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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> Recalculation in the Green IV challenge
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 63, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/27/2014 06:05:56 PM · #1
Due to a complete background removal, the blue ribbon image in this challenge has been disqualified. Congratulations to all new placements, including the new yellow ribbon winner.
03/27/2014 06:09:40 PM · #2
Interesting...I used Gaussian Blur on the image. I thought that was legal?
03/27/2014 06:17:40 PM · #3
Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1107161.jpg Original

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_1106343.jpg Entered Image

You can still see the lines from the cabinet, and the brown blanket in the background, on her lower left shoulder. Apparently, this is to much blur used? The background has not been removed at all, just blurred more, from an already blurred background due to shallow DOF. Kind of surprised it was DQ'd. Don't agree with it at all.

Message edited by author 2014-03-27 18:33:15.
03/27/2014 06:23:11 PM · #4
Me too, but these folks love their "rules"
03/27/2014 06:36:01 PM · #5
Wouldn't think that was against the rules.
03/27/2014 06:40:08 PM · #6
Odd indeed. I thought that a blur and an increase of saturation would be legal. Have to re read the rules again
03/27/2014 06:41:38 PM · #7
The rules are so open to interpretation....not clear cut at all....really, really thought this was completely legal.
03/27/2014 06:46:37 PM · #8
On the other hand Jen, i like the original more. It has more life. Very often this capability of processing in digital photography is so tempting and we use it so much that we turn landscapes into post cards and sharpen way too much. I understand that you wanted to get a more painterly effect but, again, the freshness was a bit lost. This has nothing to do though with the DQ
03/27/2014 06:47:38 PM · #9
The rules are definitely open to interpretation, but it's not the editing tools used as some are mentioning. Now I've never had to be validated, so I've always erred far on the side of caution, but I kinda agree. It's a great photo no doubt, but all I can see of the background is some faint brown and a hint of lines. Where as in the original the background while blurred is very recognizable.
03/27/2014 07:08:37 PM · #10
The DQ was for the removal of the background. As you said..it is there, in your opinion "a hint". However, does that change "a typical viewer's description of the photograph". Not sure. Looked up the rules to refresh my memory, and found this one too: " use distortions to create new effects or radically alter objects." Possibly, however I don't think the object was radically altered....it is there, just blurred ( and the image is not about the background, I find the background secondary). I actually placed her in front of that cabinet because I liked the warm colors of it. My question would be if I just removed the 'lines' in the cabinet, would that be a DQ too?

EDA: it is the same technique I used to clear her skin from redness and blemishes. But that is legal, right? Along her nose, it is completely blurred skin in the submitted entry. So is her skin radically altered??

The 'original' image that you are seeing does have some of her blemished taken out, because she was mortified that I was gong to post it 'with her zits showing". Yeah, she is 14. The background is completely original.

Message edited by author 2014-03-27 19:20:01.
03/27/2014 07:49:44 PM · #11
If we don't draw the line somewhere, then we're opening ourselves to having, for example, portraits where someone just creates a black layer under the image layer and erases everything they "don't want" from the image layer. I'm pretty sure you'll all agree we don't want that. So, historically, we've been open to a pretty large amount of background obfuscating, but not out-and-out removal or obliiteration. And, as has been pointed out in this thread, it doesn't matter what tool is used, it's a result-oriented metric.

03/27/2014 07:57:21 PM · #12
more reason to just ditch the rule sets altogether.
03/27/2014 07:57:33 PM · #13
That's so weird and disappointing. So was anything actually erased in the image? I'm only asking because I'm trying to see where that line is drawn. Just for the future.

ETA. Did the rules change this year? If so I should probably read them.

Message edited by author 2014-03-27 20:03:03.
03/27/2014 08:09:26 PM · #14
FWIW Jen, it was a great portrait, regardless of the challenge.

...(but at least the glass shots have reached their rightful prominence...:)
03/27/2014 08:14:45 PM · #15
Originally posted by Mike:

more reason to just ditch the rule sets altogether.


and enter as many photos as you want not taken in the correct time frame, hold multiple accounts and get your friends to vote on your photos!...... Sounds like a great idea!!
03/27/2014 08:15:09 PM · #16
Originally posted by beatabg:

That's so weird and disappointing. So was anything actually erased in the image? I'm only asking because I'm trying to see where that line is drawn. Just for the future.

ETA. Did the rules change this year? If so I should probably read them.


No, nothing was erased. Blur was used apparently "over the line". However, this is not a case where "portraits where someone just creates a black layer under the image layer and erases everything they "don't want" from the image layer." I did want the cabinet in the background, and it is there, just blurred.

Very disappointed with this DQ.

If this technique is used on skin, where do you draw the line on that?

