| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2007 08:55:10 AM · #1976 |
I may have to send people to their rooms without dinner. But if I'm cooking, that's actually a reward, so I'll re-think this.... give me a minute....
Play nice or I'll take away your toys! That includes cameras and computers.
That should work. :-) |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 09:16:32 AM · #1977 |
Playing nice...
Peace love and hugs to all. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 10:00:11 AM · #1978 |
Tonight there is a talk by photographer Shelby Adams at a local gallery. His large format portraits are stunning.
If you get a chance look for a documentary DVD-"The True Meaning of Pictures: Shelby Lee Adams' Appalachia". |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 10:00:42 AM · #1979 |
Originally posted by Wildcard:
Don kudos for submitting it,it's one of your best images yet. I have to say I don't understand the DQ particularly as I also used the same image for the background and survived validation, what gives? This image came 30th in the last Triptych challenge, the only difference I can see is that this one and mine used a lower opacity on the background but that's not in the rules anywhere.
 |
Yeah, that's one of the ones I sent to SC beforehand. I'm wondering whether it's that it's really one image with three areas highlighted out of it, so if you removed the boxes, you'd see the same thing, just not highlighted the same way. Wildcard is that what you did, too?
As opposed to Don's, which looks like three different images in front of a fourth one, even if the background is a different crop of one of the foreground ones.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2007 10:25:58 AM · #1980 |
I meant to mention this a few days ago, but keep forgetting... my OOFer's logo is missing from my signature again. Was it moved again? If so, to where?
Edited to show what it looks like...
Message edited by author 2007-05-11 10:26:39.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2007 10:49:55 AM · #1981 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
However, I'm really tired of your accusing them of favoritism, spite, etc., even when you're being cute by putting it in strikeout text. When you have actual evidence of malfeasance, I'm willing to consider it. But until then, please stop. |
Well, kind of a major rewrite there eh. I'm not asking for *your* consideration. I posted to temper the glorification of sc advice before a challenge, and I did it for the benefit of Team Suck members. It was based on statements by sc, not on emotion. This also goes for my mention of sc subjectivity. As for the humorous jab, my sarcasm is implicitly sanctioned by the existence of Team 'Smite'. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 11:09:54 AM · #1982 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Yeah, that's one of the ones I sent to SC beforehand. I'm wondering whether it's that it's really one image with three areas highlighted out of it, so if you removed the boxes, you'd see the same thing, just not highlighted the same way. Wildcard is that what you did, too?
As opposed to Don's, which looks like three different images in front of a fourth one, even if the background is a different crop of one of the foreground ones. |
I sent basically this question to the SC just now, and kirbic's response was that, yes, that was the difference: highlighting three areas of one frame vs. using one image as a background and putting three other views in front of it.
He acknowledged that it's a gray area, and that they need to clarify things before they do a triptych challenge again.
As with many of the gray-area DQs, the DQ itself doesn't mean anything's wrong with the pic, just that it crossed what's agreed to be a gray area, and I agree with others it's one the best I've seen you do, Don.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2007 11:56:58 AM · #1983 |
Originally posted by quiet_observation:
Tonight there is a talk by photographer Shelby Adams at a local gallery. His large format portraits are stunning.
If you get a chance look for a documentary DVD-"The True Meaning of Pictures: Shelby Lee Adams' Appalachia". |
Thanks for the link, I had not known of this photographer before. :) |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 01:09:19 PM · #1984 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Yeah, that's one of the ones I sent to SC beforehand. I'm wondering whether it's that it's really one image with three areas highlighted out of it, so if you removed the boxes, you'd see the same thing, just not highlighted the same way. Wildcard is that what you did, too?
As opposed to Don's, which looks like three different images in front of a fourth one, even if the background is a different crop of one of the foreground ones. |
Yep, mine was only one image sliced up and the same image for the background. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 01:42:43 PM · #1985 |
Do to my "brief" temporary lack of suckiness I went ahead and left you all comments on your Symmetry, Pi, and FreeStudy entries (I might get to Triptych if I get the chance). While not the most verbose comments, I thought I would get them out there. Those were some awesome captures and ideas.
