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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> DQ'ed question
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 192, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/17/2007 10:44:22 AM · #26
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Looks to me like you both were walking a fine line. I would personally vote to DQ both shots. Obviously that was not the case with the SC. Without knowing the vote count, I would venture to guess that you just barely fell on the wrong side, while crabappl3 just barely fell on the right one.


I would agree with that completley but why? I guess the saying goes it's not what you know but who you know...
12/17/2007 10:45:51 AM · #27
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I'm sure you will have company in the penalty box once that image is validated.


It was already validated last week

Originally posted by hotpasta:

awesome...good luck with this...glad you had it validated...lighting is perfect 9


Almost 2 years ago when I last entered, what I did to edit this image was legal. If things have changes since then that prevents you from masking and using curves on the masked area to 'white' it out, then by all means it should be DQ'ed. I'm not trying to cause a stink here, I did submit my original RAW file with a description of what I did to edit it.

-danny
12/17/2007 10:47:57 AM · #28
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Looks to me like you both were walking a fine line. I would personally vote to DQ both shots. Obviously that was not the case with the SC. Without knowing the vote count, I would venture to guess that you just barely fell on the wrong side, while crabappl3 just barely fell on the right one.


I would agree with that completley but why? I guess the saying goes it's not what you know but who you know...


I disagree here. I did not have any influence on their decision, and had they voted to DQ it I would have fully understood. Like I said, it's been almost 2 years since my last submission, and if editing rules have changed to disallow what I did, then I will take my lumps and move on.

-danny
12/17/2007 10:49:27 AM · #29
Originally posted by crabappl3:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

I'm sure you will have company in the penalty box once that image is validated.


It was already validated last week

Originally posted by hotpasta:

awesome...good luck with this...glad you had it validated...lighting is perfect 9


Almost 2 years ago when I last entered, what I did to edit this image was legal. If things have changes since then that prevents you from masking and using curves on the masked area to 'white' it out, then by all means it should be DQ'ed. I'm not trying to cause a stink here, I did submit my original RAW file with a description of what I did to edit it.

-danny


I did too Danny. I'm not in anyway trying to bring you down, I don't think either of us should be DQ'd but do think that your editing was legal, guess what??? So was mine.

I just want to know why you passed and I didn't. How would you feel if the rolls were reversed and you were DQ’d and I wasn’t??? The image look very similar do they not?
12/17/2007 10:52:11 AM · #30
Originally posted by crabappl3:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:

Looks to me like you both were walking a fine line. I would personally vote to DQ both shots. Obviously that was not the case with the SC. Without knowing the vote count, I would venture to guess that you just barely fell on the wrong side, while crabappl3 just barely fell on the right one.


I would agree with that completley but why? I guess the saying goes it's not what you know but who you know...


I disagree here. I did not have any influence on their decision, and had they voted to DQ it I would have fully understood. Like I said, it's been almost 2 years since my last submission, and if editing rules have changed to disallow what I did, then I will take my lumps and move on.

-danny


It's not how you edited the file Danny its the view of the final image from the original. Like I said in a different post... My editing steps were legal just as your's were too.
12/17/2007 10:52:12 AM · #31
The differance here is HOW it was done. crabappl3 selected all of the 'white' in the background and ' masked the black car and did a curve on the background to make it white.' Dirt_Diver just dodged? one side of the photo, effectivly erasing? pixles. IMO
12/17/2007 10:52:44 AM · #32
When cropped to the same image area, Crabappl's entry had no prominent features in the background. Yours had a large black wall that was even more prominent than the doors, and was considered more than removing a minor distraction.

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 10:53:31.
12/17/2007 10:54:57 AM · #33
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:


I did too Danny. I'm not in anyway trying to bring you down, I don't think either of us should be DQ'd but do think that your editing was legal, guess what??? So was mine.

I just want to know why you passed and I didn't. How would you feel if the rolls were reversed and you were DQ’d and I wasn’t??? The image look very similar do they not?


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/303/120/141274.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/303/120/141274.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I was DQ'ed on this shot for burning an area in the background so it was black to remove a distraction. My current entry I did not clone, dodge, or burn the area to remove the distraction, I modified the curve of the whole area that was masked. I'm not sure how the SC interprets the rule but I guess that curve vs. dodge was the difference.

And like I said, had I been DQ'ed I would have taken my lumps and moved on.

