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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> DQ'ed question
Pages:  
Showing posts 151 - 175 of 192, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/20/2007 01:18:15 AM · #151
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by routerguy666:

... I'd suggest again just make a 3 person committee with a year term and see how it goes. ...

No disrespect intended here, but I'd much rather take my chances with 12 to 18 people than just 3 when it comes to validating an image. 3 people isn't enough to be representative of the DPC membership, nor would they have the range of viewpoints when discussing/debating, etc...


SO basically you are for the "I'll take my chances" approach which is pretty much the current way of things.

I'm just offering ideas. I haven't gotten DQ'd and given what/how I shoot it's unlikely I will.
12/20/2007 01:25:04 AM · #152
Originally posted by srdanz:


I would like to disagree with you here - the whole challenge concept and shooting for it is a quest to find something that would appeal to strangers. (At least for those that aim for the top placement in the challenge. Those that shoot for themselves are exempt.)


Creating a photo that appeals to strangers is far different than hoping that your personal interpretation of the rules as applied to a given photo or technique will happen to align with the interpretation of the same rules as arrived at by some unknown group of people;

Originally posted by srdanz:


The bottom line being, I see the imperfection of the rules. I agree that as-is, the rule(s) do allow for situations like this one, where someone gets by and others don't - and that you may not understand the difference. But so is every other (attempt at) law on this planet. There are always loopholes, and there will always be people that sneak through those, knowingly or not. We all just have to accept this and move on, hoping that it won't affect us.


No. If the legal system worked as you describe it we would live in anarachy. Hundreds of years of practical application and debate have gone into crafting laws which clearly define acceptable behavior in society. Laws do not read "do not steal unless it is an insignificant object". About the only analogy you could find between law and dpc would be the gray area of self defense in murders.

At any rate, hundreds of years to craft tightly worded 'laws' is obviously not an option for the site. However the other component of the legal system which allows people to know with near certainty the legality of their actions is that of case law - which in dpc-world would be the public archive of DQ's and the reasons for them as has been suggested.
12/20/2007 02:02:10 AM · #153
Originally posted by routerguy666:



Creating a photo that appeals to strangers is far different than hoping that your personal interpretation of the rules as applied to a given photo or technique will happen to align with the interpretation of the same rules as arrived at by some unknown group of people;


I was merely pointing out that the participation in DPC challenges IS a process of meeting expectations of a group of people. Whether it involves taste, choice of colors, subject, or legality of edits, it always boils down to the similar thought process. It is not that far off.

Originally posted by routerguy666:


No. If the legal system worked as you describe it we would live in anarchy. Hundreds of years of practical application and debate have gone into crafting laws which clearly define acceptable behavior in society. Laws do not read "do not steal unless it is an insignificant object". About the only analogy you could find between law and dpc would be the gray area of self defense in murders.

At any rate, hundreds of years to craft tightly worded 'laws' is obviously not an option for the site. However the other component of the legal system which allows people to know with near certainty the legality of their actions is that of case law - which in dpc-world would be the public archive of DQ's and the reasons for them as has been suggested.


C'mon now. Don't compare the criminal law to DPC rules. Also, do not compare DPC rules to anarchy. There are some rules at DPC, and there are some loopholes in existing laws. Take IRS for example. Given two families with the same income in the US, what are the chances of both paying the same tax. It is quite possible that one would not bother to look for any loopholes and pay what it's due, and other may search and find ways to avoid paying most of it. Similarly, there are people at DPC that perform minimal edits, and those that on purpose play the system (and vast majority in between).

Other laws and rules come to mind that are weak at best. But, back to the issue at hand: how can we eliminate unnecessary burden on SC to have to validate every entry, and how can we eliminate frustration of DPCers when their edits are deemed inappropriate?

Creating a database of prior DQs does not help, as the database would have to be flushed with every rules revision.

Tightening the rules - why I think it is not possible: Even if we try to enumerate objects that cannot be removed (e.g. walls, buttons, branches more than 8cm in diameter etc.) there will be cases when those should be removable, and again there will be objects not covered by this list that people would want to remove. Hence, the rule tightened in such way would have to have a subjective provision, which brings us back to square 1.

Leave the rules as they are, deal with a DQ and a thread like this one every once in a while (about once in 9 months it seems), and let the life go on.

