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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Abject humiliation!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 139, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/30/2007 01:26:28 PM · #26
Originally posted by _eug:
I fail to see the connection to Shannon's 'Abject humiliation'. ;)


Defeet?
 01/30/2007 01:26:43 PM · #27
What did you do as a partial resize? Did you resize down to say 1000 pixels and then resize down to the 720 pixel alotment? Or did you resize down to the 720, sharpen and then save for web again and adjusted the KB to get under the 200 max? Would 2 save for webs but both at the same pixel size (but at different KB) be illiegal too? Does any of this make sense?
 01/30/2007 01:28:32 PM · #28
Originally posted by scalvert:
Defeet?



01/30/2007 01:28:52 PM · #29
I feel for you. Really. :)))))

And the silver lining is, now you can keep your string of over 6 scores intact. Bummer! I think you cheated on purpose.

I think, when a SC member gets a DQ, they should also automatically get a .76 deduction in their score for about 100 entries or so.



Message edited by author 2007-01-30 13:31:26.
 01/30/2007 01:31:41 PM · #30
Originally posted by ursula:
I think, when a SC member gets a DQ, they should also automatically get a .76 deduction in their score for about 100 entries or so.

Only if it also automatically increases by 0.03 for every entry we go without one ...
 01/30/2007 01:31:48 PM · #31
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by _eug:
I fail to see the connection to Shannon's 'Abject humiliation'. ;)


Defeet?


Ugh, that one my need to be DQ'd too! :-P
 01/30/2007 01:32:07 PM · #32
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by _eug:
I fail to see the connection to Shannon's 'Abject humiliation'. ;)

Defeet?



lol
 01/30/2007 01:32:53 PM · #33
the tough part is finding time to do 10 more challenges to push the dq off your profile page...you have my sympathy.
 01/30/2007 01:33:53 PM · #34
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Did you resize down to say 1000 pixels and then resize down to the 720 pixel alotment?


Yes, I went down to 1500px, Sharpened, then went down to 720px. Sharpen appears to be resolution-dependent. Shooting at a lower resolution would have accomplished the same thing legally, but I didn't know that at the time.
 01/30/2007 01:37:26 PM · #35
could you have sharpened then used "Fade" to tone it down a bit?
01/30/2007 01:38:25 PM · #36
Originally posted by sher9204:
could you have sharpened then used "Fade" to tone it down a bit?


That's not legal either.
 01/30/2007 01:38:25 PM · #37
Originally posted by sher9204:
could you have sharpened then used "Fade" to tone it down a bit?


Nope, fade not allowed.

01/30/2007 01:39:58 PM · #38
Minimal Editing Rules: (In case Shannon needs a refresher)
You may:
use any feature of your camera while photographing your entry.
rotate your entry by 90, 180 or 270 degrees.
resize your entry once.
sharpen your entry using your editing software's "sharpen" or equivalent option. The use of customizable sharpening tools, such as Unsharp Mask, is not allowed.
fully desaturate your image using your editing software's "desaturate," "convert to grayscale" or equivalent function. Customizable tools are not allowed.
request removal of your own entry during the voting period IF none of your last 25 entries were disqualified or removed, and no rules were violated.
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.
 01/30/2007 01:41:23 PM · #39
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Did you resize down to say 1000 pixels and then resize down to the 720 pixel alotment?


Yes, I went down to 1500px, Sharpened, then went down to 720px. Sharpen appears to be resolution-dependent. Shooting at a lower resolution would have accomplished the same thing legally, but I didn't know that at the time.


Curious why this would be considered illegal? Obviously, the rule implies that you benefitted using your workflow whereas had you gone the other way, you would not have? I can see the burning, selective tools, yada yada yada, but this? I dont get where the "offence" exists. Please clarify if you might.
 01/30/2007 01:43:15 PM · #40
Yes, it is true that the site council does not like to dq images.

But, yes, it is true there was a bit of snickering going on when the SC got wind of this. Unfortunate, too. It was a "cool" shot.

01/30/2007 01:43:19 PM · #41
Originally posted by Ivo:

Curious why this would be considered illegal?


Short answer: Because the rules state that it is.
 01/30/2007 01:44:24 PM · #42
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Did you resize down to say 1000 pixels and then resize down to the 720 pixel alotment?


Yes, I went down to 1500px, Sharpened, then went down to 720px. Sharpen appears to be resolution-dependent. Shooting at a lower resolution would have accomplished the same thing legally, but I didn't know that at the time.


Curious why this would be considered illegal? Obviously, the rule implies that you benefitted using your workflow whereas had you gone the other way, you would not have? I can see the burning, selective tools, yada yada yada, but this? I dont get where the "offence" exists. Please clarify if you might.


It was a special ruleset -- minimal. NOT basic rules. Under basic and above, what he did was perfectly legal.
 01/30/2007 01:48:59 PM · #43
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Ivo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Did you resize down to say 1000 pixels and then resize down to the 720 pixel alotment?


Yes, I went down to 1500px, Sharpened, then went down to 720px. Sharpen appears to be resolution-dependent. Shooting at a lower resolution would have accomplished the same thing legally, but I didn't know that at the time.


Curious why this would be considered illegal? Obviously, the rule implies that you benefitted using your workflow whereas had you gone the other way, you would not have? I can see the burning, selective tools, yada yada yada, but this? I dont get where the "offence" exists. Please clarify if you might.


It was a special ruleset -- minimal. NOT basic rules. Under basic and above, what he did was perfectly legal.


Ahhhh riiiiight. Forgot that. Thanks.
 01/30/2007 01:50:06 PM · #44
I feel like having champagne. Anyone wanna join me? :)
 01/30/2007 01:51:09 PM · #45
Originally posted by idnic:
I feel like having champagne. Anyone wanna join me? :)


Yes, pop that bottle :-) Does take a bit of the pleasure out of outscoring him, but still :-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-30 13:51:54.
 01/30/2007 01:52:33 PM · #46
guess Fade would fall under the Customizable Tools clause.

sorry about the DQ, Shannon! :hug
01/30/2007 01:52:58 PM · #47
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ursula:
I think, when a SC member gets a DQ, they should also automatically get a .76 deduction in their score for about 100 entries or so.

Only if it also automatically increases by 0.03 for every entry we go without one ...


No way.
 01/30/2007 02:00:06 PM · #48
Bummer, don't you hate it when that happens! Sorry Shannon!
 01/30/2007 02:14:01 PM · #49
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by ursula:
I think, when a SC member gets a DQ, they should also automatically get a .76 deduction in their score for about 100 entries or so.

Only if it also automatically increases by 0.03 for every entry we go without one ...


No way.


Yea. Then, I may be able to break 5 consistently after, oh 25 years or so.
 01/30/2007 02:20:22 PM · #50
Can we get this thread title changed? Something like "Shannon Scalvert, Disqualified for Rulebreaking" Then more people could benefit from the entertainment, I mean education it offers. ;)

edit spelling

Message edited by author 2007-01-30 14:20:38.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 03:31:24 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 03:31:24 PM EDT.