back and reset the curves adjustment back to the original setting, everything would still be there, he just faded it to white.


You mean like pretty much what SandyP did in this shot?

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/548/120/387899.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/548/120/387899.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

For the record, according to past dqs, it doesn't matter how you hid it and if it's still there or not. If you can't see "major elements" then you might as well have painted over them.

01/08/2008 08:13:28 AM · #8
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:


Now, I'd be willing to bet that if we were to ask Danny how he got his shot....his answer wouldn't be that he borrowed cars and parked them in areas and ways to "improve" his post editing chances! *smile* My bet is that Danny got his shot where he could, the same as Dirt did! (Danny, please feel free to join in here and share! :)) Danny just plain hit it lucky that his background didn't contain a darker object....but, essentially, both photographers had to edit out a lot of background in order to achieve the results that they did! Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)


Given that Danny used his own car, I'd take that bet.

~Terry


Thought so. Thanks.
01/08/2008 02:33:28 AM · #9
Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)


Yep. All he had to remove were several garage doors, some steps, a ramp, winshield washers and a concrete pad with expansion joints in it.


Actually he didn't remove anything. He just hid it with a curves adjustment. If you were to save it as a PSD file go back and reset the curves adjustment back to the original setting, everything would still be there, he just faded it to white.
01/07/2008 01:27:10 PM · #10
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:


Now, I'd be willing to bet that if we were to ask Danny how he got his shot....his answer wouldn't be that he borrowed cars and parked them in areas and ways to "improve" his post editing chances! *smile* My bet is that Danny got his shot where he could, the same as Dirt did! (Danny, please feel free to join in here and share! :)) Danny just plain hit it lucky that his background didn't contain a darker object....but, essentially, both photographers had to edit out a lot of background in order to achieve the results that they did! Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)


Given that Danny used his own car, I'd take that bet.

~Terry
01/07/2008 01:23:51 PM · #11
Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)


Yep. All he had to remove were several garage doors, some steps, a ramp, winshield washers and a concrete pad with expansion joints in it.


LOL........Exactly!!!! ;)

And, yet...Diver was dq'd.
01/07/2008 12:30:25 PM · #12
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)


Yep. All he had to remove were several garage doors, some steps, a ramp, winshield washers and a concrete pad with expansion joints in it.

Message edited by author 2008-01-07 12:31:01.
01/07/2008 12:04:59 PM · #13
Originally posted by AngryEwok:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

I see your point and I do the same thing.......but, draping objects in a livingroom is far different than what both of these guys were working with, isn't it?


It's a much more massive scale, no doubt, but here's my point...

These challenges are designed to recognize and award photographers for their creativity, and ultimately, their ability to compose excellent photographs, correct?

I would have kept my mouth shut if the challenge required Dirt to work with this specific car, in this specific showroom... but it doesn't. There's no reason Dirt couldn't have, for example, borrowed someone's junked out Ford Falcon and parked it in a much better control setting so that he could take a good photograph that didn't require heavy overhauling.

The image is nice, Dirt, I don't know that anyone has doubted this art would be adequate as a commercial device... I just don't think it belongs in a photography contest.


Angry, I agree with you that there was no reason why Dirt had to work with this specific car. You're right.....he could have chosen another model, or he could have, as you say....borrowed someone else's car (if there was one available to him to do so....I know that I'd not have had that chance). However, I think that most of us are not that willing to go to those lengths for a net photography challenge where the "prize" is a virtual ribbon that nets us nothing in all reality. :) Perhaps, were the "prize" $500.00 or more.....well, maybe....it would have been worth it! ;)

Now, I'd be willing to bet that if we were to ask Danny how he got his shot....his answer wouldn't be that he borrowed cars and parked them in areas and ways to "improve" his post editing chances! *smile* My bet is that Danny got his shot where he could, the same as Dirt did! (Danny, please feel free to join in here and share! :)) Danny just plain hit it lucky that his background didn't contain a darker object....but, essentially, both photographers had to edit out a lot of background in order to achieve the results that they did! Dirt had that horrid desk/dark object to deal with.....Danny didn't. :)



01/06/2008 02:42:21 AM · #14
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

I see your point and I do the same thing.......but, draping objects in a livingroom is far different than what both of these guys were working with, isn't it?


