Can you protest a disqualification?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/17/2009 11:41:04 AM · #1

Sorry, I'm sure this has been covered but I can't find anything on it. My Crayon/Colored Pencil entry has been DQ'd, and the reason is just not true. They are saying a tool was used to add something that wasn't in the original. I submitted my RAW original, everything is there that's in my entry. I spent a lot of time on my entry and was getting my 3rd best score ever, with some great comments. Can you protest a DQ?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

04/17/2009 11:44:42 AM · #2

Go to Help --->Contact Us and open up a general inquiry ticket.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/17/2009 11:45:23 AM · #3

Yeah, you can protest it through "contact us", but depending on what you ended up with in the submission it may not do any good. For example, if your processing produced the illusion of light rays where none had existed in the original, that counts as a "something". Likewise, if extreme processing produced an extreme "halo" effect in striking colors, and that was not present in the original, that wouldn't pass muster either I don't think...

R.

Vivitar MF Zoom 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Series 1 for Olympus

04/17/2009 11:52:02 AM · #4

Thanks, I'll give it a try. I know I'm not the first to feel wronged, but I'm pretty pissed.

Teafran

Olympus E-520

04/17/2009 12:22:21 PM · #5

Originally posted by delin:

Thanks, I'll give it a try. I know I'm not the first to feel wronged, but I'm pretty pissed.

Can you point me to it - I'd like to take a look at it.

Later,

Tom

klkitchens

Pentax K-1

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

04/17/2009 01:05:02 PM · #6

Originally posted by delin:

Can you protest a DQ?

Sounds like you already are... :)

alanfreed

Nikon D6

04/17/2009 01:28:22 PM · #7

I don't see a ticket from you in the queue... but the short story is that your editing created new shapes that didn't exist in the original, specifically the lines "drawn" by the pencil.

Originally posted by delin:

Thanks, I'll give it a try. I know I'm not the first to feel wronged, but I'm pretty pissed.

04/18/2009 12:16:50 PM · #8

Originally posted by Teafran:

Originally posted by delin:
Thanks, I'll give it a try. I know I'm not the first to feel wronged, but I'm pretty pissed.

Can you point me to it - I'd like to take a look at it.

Later,

Tom

Thanks for your interest, actually your recent kind comment on my Train entry might have stopped me from running away from here crying like a baby. I've calmed down but I still think it's bull. The picture is off the site now, I'll try to send it you when I get to the computer it's on.

Google Glass Google Glass

04/18/2009 12:23:22 PM · #9

[quote=alanfreed] I don't see a ticket from you in the queue... but the short story is that your editing created new shapes that didn't exist in the original, specifically the lines "drawn" by the pencil.

I could see this point if it was drawn with a brush making something that wasn't there, but mine's just selective desaturation of what was there. Nothing was made that didn't exist originally. To bad a person isn't notified before being DQ'd so it could be discussed instead of just being dumped on. There might be less resentment.

ambaker

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/18/2009 12:42:52 PM · #10

I haven't seen the entry or the original, so I have no opinion on the call. But it does sound like you were asked to send the original file, so it doesn't sound like it came out of the blue.

Not having been in your situation, I've been disqualified before but in those days there was no send the original it just happened, I don't know if there is any hint as to whether you are told of their area of interest.

You do pose an interesting point. If saturation/de-saturation, brightness, contrast, curves, etc. are all that are used, then can it be said that anything truly new is being added? The information was always there, and the processing merely emphasized it to the point where it was more of a factor. It sounds like the lines were never really not there, just that now they are obvious as opposed to unseen.

The clause about changing the description of the picture is probably what got you. However, cropping can do the same thing. If I crop a person, or an object out of the submission, is that not just as much a violation?

Unfortunately, at times the rules become subjective. Which results in conflicts. But I do not know of a better way than what we have now, other than do whatever you want to the picture... Or if hidden features of the image become visible through legal editing, then let it go through the voting.

