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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Allow the burning of backgrounds in Advanced
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 188, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/11/2007 08:16:04 PM · #51
Originally posted by inshaala:
Ok - so how would you word it so that a photo like jj's would pass the test and a photo with a badly inserted "cop out" background not? (i am assuming we are on the same wavelength in seeing that there would be a flood of bad photos abusing the rule)


No we're not on the same wavelength. My rule would allow the "cop out" you describe. After all, this is the same "cop out" that jjbeguin used. I leave it to the voter to decide. I often find myself voting a photo down because it has no background.

Message edited by author 2007-06-11 20:16:17.
 06/11/2007 08:40:21 PM · #52
hrm, fair enough. Although i think there is a distinction to be made between a thought through image in which there is no option but to take the background out in terms of highlighting the subject at hand (as i read the image in question was a "snapshot" and i can just imagine that the background would be way to distracting in the original and also that setting up that shot is never going to happen) and someone taking an image with the thought "doesnt matter about the background of this model i'm shooting, cant be bothered to set up the right lighting/bedsheets/bits of paper etc to make the background the colour i want - i'll just do it in post".

It is the latter which bugs me, but you know that already i suppose. Although maybe leaving it up to the voter to decide might be a way forward - but then the person who is better at postwork will get the more credit and not the better photographer... gnarg - too late for me and this discussion is branching out into "what makes a photographer?" ;) I'll leave that thought open...
 06/11/2007 08:49:17 PM · #53
I'm gettin' a little tired of the retreading of these issues every time someone's favorite picture gets a DQ... The rules were written for a specific reason. It's a game and there are no 'fabulous prizes' just a little colored collections of ones and zeros that you get see on your home page. What's the big deal? If ya don't like the rules there ARE other sites where they don't have the rules... If ya like to actually TAKE pictures and not just make them outa what ya got then this is the place to be...
 06/11/2007 08:53:49 PM · #54
Originally posted by TooCool:
I'm gettin' a little tired of the retreading of these issues every time someone's favorite picture gets a DQ...


Ditto
 06/11/2007 08:55:46 PM · #55
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Um.... helloooo...

Removing a background using Levels is even legal in Basic Editing... as long as it's applied to the entire photo.

If you want no background, just take a step to the left to get the dark, shady tree behind your subject, then Level it out. ;-)


Can we get a How to Tute on this?
 06/11/2007 08:59:39 PM · #56
Originally posted by kirbic:


Yes, you can use globally-applied levels or curves to suppress *anything*. that's true in Basic, and it is true in Advanced.


Kirbic, this is probably a comment that would be best to ask in a ticket but since we're discussing it here.... In a recent thread, scalvert said that if the background is solid then eliminating it is pretty much okay (in advanced) but if it is textured then you must leave some of the original background. Would it not be not a dqable offense if you used a levels adjustment, applied to the entire image of course, that removed a textured background?
 06/11/2007 09:08:02 PM · #57
Originally posted by dudephil:
Would it not be not a dqable offense if you used a levels adjustment, applied to the entire image of course, that removed a textured background?


Or the way I understand it any recogniseable background...
 06/11/2007 09:26:36 PM · #58

i can still see the background, it wasn't removed after all :)

Message edited by author 2007-06-11 21:26:52.
 06/11/2007 09:41:29 PM · #59
Originally posted by crayon:

i can still see the background, it wasn't removed after all :)


whats up with the evil looking eyes in the shadows:)
 06/11/2007 10:03:26 PM · #60
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by crayon:

i can still see the background, it wasn't removed after all :)


whats up with the evil looking eyes in the shadows:)


The group of 14 having a birthday party at the next table???? ;)
 06/11/2007 10:11:44 PM · #61
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by crayon:

i can still see the background, it wasn't removed after all :)


whats up with the evil looking eyes in the shadows:)


The group of 14 having a birthday party at the next table???? ;)


Actually group of twelve - one has glasses.
 06/11/2007 10:26:06 PM · #62
I suppose it's a good thing that clarification on the rules is being discussed thanks to jjbeguin's fame but I find it interesting that nobody seems to care when susi gets DQed and she's gotten DQed a lot. I suppose it could be it's not a ribbon winner getting DQed but I seriously doubt the same people would be rushing to try and get her edits allowed under the rules pronto. I guess it's because she doesn't shoot people in b/w in the most cliche of ways. Of course that's ok because by golly it's emotional! Oh wait did I just say that? Nevermind please ignore.
 06/11/2007 10:29:36 PM · #63
Originally posted by yanko:
I suppose it's a good thing that clarification on the rules is being discussed thanks to jjbeguin's fame but I find it interesting that nobody seems to care when susi gets DQed and she's gotten DQed a lot. I suppose it could be it's not a ribbon winner getting DQed but I seriously doubt the same people would be rushing to try and get her edits allowed under the rules pronto. I guess it's because she doesn't shoot people in b/w in the most cliche of ways. Of course that's ok because by golly it's emotional! Oh wait did I just say that? Nevermind please ignore.


I expressed something similar in one of these threads and i agree. BTW Susi's portraits have just as much a place in this world (perhaps more) than emotional street shots. people get DQd everyday and nobody cares but people seem to want special rules for some people.

PS Susi has a rocking last name:)

Message edited by author 2007-06-11 22:29:56.
 06/11/2007 10:33:39 PM · #64
Originally posted by yanko:
I suppose it's a good thing that clarification on the rules is being discussed thanks to jjbeguin's fame but I find it interesting that nobody seems to care when susi gets DQed and she's gotten DQed a lot.