Peace with y'all.

-Serge
12/20/2007 04:28:17 AM · #154
Originally posted by hotpasta:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll go on record to say I see no difference between the two car shots. Personally, I would have guessed a DQ for both.


I agree with the Doc. My one and only dq was for this image:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/731/120/577725.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/731/120/577725.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I burned out the out of focus background of which some is still evidently there. By the time I shifted levels and contrast 90% of it was black. A little more burning gave it a vignette that worked. I never in my wildest dreams thought it would be dqed. It came 5th.


Based on what happened with the image with the two cars, I still haven't had an explanation of what I did wrong here. I am notbtrying to be difficult, I am just asking for future reference...E!
12/20/2007 07:54:38 AM · #155
Originally posted by routerguy666:

which in dpc-world would be the public archive of DQ's and the reasons for them as has been suggested.


You know that wouldn't be a bad idea for the site. To actually view a complete gallery of DQ'd Images with an in-depth detail as to why they were DQ'd. Now I know some of you are thinking that's too much trouble but only the images that were DQ'd (like mine) would need the in-depth description. obviously the text adding and other very simple images wouldn't really need an in-depth description but if could look at a gallery and see why someone got DQ'd...EVEN better yet, Have similar images side by side to see why one was DQ'd and the other one wasn't. I might do something different.
12/20/2007 07:59:34 AM · #156
Originally posted by hotpasta:

Originally posted by hotpasta:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll go on record to say I see no difference between the two car shots. Personally, I would have guessed a DQ for both.


I agree with the Doc. My one and only dq was for this image:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/731/120/577725.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/731/120/577725.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I burned out the out of focus background of which some is still evidently there. By the time I shifted levels and contrast 90% of it was black. A little more burning gave it a vignette that worked. I never in my wildest dreams thought it would be dqed. It came 5th.


Based on what happened with the image with the two cars, I still haven't had an explanation of what I did wrong here. I am notbtrying to be difficult, I am just asking for future reference...E!


DQ threads like this arise regularly, some not as lengthy. They are posted because DQ notifications are often a canned response covering a general rule, and not very specific. Specific errors are seldom cited.
But the question is always the same - "What specifically did I do wrong? And "Why specifically is it wrong?"

When forced to reply - SC members will make some effort, usually with another cannned response or something even more vague - this is a SC quote "It should be obvious."
Ha - I think the SC is over worked or someone answers and they really don't know the answer.
12/20/2007 08:18:42 AM · #157
Originally posted by undieyatch:


When forced to reply - SC members will make some effort, usually with another cannned response or something even more vague - this is a SC quote "It should be obvious."
Ha - I think the SC is over worked or someone answers and they really don't know the answer.


This is why I want to shake things up. My fix would take less pressure off the shoulders of the SC.

I really wish we didn't have so many pessimistic people on this site. I know that is reality but I just can't see how so many people just want to leave things alone. I mean how long does it have to stay that way? Just think... If it wasn't for people like me we would still be editing under classic rules.

You do realize that if society never changed we will still be living in a world of Atari playing star control and snapping shots with cameras like this.
' . substr('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cam_01.jpg', strrpos('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cam_01.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

UPDATE PEOPLE Download the latest fix... hahaha
12/20/2007 08:39:01 AM · #158
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

[quote=undieyatch]
You do realize that if society never changed we will still be living in a world of Atari playing star control and snapping shots with cameras like this.
' . substr('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cam_01.jpg', strrpos('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cam_01.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


You do realise that if everyone in society made as big a deal out of something as small as this, we would never have got past quarrelling over the best way to light a fire.

I understand your frustration and desperateness to try and fix this, and try and make the line between yea and nae clearer. However, perhaps channeling that energy into devising this 'holy grail' of rule-sets such that all DQ decisions are entirely objective (which I think is nigh-on impossible) would be more beneficial to your cause; rather than complaining that the rest of us are useless pessimists.

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.

p.s. I appreciate that some of the rules are entirely objective, but this one clearly isn't and I don't think ever will be.

