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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> My 4th place got DQ
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 82, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/28/2007 12:18:00 AM · #1
I got DQ from the color portrait challenge because created new image areas. Actually I don't agree with this choice.



I used dodge&burn with selections in some part of the image and I think that a lot of people is creating dramatic effects on their skies (some of the ribbons as well) and this changes completely the way an observer is perceiving the picture.

I think that at least, this rule is not clear enough, since I don't think I created new image area.

Sorry, but I'm disappointed with that.
03/28/2007 12:19:12 AM · #2
Damn it I got all excited thinking it was the cellphone challenge >.<
03/28/2007 12:22:20 AM · #3
Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:

Damn it I got all excited thinking it was the cellphone challenge >.<


LOL. You're not suppose to get excited over someone else's misfortune. Bad Amy bad! :P

Silvestro, what specifically do you think it was? If it's creating new image area that's pretty cut and dry while the other possibilities listed in your DQ are more subjective.

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 00:22:54.
03/28/2007 12:24:43 AM · #4
I doubt you were DQ'd for dodge and burn. Did you add black space on the side with a border?
03/28/2007 12:25:17 AM · #5
I think they're referring to the way I dodged and burned below the window...

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:

Damn it I got all excited thinking it was the cellphone challenge >.<


LOL. You're not suppose to get excited over someone else's misfortune. Bad Amy bad! :P

Silvestro, what specifically do you think it was? If it's creating new image area that's pretty cut and dry while the other possibilities listed in your DQ are more subjective.

03/28/2007 12:27:06 AM · #6
ah, yes, was the voluminous light not there in the original? I can buy the DQ, although I agree it's a gray line at times.
03/28/2007 12:27:27 AM · #7
HOW???? WHAT??? DAMN!!!! DRATT!!! BLAST!!! other various curses... Silvestro.. my heart goes out to you my brother, nobody knows better than I how this feels, please try to not let it get you down and let's bounce back with a RIBBON for you... You are a very VERY GOOD photographer and a vital member of our team..

BIG HUGS TO YOU BRO....
03/28/2007 12:30:24 AM · #8
Yes... I think this is too much of a grey line since this is not impacting the observer feeling as some pics (ribbons) I have seen in the past.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

ah, yes, was the voluminous light not there in the original? I can buy the DQ, although I agree it's a gray line at times.
03/28/2007 12:42:09 AM · #9
thats a shame, awesome image though!
not a big deal, a 4th place in my book
keep the great shots coming
03/28/2007 12:56:01 AM · #10
Originally posted by srugolo:

Yes... I think this is too much of a grey line since this is not impacting the observer feeling as some pics (ribbons) I have seen in the past.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

ah, yes, was the voluminous light not there in the original? I can buy the DQ, although I agree it's a gray line at times.


Look at the flare on the floor, was that in the original.

And is this rule saying you connot burn out the background.

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 00:57:00.
03/28/2007 01:05:49 AM · #11
It must be the four point "star" lens flare below the window that was added. Put the original up for us to see. I agree, many of the winners have skies that are so processed there is indeed added pixels that were not perceivable. This even happens in basic challenges. Great pic, well done, consider it a personal ribbon ;)
03/28/2007 01:07:23 AM · #12

Why not post the original photo, so we can form our own opinion whether you violated the rules or not?


03/28/2007 01:14:44 AM · #13
I also thought about that four-point-star, but if you see it more carefully it seems to be just the floor tiles not a faked lens flare.

Or not...

It is a great image, you should be happy with yourself!! keep going

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 01:17:00.
03/28/2007 01:17:23 AM · #14
Originally posted by hywind:

... And is this rule saying you connot burn out the background.

If the burning removes significant detail it is not allowed. The same is true with dodging (or any other editing for that matter).

Here is an example (although admittedly an extreme one) of an image DQed for editing the background into non-existence.

She shared the original after the DQ. She was sitting in her livingroom, either on the couch or coffee-table (I don't remember exactly) with the room clearly visible behind her.

David
03/28/2007 02:23:49 AM · #15
Originally posted by Valdo:

I also thought about that four-point-star, but if you see it more carefully it seems to be just the floor tiles not a faked lens flare.


