I got a DQ and now I'm all confused

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

06/04/2006 04:27:04 PM · #51

Originally posted by ursula:

As I said below, I would not vote to DQ an image that is keeping a background layer intact, and making all adjustments on one, and only one, duplicate layer. In my view, that is valid in basic editing. Lying about editing steps is not, in my view.

Lying is never acceptable and should be grounds for DQ.

Should the site decide that preserving an untouched background layer is acceptable in Basic Editing then I would suggest some less verbose language than this added to Basic rules:

"You are allowed to duplicate the background layer once, but only to retain an unmodified and untouched original. The duplicated layer cannot have any adjustment layers between it and the background layer and it must remain in normal mode with opacity set at 100%."

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

06/04/2006 04:34:10 PM · #52

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by ursula:
As I said below, I would not vote to DQ an image that is keeping a background layer intact, and making all adjustments on one, and only one, duplicate layer. In my view, that is valid in basic editing. Lying about editing steps is not, in my view.

Lying is never acceptable and should be grounds for DQ.

Should the site decide that preserving an untouched background layer is acceptable in Basic Editing then I would suggest some less verbose language than this added to Basic rules:

"You are allowed to duplicate the background layer once, but only to retain an unmodified and untouched original. The duplicated layer cannot have any adjustment layers between it and the background layer and it must remain in normal mode with opacity set at 100%."

Thank you.

justin_hewlett

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/04/2006 04:51:26 PM · #53

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So you can follow the rules as they are written and still get DQ'ed.

It shows you can follow one rule but still break another.

Oh yeah, the rule that says you have to meet SC's idea of what comprises photography.

Whatever that means...

It's called the "Major Element" clause. I consider what you did creating a major element, regardless of the tools used to get there.

Rebecca

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

06/04/2006 04:51:32 PM · #54

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by ursula:
As I said below, I would not vote to DQ an image that is keeping a background layer intact, and making all adjustments on one, and only one, duplicate layer. In my view, that is valid in basic editing. Lying about editing steps is not, in my view.

Lying is never acceptable and should be grounds for DQ.

Should the site decide that preserving an untouched background layer is acceptable in Basic Editing then I would suggest some less verbose language than this added to Basic rules:

"You are allowed to duplicate the background layer once, but only to retain an unmodified and untouched original. The duplicated layer cannot have any adjustment layers between it and the background layer and it must remain in normal mode with opacity set at 100%."

Thank you.

Not a bad idea.. better than my amateur hack version. Might also be nice to toss in a strong recommendation that you save the unflattened .psd or .ppd file in case proof of editing steps is needed. Would SC review such a file if it were available?

Titia

Sony DSC-F717

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC for Nikon

06/04/2006 05:53:51 PM · #55

I must say, coming back here, my eyes almost fell out of my head that my little joke caused so much trouble.

1. I'm against cheating.
2. I didn't cheat, I thought what I did was allowed in basic.
3. I told the truth when asked, I even made it easy on them puting my steps in my portfolio.
4. I can't help it that I was away for a couple of days because I'm the executeur testamentair, or in English: the administrator of a very complicated estate of my late aunt. I had to go over up North to sign papers because the house was sold. I have a life besides DPChallenge you know.
5. I barely understood what Bear-Music and MK (I think) were trying to explain to me about layers. But after reading all the other comments about layers, I'm back to total confusion again because I don't know what you're talking about.
6. If you assume that everybody who shoot photo's and submit them in challenges like these are pro's in photographing and editing programs, you're wrong. I do use PSP but half the time I don't know what I'm actually doing. I don't even know what normal mode means.
7. I'm sorry that my little joke upset so many SC's because I think their job is not an easy one and I never meant that it was a free way to cheat in the future.
8. And as English is not my native language, it's hard enough to understand the technical rules anyway.
9. Now I'm going to sit back in my chair with a glass of wine, lick my wounds while wondering whether I want to continue to participate in challenges I seemingly get slapped for not being able to fully comprehend the rules.
10. And yes, my hair colour could be called rather blond (if I'm allowed to make another little joke)

Thanks to all who tried to help me understand why I got my DQ.

edit: I want to give an applause to stdavidson for the comment he made about learning. (applauding you now and throwing roses your way, thanks)

Message edited by author 2006-06-04 18:07:55.

