My 1-week DPC suspension - DPChallenge Forums

07/16/2007 11:14:23 AM · #1

I have recently been DQ'd for 2 of my worst entries ever - I guess that's a good thing because I must have been on another planet when I submitted them.
I over-used Noise Ninja to compensate for 2 photos without a real edge or good subject.

The thing that stinks is that I didn't break any DPC rules - I just didn't keep the exact edit steps so the site council couldn't recreate my results!!! I used noise ninja and shadow / highlite to mess with contrast and such so this resulted in funky things happening that didn't really help my score anyway to say the least. All edits were global - I even really wanted to remove some imperfections but knew that I couldn't.

I don't have the originals right now but I'm not looking to prove anything - I'm just letting people know that this can heppen to them if they don't keep exact track of the steps used. The site council will not tell you why you are DQ'd but I personally think it's questionable at best considering that if the photo is laid on top of the original it will show that nothing was moved or removed or anything like that.

I have been suspended from entering challenges for a week as a result of this. I had 2 images ready too! I could understand that if there was an intention to deceive or something like that but my images had valid dates and all I did was not keep exact track of my steps. Pretty harsh penalty considering that I didn't break any rules.

Message edited by author 2007-07-16 11:15:32.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

07/16/2007 11:31:54 AM · #2

can you recreate the result from scratch?

if not, should the SC just take everyone at their word even if no one is able to recreate an image using basic editing?

no sarcasm intended, just showing you a different point of view

07/16/2007 11:57:16 AM · #3

I appreciate that. I should have tried to re-create the results.

I'm just thinking that since you could drop this image on top of the original file and see that everything was there and nothing was removed or added ... I thought perhaps that would be enough - perhaps if I was on the SC I would say this: "Well, his image obviously has halo-ing added from these filters (shadow highlite and noise ninja), I can not replicate it exactly but I have nothing here that indicates he cheated or was trying to go beyond the rules"

-it just seems like you a guilty until proven innocent. - it's not like I used some filter to deceive someone into thinking the image was something that it wasn't. I would completely understand that if there was a fishing line or something in the original image and they couldn't replicate how it disappeared in the final image that would make sense to DQ.

07/16/2007 12:10:38 PM · #4

Tate,

One questionable part was the area within the legs of the structure, The inside area is much lighter than the surrounding water, much of which could be explained by Neat Image -- but the right side of the structure is much darker than in the original (and appears to be "smudged" unlike the original), and no one was able to replicate it.

Without the specific editing steps, SC wasn't able to replicate it. And under basic editing, you can't spot edit areas like that... and it has the appearance that it was spot edited.

Message edited by author 2007-07-16 12:20:40.

07/16/2007 12:19:37 PM · #5

Thanks for letting me know. I think it would be a good thing to do BEFORE DQ'ing someone to let them have a chance at explaining further.

I think what happned is: Noise ninja creates this effect by using it when the image is at the 640 pixel size and pumping up the contrast probably to the max - not saying it looks good, just saying that's probably what did it.

I really would like to be able to submit to tuesday's challenge so that's why I'm so bummed.

07/16/2007 12:21:36 PM · #6

I just edited my post above to elaborate a bit... the right side of the structure was more so in question because it's much darker and smoother than what was in the original.

07/16/2007 12:22:04 PM · #7

So, you think a second request like the following should be sent?

"We were unable to recreate your entry from the steps you provided. Are you sure you included everything?"

07/16/2007 12:24:33 PM · #8

And if you can give a step-by-step, precise description of the editing process that we can replicate, it IS possible that a shot can be reinstated. It's been done before. You didn't provide enough information that anyone was able to duplicate the editing legally, and several SC members attempted it.

07/16/2007 12:27:35 PM · #9

You mean like this...?

We are having trouble replicating your editing steps. If you would, please send the editing steps again, in the order you used them, and hopefully with values that you used. It would be much appreciated.

This is the exact message he received during the validation process :)

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

So, you think a second request like the following should be sent?

"We were unable to recreate your entry from the steps you provided. Are you sure you included everything?"

07/16/2007 12:28:57 PM · #10

I think that a person shouldn't be presumed guilty. I think if someone doesn't remember the steps and has a precedent of submitting valid images than someone should say what Al said:

"One questionable part was the area within the legs of the structure, The inside area is much lighter than the surrounding water, much of which could be explained by Neat Image -- but the right side of the structure is much darker than in the original (and appears to be "smudged" unlike the original), and no one was able to replicate it."

I was presumed guilty without someone saying "the smoking gun was next to your car ... can you tell me how it got there?"

I put this in the RANT section for a reason - so I realize it's something i could have prevented by tracking each of my steps.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/16/2007 12:32:01 PM · #11

Was there an assumption of guilt?