-danny
12/17/2007 10:56:29 AM · #34
We don't play favorites. I've been DQ'd before, too.
12/17/2007 11:07:27 AM · #35
Originally posted by ZeppKash:

The differance here is HOW it was done. crabappl3 selected all of the 'white' in the background and ' masked the black car and did a curve on the background to make it white.' Dirt_Diver just dodged? one side of the photo, effectivly erasing? pixles. IMO


Please make sure you read through the rules and the thread before you reply.

The rules simply state:

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.

Both editing steps were valid.
12/17/2007 11:10:06 AM · #36
Originally posted by scalvert:

When cropped to the same image area, Crabappl's entry had no prominent features in the background. Yours had a large black wall that was even more prominent than the doors, and was considered more than removing a minor distraction.


Ummm yes actually he did, Lets see.. There was 7 garage doors with windows, 2 sets of stairs, 1 hand rail to the immediate right of the hood. How can you sit there and say that the wall in my image has any significance over my image and NONE of his garage doors don't?
12/17/2007 11:11:07 AM · #37
Thanks for the input, Shannon. At least now we have the opinion of one SC member to help us understand the difference.
12/17/2007 11:13:03 AM · #38
Originally posted by ZeppKash:

The differance here is HOW it was done. crabappl3 selected all of the 'white' in the background and ' masked the black car and did a curve on the background to make it white.' Dirt_Diver just dodged? one side of the photo, effectivly erasing? pixles. IMO


It doesn't matter HOW it was done: the advanced rules are not tool-based but results based. The basic rules are tool based. The SC feels that in the images as cropped, the black "wall" on the right of dirt's shot was too prominent to be removed, and the building/parking lot in crab's shot was insignificant enough to allow its removal.

I'm not sure I agree, but that's the rationale. From my perspective, in crab's shot the cars are completely divorced from reality, while in dirt's shot the doors on the left at least provide an anchoring in the original context.

R.
12/17/2007 11:13:57 AM · #39
Originally posted by scalvert:

We don't play favorites. I've been DQ'd before, too.


I don't beieve that anymore and you're DQ was because you resized an image when the rules say that you can't. completley different reason and understanding here. I accecpted my first DQ because I misunderstood the rules. They were black and white, in this case the rule that DQ'd me is gray to many.
12/17/2007 11:14:10 AM · #40
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by scalvert:

When cropped to the same image area, Crabappl's entry had no prominent features in the background. Yours had a large black wall that was even more prominent than the doors, and was considered more than removing a minor distraction.


Ummm yes actually he did, Lets see.. There was 7 garage doors with windows, 2 sets of stairs, 1 hand rail to the immediate right of the hood. How can you sit there and say that the wall in my image has any significance over my image and NONE of his garage doors don't?


Once you adjust the perspective of my shot, and then crop to the final ratio, the only 'prominent' features were the door bumpers in the background. Best I can say is that the SC felt these were less prominent than your desk in your shot. SHRUG. I'm not on the SC so I have no idea what they use as a marker to determine what is 'pominent' and what isn't.

-danny
12/17/2007 11:15:20 AM · #41
Originally posted by Bear_Music:



It doesn't matter HOW it was done: the advanced rules are not tool-based but results based. The basic rules are tool based. The SC feels that in the images as cropped, the black "wall" on the right of dirt's shot was too prominent to be removed, and the building/parking lot in crab's shot was insignificant enough to allow its removal.

I'm not sure I agree, but that's the rationale. From my perspective, in crab's shot the cars are completely divorced from reality, while in dirt's shot the doors on the left at least provide an anchoring in the original context.

R.


PUURRRRRFECTLY SAID!

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 11:15:39.
12/17/2007 11:15:56 AM · #42
Originally posted by crabappl3:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:


I did too Danny. I'm not in anyway trying to bring you down, I don't think either of us should be DQ'd but do think that your editing was legal, guess what??? So was mine.

I just want to know why you passed and I didn't. How would you feel if the rolls were reversed and you were DQ’d and I wasn’t??? The image look very similar do they not?


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/303/120/141274.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/303/120/141274.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I was DQ'ed on this shot for burning an area in the background so it was black to remove a distraction. My current entry I did not clone, dodge, or burn the area to remove the distraction, I modified the curve of the whole area that was masked. I'm not sure how the SC interprets the rule but I guess that curve vs. dodge was the difference.

And like I said, had I been DQ'ed I would have taken my lumps and moved on.