I don't always agree with the council, but I have to admit that considering the number of years the council has been here and the relative low level of controversy that exists, (low level being a subjective call on my part, feel free to disagree), I think they are doing a pretty darned good job of being fair and equitable.

alanfreed

Nikon D6

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/18/2009 12:58:50 PM · #11

Imagine, for example, that someone took a picture of a plain blue sky, and then desaturated portions of it so it appeared to have text written in the sky saying, "Goodbye Cruel World!" This is an extreme example, but it's the kind of thing we do not permit because, even though the sky was in the original shot, using selective desaturation would add a new element (the fact that I used text as an example is irrelevant here -- imagine someone used this method to draw a house, or whatever).

The shot in question wasn't that extreme, but it did indeed use selective desaturation to create new elements that did not previously exist in this same manner.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/18/2009 12:59:36 PM · #12

Originally posted by ambaker:

You do pose an interesting point. If saturation/de-saturation, brightness, contrast, curves, etc. are all that are used, then can it be said that anything truly new is being added? The information was always there, and the processing merely emphasized it to the point where it was more of a factor. It sounds like the lines were never really not there, just that now they are obvious as opposed to unseen.

Per the rules, you change change the color or saturation of existing objects or the entire photo, but you cannot use color to draw lines or write your name in a blank sky. The lines did not exist, even as latent shapes. THAT is creating something new, and the specific reason for this DQ.

04/18/2009 01:31:45 PM · #13

Well, writing your name in the sky is adding text, seems pretty obvious. I didn't do that. If you desat anything, be it an object, entire sky, etc., won't there be a line where the color/ desat starts and stops? This is making a line. The rule doesn't say your desat must stop specifically at some point. Basically I don't think changing color is adding an object that didn't exist previously. Judging by the score I was getting (6.57) and 10 positive comments the voters didn't feel what I did was inappropriate. Can I post the picture in question here since it's been removed anyway?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

04/18/2009 01:41:43 PM · #14

Originally posted by delin:

It's, well, a fine line. The subject has been debated almost endlessly by SC, and you are correct in stating that there is *always* a line of demarcation where selective desat begins/ends. The SC has a really tough job on judging this rule, and the only easy solution would be to disallow selective desat. I have to believe that this would not be a popular decision.
Don't feel bad about the DQ, chalk it up to a learning experience and move on.

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

04/18/2009 01:48:30 PM · #15

Originally posted by ambaker:

... The clause about changing the description of the picture is probably what got you. However, cropping can do the same thing. If I crop a person, or an object out of the submission, is that not just as much a violation? ...

??? Did you mean cloning? If you crop from the original capture and submit what's left, then that's your submission. If an original capture has a giraffe on the right-hand side and a person on the left standing on a ladder, and you crop out the giraffe, your challenge entry will simply be what's left (the person on the left standing on a ladder).

04/18/2009 01:52:07 PM · #16

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by delin:
Well, writing your name in the sky is adding text, seems pretty obvious. I didn't do that. If you desat anything, be it an object, entire sky, etc., won't there be a line where the color/ desat starts and stops? This is making a line. The rule doesn't say your desat must stop specifically at some point. Basically I don't think changing color is adding an object that didn't exist previously. Judging by the score I was getting (6.57) and 10 positive comments the voters didn't feel what I did was inappropriate. Can I post the picture in question here since it's been removed anyway?

It's, well, a fine line. The subject has been debated almost endlessly by SC, and you are correct in stating that there is *always* a line of demarcation where selective desat begins/ends. The SC has a really tough job on judging this rule, and the only easy solution would be to disallow selective desat. I have to believe that this would not be a popular decision.
Don't feel bad about the DQ, chalk it up to a learning experience and move on.

Thanks for the history, helps to know I'm not alone in what I'm going through . Seems like a pretty subjective rule. I'm working on moving on, I just want to go kicking and screaming, it was going be my 3rd best score.

04/19/2009 01:33:27 AM · #17

Originally posted by delin:

This photo

was originally judged legal, subsequently, a few months ago, it was extensively discussed in This Thread. If you take the time to read the thread you will see that several SC members posted in the thread stating that similar entries in the future would be ilegal. The argument was that the roller tracks did not exist in the original picture and were virtually created by using desat. I Think your picture is similar in that the pencil lines were created by the photoshop brush and not by a pencil. It sucks but it looks like you have no recourse. My brother and I were discussing your entry and thought the only way it would not be disqualified would be if you had actually printed a B&W photo with only part of the sky and the pencil lines in blue, then used that photo to take your final picture, then desat all but the the blue sky and the lines, it would have ended up identical but legal. It is a great picture; too bad you had not become aware of the above captioned thread before the challenge.