Yep, that's what I'm seeing, too: just a tile boundary. The next one over goes into her foot.

I'm confused - doesn't the SC tell you what you did wrong?

Yoo hoooooo. SC?
03/28/2007 03:45:49 AM · #16
Would you mind posting up your original unedited file so we all don't make the same mistake. I can't quite understand what you have done to contravene the rules. I might be missing something but I am not seeing major elements added here.
03/28/2007 05:33:41 AM · #17
Thank you guys. For those of who asked, here is the file before Photoshop and after Nikon Capture basic editing (just cropped, Curves, Levels and USM).



Originally posted by craigester:

Would you mind posting up your original unedited file so we all don't make the same mistake. I can't quite understand what you have done to contravene the rules. I might be missing something but I am not seeing major elements added here.

03/28/2007 05:48:07 AM · #18
From what I can see the DQ is a mistake. Am I missing something?
03/28/2007 05:52:08 AM · #19
I think it's the rays of light coming from the bottom of the window that were the problem.....not there in the original.

ETA ...what a beautiful shot, both the original and your edited version.

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 05:53:10.
03/28/2007 06:09:44 AM · #20
I can get the same effect from the original using advanced editing.. maybe the SC just made a mistake.. it IS possible, there are only human after all. maybe you should re-apply with a step by step guide with what you done to get this shot.. I done it with layer masking. OK it wasn't EXACTLY the same but pretty damn close.

Whatever the outcome Silvio it's an INCREDABLE shot.
03/28/2007 06:21:15 AM · #21
I hope so... I asked for clarification. I did it with masking and d&b...

I think the issue is with the definition of a feature. A flare is a clear shape (circular, star) and so on that you're adding to the image. I made some part of the existing image darker and brighter...

My opinion is: if there's a grey area in the rules and the shot is not that impacted in terms of perception, in the doubt, you shouldn't disqualify it.

Originally posted by MAK:

I can get the same effect from the original using advanced editing.. maybe the SC just made a mistake.. it IS possible, there are only human after all. maybe you should re-apply with a step by step guide with what you done to get this shot.. I done it with layer masking. OK it wasn't EXACTLY the same but pretty damn close.

Whatever the outcome Silvio it's an INCREDABLE shot.

03/28/2007 06:21:32 AM · #22
At issue also might be that the window in the entry image is also significantly blurred when compared with the original.

But how do you get those light rays to show up like that in Advanced Editing? Or at all without adding them?
03/28/2007 06:31:22 AM · #23
I am new and have only entered my first shot last week. I am paranoid about doing too much to a photo and read the rules several times while processing a shot. The photo is indeed beautiful but I do have to agree with the DQ. You have added an entirely new aspect to the image that did not exist in the original. If the rays were in the original and you used a contrast feature to highlight them to bring them out more that would have been ok but you have introduced a new feature. I presume dodge and burn are meant more to darken or highlight existing features. Hope I have this right being a novice/new.
03/28/2007 06:48:06 AM · #24
That's what I did: I darkened and highlight the existing feature (window bottom part). Why should that be different by highlitghting some specific parts of the sky or darkening them by creating dramatic effects.

As an example, consider Heida shot (and I love Heida and this shot so don't take me wrong):



The border between staying in that specific rule and breaking it is not that black or white...

I hope my DQ can contribute to make it more clear.

Originally posted by Monique64:

I am new and have only entered my first shot last week. I am paranoid about doing too much to a photo and read the rules several times while processing a shot. The photo is indeed beautiful but I do have to agree with the DQ. You have added an entirely new aspect to the image that did not exist in the original. If the rays were in the original and you used a contrast feature to highlight them to bring them out more that would have been ok but you have introduced a new feature. I presume dodge and burn are meant more to darken or highlight existing features. Hope I have this right being a novice/new.

03/28/2007 06:58:13 AM · #25
Originally posted by suemack:

I think it's the rays of light coming from the bottom of the window that were the problem.....not there in the original.

ETA ...what a beautiful shot, both the original and your edited version.


you're right...that was the problem.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:09:13 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 11:09:13 AM EDT.