It's a much more massive scale, no doubt, but here's my point...

These challenges are designed to recognize and award photographers for their creativity, and ultimately, their ability to compose excellent photographs, correct?

I would have kept my mouth shut if the challenge required Dirt to work with this specific car, in this specific showroom... but it doesn't. There's no reason Dirt couldn't have, for example, borrowed someone's junked out Ford Falcon and parked it in a much better control setting so that he could take a good photograph that didn't require heavy overhauling.

The image is nice, Dirt, I don't know that anyone has doubted this art would be adequate as a commercial device... I just don't think it belongs in a photography contest.
01/05/2008 07:53:22 PM · #15
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

You may not:
use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.


This is the the new universal DQ tool. In controversial situations it can be interpreted to mean anything that fits a given situation. Kinda like the you can use filters but you really can't rule.


LOL......AMEN to "can be interpretted to mean anything that fits a given situation"! Well said!

That's the problem with this type of "rule". What would change one "viewer's description of the photograph" might not change it for another. In my estimation, taking out that desk/dark object in Divers' shot, did NOT change my "description" of the photograph at all.....no more than the other photographer's removal of the entire background changed his shot either.

From my perspective, that object in Divers' shot had no significance to the shot and its focus on its subject. It was an immovable oject. Diver actually removed LESS in his shot than the other photographer did in his! To me, the other photographer's background removal had far more significance to that shot than Divers' background changes. :)
01/05/2008 01:57:27 PM · #16
You may not:
use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.


This is the the new universal DQ tool. In controversial situations it can be interpreted to mean anything that fits a given situation. Kinda like the you can use filters but you really can't rule.

Message edited by author 2008-01-05 13:57:57.
01/05/2008 01:26:10 PM · #17
Originally posted by desertoddity:

Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by AngryEwok:

We're not little kids with our momma's disposable camera, anymore, folks - we're professionals, or at least aspiring to be - shouldn't we be a little bit more resourceful? Instead of using software as a crutch with these sorts of shots, perhaps us photographers should spend more effort finding real life solutions before snapping the photo. Backdrops, anyone?

In my opinion, Danny made an effort to backdrop his subject to minimize the touch-up process in post-production editing. He did so expertly, I might add, because I'm willing to bet I could duplicate Danny's final photo from the original in a matter of moments...

Dirt_Diver's image, on the other hand, obviously requires a total photoshop overhaul to fix it up and make it usable.

In my opinion, there's a big difference between touching up and overhauling.


So, you honestly believe that Danny PURPOSELY set up his shot so that the background would require less editing????? :\


i can believe it. i'm a total newbie amateur, but i try to set up mine so that it requires as little photoshopping as possible to make it look good. my perspective scored pitifully, but it was taken in the living room of my small apartment and i had a large box that i draped a sheet over as a backdrop so i wouldn't have any distractions in the background. it was comical. all i did to it in photoshop was blur the backdrop and still i satisfy a request for validation...lol.

anyway, yeah, i believe in people trying set up their shots to minimize the editing they will have to do later.


I see your point and I do the same thing.......but, draping objects in a livingroom is far different than what both of these guys were working with, isn't it? :) I'm sure that had Diver had the chance to drape the desk there, he'd have done it. But, equally, I don't believe that Danny had any more "control" over his background in this scenario than Diver did. I'm sure neither of them could have asked to have cars re-arranged to suit their shots. :) Danny's shot just happened to be where it was as was Diver's. There's not a heck of a lot of "re-arranging" or "set-up" that EITHER of them could have done under the circumstances.