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/04/2006 06:00:35 PM · #56

You might contact Konador for help. I know he did a personalized video for Rose/espy when she was having difficulty understanding adjustment layers in PSP. He's got info on his services on his website. I'd offer to help more but I don't have PSP so I couldn't provide screenshots, etc.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/04/2006 06:15:26 PM · #57

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So you can follow the rules as they are written and still get DQ'ed.

It shows you can follow one rule but still break another.

Oh yeah, the rule that says you have to meet SC's idea of what comprises photography.

Whatever that means...

It's called the "Major Element" clause. I consider what you did creating a major element, regardless of the tools used to get there.

I honestly don't care what you consider. Your opinion is of no consequence anyway.

What it boiled down to was this (from the thread discussing my DQ):

Originally posted by GeneralE:

"The Site Council will disqualify any photo it finds violates either the letter or spirit of these rules." (emphasis added)

This was the only reasonable explanation I received for my DQ and the rule is completely arbitrary, subject ONLY to the whim of the SC. Virtually any entry could be found in violation of this rule and DQ'ed. All it would take is a vote from the SC.

That's fine, but most people here aren't aware that entries are subject to such arbitrary rules.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/04/2006 08:20:39 PM · #58

I'm amazed to see this thread still going on considering that it's one of the simpler and more objective rules we have: Only Adjustment Layers (or the non-Photoshop equivalent) may be used. An Adjustment Layer is one that does not contain any pixel data, but rather is a special, non-image layer that lets you experiment with color and tonal adjustments to an image without permanently modifying the pixels.

So, if you've got another layer with any pixels or selections on it (whether by copy and paste, duplicate or whatever), it's illegal in Basic. That said, I'm pretty sure we've validated a few entries where an untouched background layer was kept for reference and all work was performed on a 100% opaque duplicate layer. HOWEVER, if you aren't using that background layer, then why even have it? Working on a copy of your file is both safer and potentially more useful as a reference since you can view it side-by-side with your working file.

True, you can often achieve the same results using both illegal and legal methods, but that's a good reason to use the legal technique. The idea of withholding your editing steps in case something is illegal just sickens me as it demonstrates an utter contempt for the rules and sharing with the community. We can learn a lot about how an image was achieved through the photographer's comments and editing steps, but an image with a blank comments section is useful only to the photographer (rather selfish IMO). If you are unclear on any part of the rules, you're FAR better off asking first than trying to cover it up later.

Spazmo, your image was DQ'd because nothing in your original was recognizable in the entry. What tools or steps you use to obscure Major Elements (or in your case, EVERY element) is irrelevant.

Message edited by author 2006-06-04 20:21:19.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

06/04/2006 09:36:28 PM · #59

Originally posted by scalvert:

Spazmo, your image was DQ'd because nothing in your original was recognizable in the entry. What tools or steps you use to obscure Major Elements (or in your case, EVERY element) is irrelevant.

Does it say that in the rules, that the photo must be recognizable??

If it does, then there are many, many more shots that should be DQ'ed.

Your same reasoning would pretty much include the entire "Abstract" challenge, since one of the ideas of abstraction itself is to move beyond recognizable form.

You could also use the same argument for any image that used gaussian blur to obscure the BG to make a shallow DOF effect.

I understand HOW my entry got DQ'ed and the reasoning SC used, faulty as it is, behind it. I just don't think it was justified and I likely never will.

Rebecca

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

06/04/2006 09:42:56 PM · #60

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Spazmo, your image was DQ'd because nothing in your original was recognizable in the entry. What tools or steps you use to obscure Major Elements (or in your case, EVERY element) is irrelevant.

Does it say that in the rules, that the photo must be recognizable??

If it does, then there are many, many more shots that should be DQ'ed.

Your same reasoning would pretty much include the entire "Abstract" challenge, since one of the ideas of abstraction itself is to move beyond recognizable form.

You could also use the same argument for any image that used gaussian blur to obscure the BG to make a shallow DOF effect.

I understand HOW my entry got DQ'ed and the reasoning SC used, faulty as it is, behind it. I just don't think it was justified and I likely never will.

Abstract would be considered an extra rule, I think. Like the triptych challenge and whatnot. If the challenge itself specifically calls for it, then it kinda overrides the standard ruleset.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

06/04/2006 09:49:01 PM · #61

Originally posted by Titia:

I must say, coming back here, my eyes almost fell out of my head that my little joke caused so much trouble.

Um yeah, guess no one saw the LOL.

