I got a DQ and now I'm all confused

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2006 02:08:52 AM · #151

Originally posted by m:

Originally posted by taterbug:
You used the posterization filter.

I did no such thing.

[ edit ] For what it's worth, I think I state everything I did in one of my comments on the image. The posterization effect was a combination of curves and the limits of the file formats I was working with.

I've raised your questions for renewed discussion by SC members. It will probably take a couple of days to get around to everybody.

Nokia N900

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

06/06/2006 02:14:24 AM · #152

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by m:

Originally posted by taterbug:
You used the posterization filter.

I did no such thing.

[ edit ] For what it's worth, I think I state everything I did in one of my comments on the image. The posterization effect was a combination of curves and the limits of the file formats I was working with.

I've raised your questions for renewed discussion by SC members. It will probably take a couple of days to get around to everybody.

I'm less concerned with whether it was DQed or not, than the why. If that was the reason, then I'm fine, and will just rephrase things if I list steps in the future. It was my first challenge entry, and never having touched Photoshop, I wasn't familiar with the terminology around here. (In other words, I don't care about the past entries as much as knowing what is allowed going forward).

It obviously wasn't a great entry anyway, just something I was having fun with ... like it seems I'm doing with most of these entries lately.

06/06/2006 02:14:30 AM · #153

Originally posted by m:

Originally posted by taterbug:

Originally posted by m:

You used the posterization filter.

I did no such thing.

[ edit ] For what it's worth, I think I state everything I did in one of my comments on the image. The posterization effect was a combination of curves and the limits of the file formats I was working with.

This is what we had to go by when validating.

Adjustments (in alphabetical order):
Border.
Cropping.
Despeckle to remove noise.
Gaussian Blur.
Posterization (looks the same on my 16-color screen now as it should on yours).
Unsharp Mask, maybe. I forget if I didn't undo this.

You mention 'posterization' not 'effect that resembles posterization'. when you listed the editing steps for validation.
And todays lesson? Properly listing your editing steps.

06/06/2006 02:19:05 AM · #154

Just skimming this thread since I thought it would be long dead by now, but I thought I would whack the horse myself a bit.

Simple Question: Advanced Editing - Legal or DQ ?

ORIGINAL - - - - - - - - - - - EDITED

Steps: selective masking and hue/color shifting only. No pixels were harmed in the editing process.

**Not trying to stir the pot, just checking in advance of the anticipated upcoming "Dogs on Acid" challenge.

...ok, I am trying to stir the pot. But I really would like to know if it would be DQ'd and if so, what specifically would be the grounds?

Bear_Music

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

06/06/2006 02:20:59 AM · #155

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

But I really would like to know if it would be DQ'd and if so, what specifically would be the grounds?

Cruelty to animals comes to mind... plus, of course, "text added" jejejeâ�¢

R.

Message edited by author 2006-06-06 02:21:47.

Canon EOS-20D

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

06/06/2006 02:21:14 AM · #156

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

...and if so, what specifically would be the grounds?

Cruelty to animals coupled with extreme poor taste.

06/06/2006 02:23:44 AM · #157

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
But I really would like to know if it would be DQ'd and if so, what specifically would be the grounds?

Cruelty to animals comes to mind... plus, of course, "text added" jejejeâ�¢

R.

"Text" was not added. I used text mask and color shift for part and just drew the word with the lasso tool and color shifted for the other. Does this really count as text added?

06/06/2006 02:24:32 AM · #158

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
...and if so, what specifically would be the grounds?

Cruelty to animals coupled with extreme poor taste.

Low score, ok. DQ??

06/06/2006 02:26:53 AM · #159

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Simple Question: Advanced Editing - Legal or DQ ?

...ok, I am trying to stir the pot. But I really would like to know if it would be DQ'd and if so, what specifically would be the grounds?

I would vote DQ. Reason is simple. You created spots on the dog, where spots did not originally exist. Creation of major elements. Had you color shifted the entire dog one color...then I would probably have to vote no DQ...
But as is, if this doggie were legal...then people would be allowed to draw in rainbows in blank skies.

crayon

06/06/2006 02:30:44 AM · #160

actually my biggest concern with the advanced editing rules by far is the "major element" rule. It seems sometimes distracting background items are not allowed to be removed (DQ'ed for removing major element) but sometimes it is allowed? How do I know when I could or couldn't? I still dare not to remove things from my photos yet mainly due to this inconsistency :(

update: edited some typos, grr

Message edited by author 2006-06-06 02:31:47.