01/05/2008 01:17:26 PM · #18
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:

Originally posted by AngryEwok:

We're not little kids with our momma's disposable camera, anymore, folks - we're professionals, or at least aspiring to be - shouldn't we be a little bit more resourceful? Instead of using software as a crutch with these sorts of shots, perhaps us photographers should spend more effort finding real life solutions before snapping the photo. Backdrops, anyone?

In my opinion, Danny made an effort to backdrop his subject to minimize the touch-up process in post-production editing. He did so expertly, I might add, because I'm willing to bet I could duplicate Danny's final photo from the original in a matter of moments...

Dirt_Diver's image, on the other hand, obviously requires a total photoshop overhaul to fix it up and make it usable.

In my opinion, there's a big difference between touching up and overhauling.


So, you honestly believe that Danny PURPOSELY set up his shot so that the background would require less editing????? :\


i can believe it. i'm a total newbie amateur, but i try to set up mine so that it requires as little photoshopping as possible to make it look good. my perspective scored pitifully, but it was taken in the living room of my small apartment and i had a large box that i draped a sheet over as a backdrop so i wouldn't have any distractions in the background. it was comical. all i did to it in photoshop was blur the backdrop and still i satisfy a request for validation...lol.

anyway, yeah, i believe in people trying set up their shots to minimize the editing they will have to do later.
01/05/2008 01:07:58 PM · #19
Originally posted by AngryEwok:

We're not little kids with our momma's disposable camera, anymore, folks - we're professionals, or at least aspiring to be - shouldn't we be a little bit more resourceful? Instead of using software as a crutch with these sorts of shots, perhaps us photographers should spend more effort finding real life solutions before snapping the photo. Backdrops, anyone?

In my opinion, Danny made an effort to backdrop his subject to minimize the touch-up process in post-production editing. He did so expertly, I might add, because I'm willing to bet I could duplicate Danny's final photo from the original in a matter of moments...

Dirt_Diver's image, on the other hand, obviously requires a total photoshop overhaul to fix it up and make it usable.

In my opinion, there's a big difference between touching up and overhauling.


So, you honestly believe that Danny PURPOSELY set up his shot so that the background would require less editing????? :\
01/05/2008 01:04:04 PM · #20
I'm just catching this thread now and jumping into this discussion as I've put myself on a bit of a vacation for the past few months from entering challenges for the very reasons that this thread discusses. It's frustrating to say the least!

Dirt.....I'm so sorry that your shot was dq'd while another of similar content and very similar editing, remained in place. The subtleness in differences between the two shots as posted earlier in this thread were not enough in my estimation to have allowed one to remain and yours to be dq'd! As far as I can see, in my estimation, if your editing was "illegal", so should the other one's have been as well!

When I looked at both photos, I cannot see where what you did in terms of editing differed ANY from what the other photographer had done. As far as I'm concerned the desk/darker object had NO impact whatsoever on the true meaning of your shot. If one can remove an entire building and parking lot, yours should have been able to have removed a desk!

That is a problem that I'm seeing in here. There is "nit-picking" that goes on in here from time to time and it's totally unfair in some cases.

As far as I'm concerned Diver.....your shot should NOT have been dq'd! But, if SC were to dq yours, the other photographer should also have been dq'd as well. It seems that it came down to a very FINE LINE of criteria that was, in my estimation, nit-picking rather than true "judgement".

Keep up the good work, Diver! We know that your shot was an EXCELLENT shot and should have been allowed to have stood or both should have been dq'd! Chalk it up to being simply a DPC experience. I understand your frustration completely!

01/05/2008 02:31:38 AM · #21
We're not little kids with our momma's disposable camera, anymore, folks - we're professionals, or at least aspiring to be - shouldn't we be a little bit more resourceful? Instead of using software as a crutch with these sorts of shots, perhaps us photographers should spend more effort finding real life solutions before snapping the photo. Backdrops, anyone?

In my opinion, Danny made an effort to backdrop his subject to minimize the touch-up process in post-production editing. He did so expertly, I might add, because I'm willing to bet I could duplicate Danny's final photo from the original in a matter of moments...