Message edited by author 2014-03-27 20:19:52.
03/27/2014 08:25:49 PM · #17
i mean really the bokeh challenges are minimal so that we can create our own bokeh.

isnt this what she did?
03/27/2014 08:27:56 PM · #18
Originally posted by njsabs:

No, nothing was erased. Blur was used apparently "over the line". However, this is not a case where "portraits where someone just creates a black layer under the image layer and erases everything they "don't want" from the image layer." I did want the cabinet in the background, and it is there, just blurred.

Very disappointed with this DQ.


I think Bear actually meant that creating black layers and erasing is NOT okay. Anyway I'm very surprised with this DQ. I wish the rules interpretation was more consistent. I honestly don't know what's "legal" sometimes. I'm really sorry Jen.

Message edited by author 2014-03-27 20:59:13.
03/27/2014 08:30:31 PM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If we don't draw the line somewhere, then we're opening ourselves to having, for example, portraits where someone just creates a black layer under the image layer and erases everything they "don't want" from the image layer. I'm pretty sure you'll all agree we don't want that. So, historically, we've been open to a pretty large amount of background obfuscating, but not out-and-out removal or obliiteration. And, as has been pointed out in this thread, it doesn't matter what tool is used, it's a result-oriented metric.


There is "the line"....is this a large amount of background obfuscating (which is tolerated), or out and out obliteration (which is not tolerated)? I don't see the background as removed or obliterated, yes obscured, muddy, unclear, unintelligible, but not obliterated.



Message edited by author 2014-03-27 20:34:57.
03/27/2014 08:54:25 PM · #20
Jen, you know I'm a huge fan of yours, but this is nothing new or all that difficult to understand. It may be the most common editing DQ in Advanced (added text is another biggie). A background with obvious visible detail is always considered a major element because it sets the context for the photo– in this case a model in front of a door or window. Removal of that background detail therefore changes a typical viewer's description from "model in front of door" to "model in front of blank space," and runs afoul of the rule. It does not matter HOW the background was removed, only that the scene defining context is gone. You can get away with removing minor imperfections on an otherwise "blank" background, such as a few wrinkles on a muslin or twigs in a clear blue sky, but a background scene cannot be obliterated. Sorry!
03/27/2014 09:13:09 PM · #21
This is very similar to Juliet's DQ, where she darkened the bg to the point where no real detail was visible. I've looked at your image on two different monitors, and truly, there is virtually no discernible detail remaining. I think that sometimes, we are influenced by what we know is there and are still able to see it even when we've "obfuscated" it to the point where any other viewer will not. This is one of the frustrations of any site with editing rules, but it doesn't make it any less of a marvelous image.
03/27/2014 09:33:36 PM · #22
If this particular rule causes such a big problem, and yet reasonable minds continuously disagree, why not just change the rule and make it legal? and, throw in the "major element" rule as well. those discussions always end in a stalemate.
03/27/2014 09:42:36 PM · #23
Originally posted by scalvert:

...but this is nothing new or all that difficult to understand. It may be the most common editing DQ in Advanced (added text is another biggie)...


It is the most common editing DQ...if it's the most common DQ then it's not very clear. As for the text that is usually a mistake made by a new member not one who has participated as much as Jen.

May I propose a possible solution to help define where the line is? Maybe a forum page put together by SC with visual examples for the most common DQ mistakes or the common "is this legal" questions, Gaussian blur...this is acceptable...this is really close to the line and may be DQ'd...& this has gone to far. I am sure members who have been dq'd for using a legal editing tool but carrying it too far in the SC's eyes would agree to have their image used as examples.

With that being said there will still be DQs and this will provide a partial solution and a place for the members to use as a visual guide. I am willing to bet that if this went forward the percentage of DQs will drop.

Jen I'm sorry for your DQ it still is an awesome shot.
03/27/2014 09:45:51 PM · #24
Originally posted by blindjustice:

If this particular rule causes such a big problem, and yet reasonable minds continuously disagree, why not just change the rule and make it legal? and, throw in the "major element" rule as well. those discussions always end in a stalemate.


I don't think it requires a rule change! nor is it such a big problem. As Shannon said its not that difficult to understand.

Ironically I think in this case there really was no need to remove the background ! personally I feel that the image would have probably looked better if a more of the background was visible.

Unlike this DQ from many years ago where the stark black background added so much to the image.

Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_387899.jpg
03/27/2014 09:47:04 PM · #25
The reason for the DQ seems pretty obvious to me. The original has a detailed background and the edit has a solid background. It definitely changes the way I would describe each image.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/19/2018 07:22:44 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 © 2001-2018 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: 04/19/2018 07:22:44 PM EDT.