06/06/2006 02:33:22 AM · #161

Originally posted by HBunch:

Thanks Heather. Ok - What if I had 3 dogs and made one red, one green and one blue?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2006 02:36:11 AM · #162

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Thanks Heather. Ok - What if I had 3 dogs and made one red, one green and one blue?

I'd be tempted to take a match (or three) to any such picture : )

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

06/06/2006 02:37:09 AM · #163

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by HBunch:
I would vote DQ. Reason is simple. You created spots on the dog, where spots did not originally exist. Creation of major elements. Had you color shifted the entire dog one color...then I would probably have to vote no DQ...
But as is, if this doggie were legal...then people would be allowed to draw in rainbows in blank skies.

Thanks Heather. Ok - What if I had 3 dogs and made one red, one green and one blue?

That would probably have to be legal. Unfortunately. lol This is just MY vote, of course. But color shifting hasn't been illegal in the past...but painting spots on a dog would be.

banmorn

Nikon D750

06/06/2006 02:37:59 AM · #164

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Thanks Heather. Ok - What if I had 3 dogs and made one red, one green and one blue?

crayon

06/06/2006 02:38:05 AM · #165

nevermind :) answered

Message edited by author 2006-06-06 02:40:10.

Bear_Music

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

06/06/2006 02:38:09 AM · #166

Originally posted by HBunch:

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Simple Question: Advanced Editing - Legal or DQ ?

...ok, I am trying to stir the pot. But I really would like to know if it would be DQ'd and if so, what specifically would be the grounds?

I would vote DQ. Reason is simple. You created spots on the dog, where spots did not originally exist. Creation of major elements. Had you color shifted the entire dog one color...then I would probably have to vote no DQ...
But as is, if this doggie were legal...then people would be allowed to draw in rainbows in blank skies.

So if I drew a mask that covered half my face and turned the skin there dark brown, then made the other side albino-white, would this be unacceptable?

R.

crayon

06/06/2006 02:43:47 AM · #167

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So if I drew a mask that covered half my face and turned the skin there dark brown, then made the other side albino-white, would this be unacceptable?

according to Art's coloured poodle case study - it would be illegal.
however, according to the 3 poodles case study, if you shifted the colour for each of your teeth - it is legal

LMAO!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2006 02:46:28 AM · #168

No selections involved in this ... legal (if inadvisable) for Basic.

Original:

Entry:

06/06/2006 02:49:03 AM · #169

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So if I drew a mask that covered half my face and turned the skin there dark brown, then made the other side albino-white, would this be unacceptable?

R.

This sounds legal to me. (again, only MY vote, and without seeing the photo) But if the face were already divided by the mask, and you color shifted the mask, and seperately color shifted the face...seems legal enough. But like I said, I've not seen it, so that's just a guess.

06/06/2006 02:50:46 AM · #170

Originally posted by HBunch:

That would probably have to be legal. Unfortunately. lol This is just MY vote, of course. But color shifting hasn't been illegal in the past...but painting spots on a dog would be.

While I am being a tad facetious, I am also trying to point out the ambiguity in the rules and the confusion and hard feelings it causes.

In my mind, if the SC frequently falls back on the "major element" rule, RED smoke (or green or blue) that did not previously exist constitutes a major element. Especially true if it is determined to have been a significant factor in its scoring. You can see that pushing the envelope can either get you a ribbon or a DQ, but it's a crapshoot at any given point in time.

Just my 2 cents anyway. I can see all sides of this horse (including the dirty backside LOL).

...now what if my 3 colored dogs were playing poker...

06/06/2006 02:53:36 AM · #171

Originally posted by GeneralE:

No selections involved in this ... legal (if inadvisable) for Basic.

And you dang near got a ribbon on that one!

heeheehee...Bifurcating...heeheehee.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/06/2006 03:23:14 AM · #172

Originally posted by HBunch:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So if I drew a mask that covered half my face and turned the skin there dark brown, then made the other side albino-white, would this be unacceptable?

R.

This sounds legal to me. (again, only MY vote, and without seeing the photo) But if the face were already divided by the mask, and you color shifted the mask, and seperately color shifted the face...seems legal enough. But like I said, I've not seen it, so that's just a guess.

I think you two are talking about different kinds of masks ...

06/06/2006 03:25:41 AM · #173

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So if I drew a mask that covered half my face and turned the skin there dark brown, then made the other side albino-white, would this be unacceptable?

I think it would make you one of Batman's arch-villains.

06/06/2006 03:29:30 AM · #174

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I think you two are talking about different kinds of masks ...

HAHA...I didn't even think about that. Yeah, we're most likely in 2 different worlds here. My bad.

Bear_Music