Dirt_Diver's image, on the other hand, obviously requires a total photoshop overhaul to fix it up and make it usable.

In my opinion, there's a big difference between touching up and overhauling.

12/26/2007 09:03:05 PM · #22
Originally posted by Raziel:

Maybe the vignette hid too much of the image? Hard to say without seeing the original.


I see a tree reflected in the windshield, and the photog's comment explains the DQ.
12/26/2007 08:45:21 PM · #23
Originally posted by scotthadl:

Anyway this is all just for fun who really cares about virtual blue ribbons we just would like an even playing field.


*Raises Hand*
12/26/2007 08:02:08 PM · #24
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

I'm not CHANGING the rules. I am only editing them so others can understand where exactly the line is on editing pictures.

There IS no line. The Major Elements rule has always been a subjective call to determine if something "major" was removed. Unfortunately, there's no objective measurement of importance that will work for every photo, and we look forward to validating these gray area entries like root canal.

Mark_u_U explained this decision a different way in the other thread- if Danny had cloned out just the little black windows and faint dock on the left, the vast majority would be fine with that. The only significant object in the background was a car... which is still there. Everything else was basically empty space with a few minor distractions. If you cloned out the black wall and floor in your entry, most people probably WOULD cry foul because of their visual prominence, so those are "major elements," and even though you left part of the floor on the left, it's a DQ.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15000-19999/17203/120/623245.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15000-19999/17203/120/623245.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/50000-54999/51793/120/621182.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/50000-54999/51793/120/621182.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

We did try to clarify this rule in the current version by splitting it up to explain the sorts of things you CAN clone out: generally minor distractions. The dock and windows were minor distractions (on an otherwise-blank background) while the floor and wall were not.

While a few people portray the SC as arbitrary dictators firing off lightning bolts on a whim, we're a relatively average cross section of the site, with the same strongly varied opinions and subject to the same rules as anyone else. I applaud efforts to come up with a better system, but until then it is what it is, and the best way to avoid "crossing the line" is to consider carefully whether what you're removing is an imperfection or minor distraction.


The dock is not a significant part of the image? Give me a break, it is nearly a third of the whole it is clearly defined even in the thumbnail.So what if it is light in color the details are clear this is nothing like fixing the light fall off on a white wall this is almost like cutting out the background and placing the car on a white sheet of paper in fact, that is exactly what it is. The small black wall on the other hand is about an 8th of the image clearly it is not an important part of the image as a whole. So the wall is black it was dodged to white. I don't see the difference between pushing a curve to white and dodging an area to white same thing.

Sorry to say it but the more the SC representative defends this position the sillier they look. Anyway I look at it pony car in front of docks doesn't look like final image pony car on seamless white paper.

Anyway this is all just for fun who really cares about virtual blue ribbons we just would like an even playing field.
12/21/2007 09:14:16 AM · #25
Originally posted by latentflip:

Have you thought that those useless pessimists may be looking at you as some crazy optimist who somehow thinks that he can turn an almost entirely subjective art-form into an objective science.

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

I am crazy! Thanks for your Input

Actually, as long as these query threads stay civil, they will be their own system of checks and balances for the membership at large, and a barometer for SC.

Certainly both Joe and Danny have gotten an interesting look at their own entries, and I know myself, as I'm sure many others here, have looked at how the differences, which IMO are fairly subtle, can have led to one's acceptance and the other a DQ.

The only place where I go off track *a little bit* is I don't agree with the decision that SC made, I do see their point, and can accept it.......but I'm also glad at times like this that I'm not an SC member, and most importantly for my perspective, that it wasn't my entry.

I am *quite* sure I would feel different were I *either* one of the two in question.

Oh.....I *still* like both images immensely!

Nice work, guys!

Message edited by author 2007-12-21 09:15:54.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/29/2020 02:30:14 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: 11/29/2020 02:30:14 AM EST.