A very frustrating disqualification

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

01/21/2006 11:09:45 PM · #1

Alright, my entry for the "best of 2005" challenge has been disqualified...

The reason I received from the Site Council is this:
Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.

All my attempts to clarify the issue have failed, so I am just venting my frustration out in here, even before the challenge is over since there is no benefit in remaining anonymous anymore.

The editing that was done on the original image is basically a Radial Blur Filter to create some sense of motion (no editing tools were used), no elememts were added or moved or removed, just the background was blurred using a filter. In the Site Council opinion, this is a ground for disqualification, because the blur filter caused the image to look significantly different than the original, which is a statement I totally agree with... However, the advanced editing rules does not prohibit using filters to change the look or feel of an image, in fact it states the following:

Filters: At your discretion, you may apply filters to your photo, in whole or part. (Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.)

So how can you just have a rule that clearly says that you can apply filters in whole or part at your discretion, mentioning nothing about not changing the way the original photo looked, other than it won't be received well by the voters, and then disqualify the entry, am I missing something here????

I understand that the DPC is about Photography and not about post editing, but this is why we have rules in every aspect of life, so that decisions can be made according to the agreed rules and nothing else, if using a filter would disqualify an entry, why put a rule that says you can use filters? Just to trick people? Do you put a sign on a highway that says you can go 100 miles per hour and then pull people over because it doesn't make sense to go that fast anyway? Rules are supposed to be rules, period .. If rules were determined to be wrong or unclear, you correct them and then apply them going forward and not retroactively, people going by them should not be punished until the rules are corrected ..

I am sorry I wasted everyone's time in reading this, I guess this is why you create a rant forum, I mean no disrespect to the site council and I have nothing against them, but people do mistakes and my opinion remains that this was just a horrible one ..

I would really appreciate some additional opinions or inputs on this ..

Thanks everyone for an incredible experience on DPChallenge ..

Message edited by ClubJuggle - Removed thumbnail - DQ being re-reviewed.

w24x192

Canon PowerShot S50

01/21/2006 11:17:31 PM · #2

Well, let's see your original...that always helps.

Canon EOS-60D

01/21/2006 11:23:52 PM · #3

I don't see where it's any different at all from this image that ribboned, especially when you look at them side by side:

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

01/21/2006 11:25:58 PM · #4

Originally posted by samanwar:

The editing that was done on the original image is basically a Radial Blur Filter to create some sense of motion (no editing tools were used), no elememts were added or moved or removed, just the background was blurred using a filter. In the Site Council opinion, this is a ground for disqualification, because the blur filter caused the image to look significantly different than the original

If this was really the reason, then that's BS. If you would of chose to Gaussion blur an image that was totally in focus to isolate a subject, that should be DQ'd under these guidelines.

There has to be more to this story...

Message edited by author 2006-01-21 23:26:42.

w24x192

Canon PowerShot S50

01/21/2006 11:26:25 PM · #5

It is always tough to make the call without the original photo to compare. I don't think that the gull photo looks that over-processed, but we'll see.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

01/21/2006 11:35:08 PM · #6

I'm curious about this too... I think this may be a first time that something like this has been disqualified.

Baron152

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/21/2006 11:35:47 PM · #7

Originally posted by w24x192:

It is always tough to make the call without the original photo to compare. I don't think that the gull photo looks that over-processed, but we'll see.

Samanwar,

Post the original so we can look

01/21/2006 11:37:55 PM · #8

This is a small version of the original

Rae-Ann

Fujifilm FinePix S9000

01/21/2006 11:38:19 PM · #9

Well, for my 2 cents...
That is a frickin' great photo!! Congrats on that anyway!

01/21/2006 11:41:37 PM · #10

This is the explaination I received from a site council, I am hoping it's okay to publish it as is:
[Quote]
Sam,
Let me take a stab at clarifying this to the best of my ability...
I think the issue at hand was the extent to which you used these tools to completely change the context of the image. While the end result is indeed a unique and pleasing image, it is *tremendously* different than what came out of your camera. I think that's a very fair statement.

You had mentioned another photo which had used the blur tool and was allowed to stand. If I were to come up with an answer as to why it was allowed and why yours wasn't, I would again say that it was the extent to which the original photos were changed. Personally, I had voted to have the other shot DQ'd as well, but I was in the minority on that one.

I can also point out several shots that HAVE been DQ'd for similar reasons as yours:

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=202382
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=173353
//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=174208

I realize and fully understand that this is not the answer you're hoping for, and I also realize that this the whole "major elements" rule is a bit subjective. When I am considering DQ requests, I make every effort to consider what editing was done "within the spirit of rules of the site." To be very honest, while I think the outcome of your work is very unique and artistic, I don't feel that the editing done here is what DPC is all about.

Please don't let this discourage you from continuing to enter. You obviously have tremendous talents, and your presence here is undoubtedly beneficial to everyone.
[End Quote]
The image I mentioned was this:

Olympus 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital

01/21/2006 11:43:09 PM · #11

Again, I totally agree that the filter did change the way the photo looked, but where is that in the advanced editing rules? How is that different from burning and dodging the background to a great extent? Why would the rules says I can use filters?

Ombra_foto

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

01/21/2006 11:46:01 PM · #12

I completely disagree with SC on this.
You used all the tools that you were allowed to make the best possible picture.

Br proud of that picture.

ubique

Olympus PEN-F

Olympus 17mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko

01/21/2006 11:48:32 PM · #13

Quote from SC: ... it is *tremendously* different than what came out of your camera. I think that's a very fair statement.
I don't.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II