Based on this discussion, I don't think so.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

07/16/2007 12:32:40 PM · #12

Uhh yeah, he got DQ didn't he? Heh.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

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

07/16/2007 12:34:18 PM · #13

Can you replicate it now (at least come quite close), and send/post the exact steps/values you used (for the replication)? I'd be very interested in replicating these.

07/16/2007 12:34:31 PM · #14

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Uhh yeah, he got DQ didn't he? Heh.

So anyone who has been convicted (DQd) has been presumed guilty? No.

The DQ is the result of investigation.

Message edited by author 2007-07-16 12:34:45.

07/16/2007 12:36:10 PM · #15

Quoting myself here for clarification - I you're on trial, and someone says you broke a "rule" / "law", the opposing lawyer will create evidence but you will be given a chance to explain it. The don't say "This person was murdered and we think it was you â�¦ is there anything you forgot to tell us?" â�¦ instead they say "how do you explain the bloody shirt in your closet, the gunpowder residue on your hand, etc." (the equivalent to this would be parts of an image that appear "spot-edited".

How's that for an analogy?!

Originally posted by metatate:

I was presumed guilty without someone saying "the smoking gun was next to your car ... can you tell me how it got there?"

Message edited by author 2007-07-16 12:37:47.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

07/16/2007 12:36:47 PM · #16

I honestly don't think there's ever an assumption of guilt when DQ requests come in. In fact, I think you'd be surprised at the extremes that some SC members go through in an attempt to prove things to be legal.

I'm hoping you're not taking anything I'm saying personally in this thread... I really enjoyed meeting you at the Ohio GTG last month, and am really just hoping to help explain where our mindset is in cases like this.

We try to replicate shots with what information is provided; the less information we have, the better the chances are that we won't be able to replicate things.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

07/16/2007 12:38:55 PM · #17

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Uhh yeah, he got DQ didn't he? Heh.

So anyone who has been convicted (DQd) has been presumed guilty? No.

The DQ is the result of investigation.

Well pick a word and stick with it. I was replying to 'assumption of guilt' and you are now talking about 'presumption of guilt". I can only go with what I read unless you're going to supply a map.

07/16/2007 12:41:27 PM · #18

Of course. I enjoyed meeting you too and I really appreciate your feedback in this thread. I think that things should change though. When the photographer is contacted the second time (it was several days after for me), there should be some explanation of the problem - especially since it was over a week since I had worked on this image!

Again, I'm suspended and I just wanna enter a photo that I shot this weekend!!! so I'm extra-anxious about this (I also drank too much coffee ;P)

07/16/2007 12:41:44 PM · #19

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by routerguy666:
Uhh yeah, he got DQ didn't he? Heh.

So anyone who has been convicted (DQd) has been presumed guilty? No.

The DQ is the result of investigation.

Well pick a word and stick with it. I was replying to 'assumption of guilt' and you are now talking about 'presumption of guilt". I can only go with what I read unless you're going to supply a map.

World out to get you, eh?

Message edited by author 2007-07-16 12:43:09.

07/16/2007 12:42:07 PM · #20

Originally posted by metatate:

Quoting myself here for clarification - I you're on trial, and someone says you broke a "rule" / "law", the opposing lawyer will create evidence but you will be given a chance to explain it.

I can see your point here, but understand that with the volume of DQ requests that come in, it's simply not efficient to have a long dialog with each person who has a shot under investigation. We ask for editing steps, and it's your responsibility to provide enough information to us to go by. We can't be expected to keep prying for additional information if you're missing a bunch of steps.

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

07/16/2007 12:43:46 PM · #21

I will try. I have the original at home (unless you want to send it to me somehow so I can do it today). But it was a few weeks back.

Originally posted by ursula:

Can you replicate it now (at least come quite close), and send/post the exact steps/values you used (for the replication)? I'd be very interested in replicating these.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

07/16/2007 12:47:32 PM · #22

Originally posted by metatate:

I will try. I have the original at home (unless you want to send it to me somehow so I can do it today). But it was a few weeks back.

Originally posted by ursula:
Can you replicate it now (at least come quite close), and send/post the exact steps/values you used (for the replication)? I'd be very interested in replicating these.

I can wait :)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

07/16/2007 12:52:38 PM · #23

Just to be clear... here's the area in question. Note the detail in the circled area on the original, and how this area is all smudged and darkened in the submission. No one on SC could replicate that.

Note also that the water between the structure's legs is similar in value to the surrounding water in the original, but significantly lighter than the surrounding water in the entry.

If you can provide steps that show how this was done legally (without affecting the rest of the structure since this is Basic), there's a good chance of getting it reinstated:

Message edited by author 2007-07-16 13:34:29.

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

07/16/2007 12:57:12 PM · #24

There is actually a bit of the same affect to the other side of the structure but only about 25 to 50% of the effect on the end. It is a bit odd.

Message edited by author 2007-07-16 12:57:43.