I do have one request for the rest of you, can you leave a comment on my FreeStudy pic if you get the chance. Specifically looking for comments on what you think is wrong and what you would do to change the shot. I actually didn't get very many comments on the photo and actually is one of my favorites I have taken in a while. Though I am happy with the score.
 |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 01:45:58 PM · #1986 |
OK, I'm gonna risk sticking my head in the lion's den to offer a little insight into the DQ and asking for SC opinions prior to the challenge...
Regarding the Triptych, you could use up to three photos, but all other Advanced editing rules remained. That includes the rule against using clip art or photos in your border. In typical Advanced challenges, we have allowed people to desaturate/lighten/darken the outside of a photo to form a border, but it's still a single photo with part of it altered- not a separate image added to the frame. Normally, you're only allowed only one original, but for Triptych you could use up to 3 images (whether or not they were derived from the same original). Thus, if an entry consisted for three images PLUS another image in the background, it was considered more than three separate images and/or artwork used in the border. Some people merely desaturated or lightened the outside of one of the three images in place to form the border (equivalent to what I just described in single-photo Advanced Challenges), so those were not DQ'd even though the appearance is similar. Now, I'm sure some of you will disagree with that assessment, just as some within the SC disagreed, and THAT'S what caused the delayed timing- we had to discuss it ad nauseum. Note that you'll find DQ's in the last Triptych challenge for the exact same situation, so to allow these when the prior ones were DQ'd would be unfair and inconsistent... exactly what people like to berate us for. We'll try to make that more clear if/when there's a Triptych III. FWIW, I thought Posthumous' entry was great, but had he asked for an SC opinion beforehand, I'm sure it would have been discouraged. Which leads me to asking for those opinions...
There are several reasons why a pre-challenge opinion is both beneficial and not guaranteed. When you submit a question via ticket, the response is usually the opinion of a few SC who happen to see the ticket in a relatively short amount of time (we try to be responsive). Most cases are pretty obvious "yes or no" answers. We wait a while to get more opinions if it's a borderline situation, but that alone should probably serve as a warning that you're pushing the limit. True validations represent the collective opinion of most or all SC, but it's not practical to get that prior to a challenge. Someone could submit an example that we say is OK, then swap it for something else or make some alteration that changes the situation for the actual entry. To use the police example someone posted earlier, I might tell you that you probably won't get a ticket for driving 37mph in a 35mph zone, but if I later see you driving 37mph on two wheels while doing a handstand in the driver's seat of a convertible, you're definitely getting a ticket! ;-) |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 01:51:30 PM · #1987 |
Why did  skewsme's  get a "ticket"? |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 01:58:45 PM · #1988 |
Just speculating - since it was basic editing - that the "stroke" or "add frame" might have been the ticket-getting offense ?
Or I might be 100% off base.
 jaysonmc thank you for your comments. I'm having a down day today, and they were quite uplifting.
Message edited by author 2007-05-11 14:04:27.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:02:51 PM · #1989 |
Melethia thanks for the comment on my Triptych I'll post the comments tomorrow, it's really easy and fun but it's 4am so if I write them now I'll probably get them arse about.
Scalvert thanks for dropping by with an explanation, but I'm still confused, I'll read it again after some sleep... |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:11:05 PM · #1990 |
Well now - the pi challenge effectively (though not explicitly) demands a rational representation of an irrational number. That's at least implicit in the dq, as I see it.
Pythagoras didn't believe in irrational numbers. He and his pythagoreans believed that life, the universe and everything could be expressed as whole numbers or a ratio of two of them. When one of his disciples demonstrated that this would not be possible for the length of the diagonal of a square, relative to one of its sides, the poor chap was taken away in a boat and drowned.
So skewsme got lucky, really.
Message edited by author 2007-05-11 14:16:00. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:11:14 PM · #1991 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
To use the police example someone posted earlier, I might tell you that you probably won't get a ticket for driving 37mph in a 35mph zone, but if I later see you driving 37mph on two wheels while doing a handstand in the driver's seat of a convertible, you're definitely getting a ticket! ;-) |
That was not what I really said. I said that if a police officer tells me I can turn right on a red light at a particular intersection and then gives me a ticket when I do, that would be wrong. I understand that if I turned right at 80 miles/hour I would get a ticket but that would be for a completely different infraction.