Jeez.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/04/2006 09:51:36 PM · #62

Originally posted by karmabreeze:

Abstract would be considered an extra rule, I think.

Extra rules are called out as such. Any prominent features in your original (at the same cropping) should still be recognizable in your entry. This has ALWAYS been the case.

Canon EOS-20D

06/04/2006 09:54:52 PM · #63

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I understand HOW my entry got DQ'ed and the reasoning SC used, faulty as it is, behind it. I just don't think it was justified and I likely never will.

Yeah, but now you can mention it in every DQ thread and it's likely already gotten way more views than it would have had it remained in the challenge. Bonus!

Rebecca

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

06/04/2006 09:56:04 PM · #64

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Abstract would be considered an extra rule, I think.

Extra rules are called out as such. Any prominent features in your original (at the same cropping) should still be recognizable in your entry. This has ALWAYS been the case.

I'm not arguing that - just that when the challenge description clearly states you should take a photo of something so close up that you can't tell what it is, it pretty much sets the "rule" of the challenge, and it seems rather silly in that very specific situation to DQ something for excluding a major element simply because it's unrecognizeable, which seems to be the metaphor that spazmo's calling out. I have no issue with the ruling. :)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/04/2006 10:01:40 PM · #65

Originally posted by karmabreeze:

...the challenge description clearly states you should take a photo of something so close up that you can't tell what it is...

If he had actually done that, there wouldn't have been an issue. In this case, he took a picture of something that WAS recognizable (3 M&M's) and used Photoshop to MAKE them unrecognizable. Not meeting the challenge isn't grounds for DQ, but making your entire original unrecognizable in Photoshop certainly is.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

06/04/2006 10:04:51 PM · #66

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by karmabreeze:
...the challenge description clearly states you should take a photo of something so close up that you can't tell what it is...

If he had actually done that, there wouldn't have been an issue. In this case, he took a picture of something that WAS recognizable (3 M&M's) and used Photoshop to MAKE them unrecognizable. Not meeting the challenge isn't grounds for DQ, but making your entire original unrecognizable in Photoshop certainly is.

And clearly, obliterating the entire BG into unrecognizable fuzz is acceptable for a shallow DOF challenge.

06/04/2006 10:07:11 PM · #67

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

...obliterating the entire BG into unrecognizable fuzz is acceptable for a shallow DOF challenge.

No, it's not (assuming there was anything recognizable in the background to begin with).

Message edited by author 2006-06-04 22:07:59.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/04/2006 10:48:41 PM · #68

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I understand HOW my entry got DQ'ed and the reasoning SC used, faulty as it is, behind it. I just don't think it was justified and I likely never will.

Yeah, but now you can mention it in every DQ thread and it's likely already gotten way more views than it would have had it remained in the challenge. Bonus!

Kudos to mk for pointing out the obvious. Spazmo, you really need to give this a rest... as it is wearing rather thin.

Ray

Nokia N900

Tamron AF 18-270mm F/3,5-6,3 Di II VC LD Aspherical [IF] macro for Canon

06/04/2006 11:07:05 PM · #69

Originally posted by scalvert:

But ... that's what he did, isn't it?

He cropped the original photo without obscuring any features in the original. He then increased the size of the image. I don't recall there being a rule that states that the submitted picture is required to contain a minimum number of the original image's pixels.

Resizing doesn't adjust the original crop. I'm sure there are lots of fine details that, when viewed at 1280x1280 would be considered major elements to many people (e.g. legible text) that gets lost when downsized to 640x640. I don't think anybody has ever complained that somebody has ever removed a major element because of downsizing (as grounds for DQ), yet it sounds like you're suggesting that resizing alone can be cause for DQ in these cases.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/04/2006 11:20:58 PM · #70

Originally posted by m:

He cropped the original photo without obscuring any features in the original. He then increased the size of the image.

No, he didn't crop the photo. he resized it small. Then he resized it big again.

justin_hewlett

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/04/2006 11:21:11 PM · #71

Beetle

06/04/2006 11:21:53 PM · #72

AAARRRRGGGGHHHH !!!!

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

06/04/2006 11:27:19 PM · #73

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Actually, now it's more like this:

Beetle

06/04/2006 11:33:51 PM · #74

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by justin_hewlett:

Actually, now it's more like this:

OMG that is one of your funniest contributions yet !!!! ROFLMAO

RayEthier