-danny


I don't think that there is a difference in how the background is removed, whether is is through dodging (or burning) or through a curvesor levels layer. When I first saw your shot, I thought it should have been Dq'd, but after Shannon's comment about the crop, I saw why it wasn't DQ'd. You didn't remove much of anything after the crop. SC made the right call on both of these images in question, IMO.
12/17/2007 11:20:08 AM · #43
Originally posted by crabappl3:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by scalvert:

When cropped to the same image area, Crabappl's entry had no prominent features in the background. Yours had a large black wall that was even more prominent than the doors, and was considered more than removing a minor distraction.


Ummm yes actually he did, Lets see.. There was 7 garage doors with windows, 2 sets of stairs, 1 hand rail to the immediate right of the hood. How can you sit there and say that the wall in my image has any significance over my image and NONE of his garage doors don't?


Once you adjust the perspective of my shot, and then crop to the final ratio, the only 'prominent' features were the door bumpers in the background. Best I can say is that the SC felt these were less prominent than your desk in your shot. SHRUG. I'm not on the SC so I have no idea what they use as a marker to determine what is 'pominent' and what isn't.

-danny


And before hundreds of others get DQ'd and feel the same way it needs to be determined and let it be known. Since I have been here this rule has always been a sore subject, everyone needs to know why your image was validated and why mine was DQ'd.

No where in the rules does it say anything about you can change the perspective of a an image and change the typical viewer’s description of the photograph AS LONG AS you don't remove any prominent materials.

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 11:21:55.
12/17/2007 11:20:12 AM · #44
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

This part is confusing me. If I dodge a wrinkled shirt so that it looks smooth (Because I didn't have an iron) is that a DQ? Since I've removed the wrinkles? I think most people are concerned with the removal part of the rule since dodge and burn can do this...I doubt anyones moving or duplicating elements as much as removing...
12/17/2007 11:24:32 AM · #45
I am beginning to remember why it's been 2 years since I entered an image here...
12/17/2007 11:26:28 AM · #46
Originally posted by brownsm:



I don't think that there is a difference in how the background is removed, whether is is through dodging (or burning) or through a curvesor levels layer. When I first saw your shot, I thought it should have been Dq'd, but after Shannon's comment about the crop, I saw why it wasn't DQ'd. You didn't remove much of anything after the crop. SC made the right call on both of these images in question, IMO. [/quote]

And after I edited the image in lightroom you couldn't see ANY of the background behind the top of the car and most of the floor was gone as well. (all was edited with in legal limits) The desk was the only thing that you could really see. So if anything I only removed the desk wall.
12/17/2007 11:28:14 AM · #47
Originally posted by crabappl3:

I am beginning to remember why it's been 2 years since I entered an image here...


That’s easy, it's addictive.
12/17/2007 11:29:19 AM · #48
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Lets see.. There was 7 garage doors with windows, 2 sets of stairs, 1 hand rail to the immediate right of the hood. How can you sit there and say that the wall in my image has any significance over my image and NONE of his garage doors don't?

Check your math. I only see a few minor distractions-

' . 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_challenge/0-999/782/120/620908.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/782/120/620908.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

There was NOTHING prominent in the background (and this isn't helping your cause).
12/17/2007 11:30:57 AM · #49
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Since I have been here this rule has always been a sore subject, everyone needs to know why your image was validated and why mine was DQ'd.


In my opinion, this will continue to remain a sore subject forever. In order to allow editing of photos while keeping them photographic in nature (which seems to me to be the whole point), there must be a line drawn somewhere regarding moving, removing, and duplicating elements. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way to make that line objective.

As to the second part of your statement, namely "why your image was validated and why mine was DQ'd", I have only one answer: Your image received a majority of votes to DQ, crabby's didn't. On a related note, I am all for knowing the vote counts in cases like this to help the masses know how close to the line (on either side) controversial images are.
12/17/2007 11:32:00 AM · #50
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

Originally posted by crabappl3:

I am beginning to remember why it's been 2 years since I entered an image here...


That’s easy, it's addictive.


No, because the site became less about photographs and more about rule interpretation and whether or not images meet the challenge description. At one time I use to enjoy taking pictures and having them reviewed by my peers here, but as this thread clearly shows, not much changed in 2 years... and to think, I paid $25 to join just for this challenge too!

-danny
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/24/2020 01:46:26 PM

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: 11/24/2020 01:46:26 PM EST.