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 01:57:38.

Dr.Confuser

04/19/2009 01:49:58 PM · #18

Originally posted by senor_kasper:

Originally posted by delin:
Sorry, I'm sure this has been covered but I can't find anything on it. My Crayon/Colored Pencil entry has been DQ'd, and the reason is just not true. They are saying a tool was used to add something that wasn't in the original. I submitted my RAW original, everything is there that's in my entry. I spent a lot of time on my entry and was getting my 3rd best score ever, with some great comments. Can you protest a DQ?

This photo was originally judged legal, subsequently, a few months ago, it was extensively discussed in This Thread. If you take the time to read the thread you will see that several SC members posted in the thread stating that similar entries in the future would be ilegal. The argument was that the roller tracks did not exist in the original picture and were virtually created by using desat. I Think your picture is similar in that the pencil lines were created by the photoshop brush and not by a pencil. It sucks but it looks like you have no recourse. My brother and I were discussing your entry and thought the only way it would not be disqualified would be if you had actually printed a B&W photo with only part of the sky and the pencil lines in blue, then used that photo to take your final picture, then desat all but the the blue sky and the lines, it would have ended up identical but legal. It is a great picture; too bad you had not become aware of the above captioned thread before the challenge.

Except taking a photo of a photo to fool us into thnking it's an original photo ... is illegal, I believe.

04/19/2009 02:35:31 PM · #19

Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:

.........Except taking a photo of a photo to fool us into thnking it's an original photo ... is illegal, I believe.

Delin's picture did not pretend to show other than the picture of a picture, that would be legal, I think.

alanfreed

Nikon D6

04/19/2009 02:42:47 PM · #20

Originally posted by senor_kasper:

My brother and I were discussing your entry and thought the only way it would not be disqualified would be if you had actually printed a B&W photo with only part of the sky and the pencil lines in blue, then used that photo to take your final picture, then desat all but the the blue sky and the lines, it would have ended up identical but legal.

No, that would not have been legal at all, as pointed out by

Dr.Confuser. That would indeed definitely violate the other often-controversial rule about photographing existing artwork.

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 14:43:40.

posthumous

Google Glass Google Glass

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/19/2009 02:58:19 PM · #21

Originally posted by alanfreed:

I don't see a ticket from you in the queue... but the short story is that your editing created new shapes that didn't exist in the original, specifically the lines "drawn" by the pencil.

Oh, you mean like this:

ambaker

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/19/2009 03:23:40 PM · #22

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by ambaker:
You do pose an interesting point. If saturation/de-saturation, brightness, contrast, curves, etc. are all that are used, then can it be said that anything truly new is being added? The information was always there, and the processing merely emphasized it to the point where it was more of a factor. It sounds like the lines were never really not there, just that now they are obvious as opposed to unseen.

Per the rules, you change change the color or saturation of existing objects or the entire photo, but you cannot use color to draw lines or write your name in a blank sky. The lines did not exist, even as latent shapes. THAT is creating something new, and the specific reason for this DQ.

As I stated, I have not seen the image, so I wasn't making a judgement call. If selective desat was used, as in the painter image referenced above, to create something new, then it was indeed illegal.

Perhaps after the challenge is over, and we can all see the image, more will become clear...

04/19/2009 04:04:01 PM · #23

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Originally posted by senor_kasper:
My brother and I were discussing your entry and thought the only way it would not be disqualified would be if you had actually printed a B&W photo with only part of the sky and the pencil lines in blue, then used that photo to take your final picture, then desat all but the the blue sky and the lines, it would have ended up identical but legal.

No, that would not have been legal at all, as pointed out by Dr.Confuser. That would indeed definitely violate the other often-controversial rule about photographing existing artwork.

I thought it was ok for artwork to be part of the composition as long as it was not THE MAIN subject and as long as it was not there to fool the viewer into thinking he/she was looking at a real scene and not a picture. In fact, this is the exact transcription the rule: YOU MAY include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph.

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 16:06:46.