I looked at her 3 most recent DQ's and they are quote obviously illegal, so i guess that's why her DQs went without a debate. as for JJ's, it's a bit of a question because dodging n burning of the photo had always been deemed legal in Advanced editing. i might have done the same if i had a photo that worked better without a background.
 06/11/2007 10:36:19 PM · #65
Nonsense. Getting DQ'd for using an effect tht is expressly forbidden in the ruleset is hardly the same as getting DQ'd for using an allowed effect which is then subject to committe decision on its appropriateness.

Personally I find it interesting that no one thinks it odd that the 'typical viewer's opinion' in a site of many thousands of viewers is decided by a committee of about a dozen people who are not barred from entering the same challenges which they adjudicate.
 06/11/2007 10:36:48 PM · #66
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by yanko:
I suppose it's a good thing that clarification on the rules is being discussed thanks to jjbeguin's fame but I find it interesting that nobody seems to care when susi gets DQed and she's gotten DQed a lot.

I looked at her 3 most recent DQ's and they are quote obviously illegal, so i guess that's why her DQs went without a debate. as for JJ's, it's a bit of a question because dodging n burning of the photo had always been deemed legal in Advanced editing. i might have done the same if i had a photo that worked better without a background.


it hasn't always been allowed like that. this image was DQd for the exact same reason, so there was a precedent.



for what its worth there was a pretty big dust up about this one too.
 06/11/2007 10:40:53 PM · #67
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by yanko:
I suppose it's a good thing that clarification on the rules is being discussed thanks to jjbeguin's fame but I find it interesting that nobody seems to care when susi gets DQed and she's gotten DQed a lot.

I looked at her 3 most recent DQ's and they are quote obviously illegal, so i guess that's why her DQs went without a debate. as for JJ's, it's a bit of a question because dodging n burning of the photo had always been deemed legal in Advanced editing. i might have done the same if i had a photo that worked better without a background.


Complete removal of backgrounds that once had detail has always been illegal. Seems pretty cut and dry to me assuming of course that's what he did.

ETA: FWIW, when I first saw the photo on the front page and read his comments I immediately thought it probably should get DQed and told a fellow DPCer that at the time. Although to be frank I didn't think it would.

Message edited by author 2007-06-11 22:44:12.
 06/11/2007 10:42:34 PM · #68
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Nonsense. Getting DQ'd for using an effect tht is expressly forbidden in the ruleset is hardly the same as getting DQ'd for using an allowed effect which is then subject to committe decision on its appropriateness.

Personally I find it interesting that no one thinks it odd that the 'typical viewer's opinion' in a site of many thousands of viewers is decided by a committee of about a dozen people who are not barred from entering the same challenges which they adjudicate.


Burning something out of existence is no different than painting it out. It was a major element of the photo that was removed. The rule was broken. This very same "removal of background" issue has been addressed numerous times.
 06/11/2007 10:48:10 PM · #69
Originally posted by yanko:
I suppose it's a good thing that clarification on the rules is being discussed thanks to jjbeguin's fame but I find it interesting that nobody seems to care when susi gets DQed and she's gotten DQed a lot. I suppose it could be it's not a ribbon winner getting DQed but I seriously doubt the same people would be rushing to try and get her edits allowed under the rules pronto. I guess it's because she doesn't shoot people in b/w in the most cliche of ways. Of course that's ok because by golly it's emotional! Oh wait did I just say that? Nevermind please ignore.


Good point!! Indeed!
 06/11/2007 10:50:59 PM · #70
Me: Hi SC will you DQ this image?



SC: Yeah probably

ME: OK Thanks.

When in doubt it is that easy.

:-)
 06/11/2007 10:52:24 PM · #71
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Personally I find it interesting that no one thinks it odd that the 'typical viewer's opinion' in a site of many thousands of viewers is decided by a committee of about a dozen people who are not barred from entering the same challenges which they adjudicate.

Personally, I'm PO'd that you introduced this baseless insinuation into this discussion.
 06/11/2007 10:55:08 PM · #72
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Me: Hi SC will you DQ this image?

SC: Yeah probably

ME: OK Thanks.

When in doubt it is that easy.

:-)


Heather (HBunch) and I were just talking about that. I sent a ticket in earlier today and pretty much got a guideline on what I can do.
 06/11/2007 10:55:56 PM · #73
Which part is baseless? The part about a small committee deciding what the typical viewer would think of an image, or the part about people who have the power to DQ images being allowed to particpate in challenges? I have insinuated nothing, I've just pointed out that no one seems bothered by a classic scenario of conflicting interests.

06/11/2007 10:56:41 PM · #74
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Personally I find it interesting that no one thinks it odd that the 'typical viewer's opinion' in a site of many thousands of viewers is decided by a committee of about a dozen people who are not barred from entering the same challenges which they adjudicate.

Personally, I'm PO'd that you introduced this baseless insinuation into this discussion.


Many thousands of us didn't get to see the original or hear the photographer's description of his editing. The SC did, and you are stepping on a fragile line with that insinuation!
 06/11/2007 10:57:50 PM · #75
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Which part is baseless? The part about a small committee deciding what the typical viewer would think of an image, or the part about people who have the power to DQ images being allowed to particpate in challenges? I have insinuated nothing, I've just pointed out that no one seems bothered by a classic scenario of conflicting interests.


So, your thesis is that volunteers who give many hours per week adjudicating the contests with essentially no pay should also be barred from participating? Gee, thanks. And thanks for your vote of confidence... not.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/25/2025 11:32:25 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: 08/25/2025 11:32:25 PM EDT.