I understand what you said but I would be very upset if I sent an image to the SC and asked for their opinion and was given the green light and was then DQ'd. I agree that if the image was changed in any way, then all bets are off. You can't tell me you wouldn't feel the same way.
I have always believed in following the rules but I better not get hammered when I do.
If I were SC and someone sent me an image that I thought was pushing the limits, I would tell them that there is a good chance it could get DQ'd. I would never tell them it is OK unless I really meant it. AND, if you really mean it, then that should be the end of it! Unless the image was changed in someway.
If it turns out that one SC member says it's ok and then another one says it's not, then skewsme was right about the subjectivity. If that's the case, where do the members turn to when they have a question and how can they get a DEFINITE answer?
Just my thoughts and concerns. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:19:51 PM · #1992 |
Getting DQ'd really sucks - there is no doubt about it. If it makes you feel any better Skewsme, your pi entry was my favorite of the challenge, as I indicated in comments. And BTW - I realize I called you Susan - for some reason I initially thought it was  snaffles' photo - my bad.
I'm still wondering what that DQ is for? The gradient layer? I thought gradient was legal in basic?
Edit to add: I'm risking getting e-slapped here, but Team Suck used to be a sanctuary where the members supported each others' efforts to grow as photographers. The vitriol that I've seen in other threads was absent. Not anymore, it seems. It makes me sad. Getting DQ'd is disappointing and sucks in general, but I don't think the SC has any particular vendetta against any TS members - especially evidenced by SC members such as  MK and  Ursula who have stopped by just to say "hi" on occasion.
Bob - I commend the manner in which you voiced your concerns to  Scalvert regarding the recent DQ's. You raised legitimate concerns, which hopefully will be answered, without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Message edited by author 2007-05-11 14:34:30. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:25:42 PM · #1993 |
Originally posted by bmartuch:
If I were SC and someone sent me an image that I thought was pushing the limits, I would tell them that there is a good chance it could get DQ'd. I would never tell them it is OK unless I really meant it. |
That's what we do. I could probably count one one hand the number of times a user was told a particular edit was OK and it turned out not to be after further opinions were voiced. Those are generally people who ask for advice 20 minutes before the deadline, and if DQ'd on bad advice we don't "count" the DQ against them. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:30:44 PM · #1994 |
Originally posted by noraneko:
Getting DQ'd really sucks - there is no doubt about it. If it makes you feel any better Skewsme, your pi entry was my favorite of the challenge, as I indicated in comments. And BTW - I realize I called you Susan - for some reason I initially thought it was snaffles' photo - my bad.
I'm still wondering what that DQ is for? The gradient layer? I thought gradient was legal in basic? |
That's my problem with understanding the DQ, too. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:31:19 PM · #1995 |
Originally posted by noraneko:
I thought gradient was legal in basic? |
You may... use filters or stand-alone utilities designed to preserve image integrity (such as Neat Image, Unsharp Mask, Dust & Scratches, and color correction tools). These filters must be applied uniformly to the entire image, and must not be used in such a way that their use becomes a feature. No “effects” filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur.
You may NOT... use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture.
Now honestly, was the tool used to preserve image integrity or to produce an effect? Had Skewsme asked for an opinion on the photo, I'm sure she would have been advised against it.
Message edited by author 2007-05-11 14:33:49. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:38:18 PM · #1996 |
| Scalvert thanks for reply - I thought that Skewsme had submitted the photo prior to entering it for approval - it must have been a different photo that was submitted prior. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:57:44 PM · #1997 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Now honestly, was the tool used to preserve image integrity or to produce an effect? Had Skewsme asked for an opinion on the photo, I'm sure she would have been advised against it. |
We only use tools to preserve image integrity??? That's the only reason we post process?? jjbeguin inverted an image and turned it upside-down. In doing so, he turned a photo of a sculpture into something completely abstract. skewsme used standard tools to make something that was already abstract into something abstract. This sort of creativity should be encouraged, not dq'd. My DQ pales in comparison to this one. |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 02:58:30 PM · #1998 |
p.s. welcome to the Lion's Den!!
(more like a tangle of kittens...) |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 03:09:04 PM · #1999 |
|
|
|
05/11/2007 03:14:57 PM · #2000 |
|
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: 08/25/2025 04:56:47 AM EDT.