12/20/2007 09:40:47 AM · #159
Pessimism and Optimism must be subjective terms. :-D

I see those that can work with the current ruleset as optimists with the mindset of "this can work, it's not so hard" - vs - pessimists thinking "this ruleset is vague and terribly difficult to understand".
12/20/2007 09:59:16 AM · #160
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:



You do realize that if society never changed we will still be living in a world of Atari playing star control and snapping shots with cameras like this.
' . substr('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cam_01.jpg', strrpos('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cam_01.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

UPDATE PEOPLE Download the latest fix... hahaha


HOW WAS THIS BACKGROUND MADE WHITE? ;-) I request a DQ!!! :-p

-danny
12/20/2007 10:12:42 AM · #161
Originally posted by hotpasta:

Originally posted by hotpasta:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll go on record to say I see no difference between the two car shots. Personally, I would have guessed a DQ for both.


I agree with the Doc. My one and only dq was for this image:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/731/120/577725.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/731/120/577725.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I burned out the out of focus background of which some is still evidently there. By the time I shifted levels and contrast 90% of it was black. A little more burning gave it a vignette that worked. I never in my wildest dreams thought it would be dqed. It came 5th.


Based on what happened with the image with the two cars, I still haven't had an explanation of what I did wrong here. I am notbtrying to be difficult, I am just asking for future reference...E!


Me too...that was a great shot, and I don't see how any dodge burn could result in a DQ
12/20/2007 10:15:20 AM · #162
It would be interesting if Enzo would post the original of the tiger shot so we could see what was removed...

R.
12/20/2007 12:31:19 PM · #163
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

So after looking for an outtake and seeing none, do we know why ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31.gif', '/') + 1) . ' onar was pinged?


Sorry for the late respond to this threat ,i just saw it .
I would like to submit the outtake for you.
I know that these are the rules , but the time i was took this photo the only thing i had in my mind to create was the photo that DQ.
I didn't believed that the black vignette was not legal . When i have the time i will read more carefully the rules ...

But otherwise maybe the admins must look more carefully that rule ...
Never mind i will not use the black vignette again..:)

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/60000-64999/62815/120/624233.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/60000-64999/62815/120/624233.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' This is the original

Message edited by author 2007-12-20 12:32:10.
12/20/2007 12:37:39 PM · #164
Originally posted by hotpasta:

Originally posted by hotpasta:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll go on record to say I see no difference between the two car shots. Personally, I would have guessed a DQ for both.


I agree with the Doc. My one and only dq was for this image:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/731/120/577725.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/731/120/577725.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I burned out the out of focus background of which some is still evidently there. By the time I shifted levels and contrast 90% of it was black. A little more burning gave it a vignette that worked. I never in my wildest dreams thought it would be dqed. It came 5th.


Based on what happened with the image with the two cars, I still haven't had an explanation of what I did wrong here. I am notbtrying to be difficult, I am just asking for future reference...E!


This is why i wrote before that the site admins must look more carefully that rule ...Sometimes the things must change .....

Message edited by author 2007-12-20 12:38:18.
12/20/2007 12:41:11 PM · #165
Originally posted by onar:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/60000-64999/62815/120/624233.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/60000-64999/62815/120/624233.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' This is the original


No surprise at all this one was DQ'd; the entire top of the car and all the background was totally obliterated in post...

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/782/120/620977.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/782/120/620977.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

R.

Message edited by author 2007-12-20 12:42:05.
12/20/2007 04:38:21 PM · #166
Originally posted by crabappl3:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:



You do realize that if society never changed we will still be living in a world of Atari playing star control and snapping shots with cameras like this.
' . substr('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cam_01.jpg', strrpos('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Cam_01.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

UPDATE PEOPLE Download the latest fix... hahaha


HOW WAS THIS BACKGROUND MADE WHITE? ;-) I request a DQ!!! :-p

-danny


Levels adjustment, just like you did. :)
12/20/2007 04:40:20 PM · #167
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.



I am crazy! Thanks for your Input
12/21/2007 09:14:16 AM · #168
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.
12/26/2007 08:02:08 PM · #169
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.
12/26/2007 08:45:21 PM · #170
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 09:03:05 PM · #171
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.
01/05/2008 02:31:38 AM · #172
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.

01/05/2008 01:04:04 PM · #173
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 01:07:58 PM · #174
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 01:17:26 PM · #175
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.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/29/2020 03:37:53 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 03:37:53 AM EST.