| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2007 12:39:44 PM · #76 |
You can evaluate the semantics here as much as you like, but it boils down to the fact that the shot of the girl was originally against a white background. Everything in the new background was essentially drawn into place where no features formerly existed.
Yes, the "Frau bei der Toilette" shot has a new and rather dramatic texture added, but it doesn't have new "features" added to it that weren't in the original. Moatz took what was already there and enhanced it; LOWLANDS created entirely new features.
Originally posted by levyj413:
DQ'ed:
for an "invented" texture:
Originally posted by AlanFreed:
The original DQ'd shot had a white background; the texture was completely invented. That's why it was disqualified, and the other one was not. New features were added to the DQ'd shot. |
Not DQ'ed:
But there was no texture in the walls in the original:
So the first was DQd for an invented texture, but the second one wasn't.
Please answer this very specific question.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
09/17/2007 01:02:30 PM · #77 |
I read these types of threads and i welcome them as they help everyone to understand the rules. But i think we should stop blaming the SC so quickly.
I have had 1 DQ, i recieved a ticket from the SC asking for my original and my editting steps. Then we went into discussion about the steps and every oportunity was given to me to explain and argue my case. I was DQ'd by a split desission, but i believe that they were right to DQ my shot. The SC works hard(ish) for us to have a level playing field in the competitions, we will always try and push the rules as far as we can (and why not).
Lets just keep taking pictures and aiming for the blue.
Kev
|
|
|
|
09/17/2007 01:13:44 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
You can evaluate the semantics here as much as you like, but it boils down to the fact that the shot of the girl was originally against a white background. Everything in the new background was essentially drawn into place where no features formerly existed.
Yes, the "Frau bei der Toilette" shot has a new and rather dramatic texture added, but it doesn't have new "features" added to it that weren't in the original. Moatz took what was already there and enhanced it; LOWLANDS created entirely new features. |
Thanks, Alan. I appreciate your responding. I disagree, but that's not a real problem. :)
|
|
|
|
09/17/2007 01:44:24 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
You can evaluate the semantics here as much as you like, but it boils down to the fact that the shot of the girl was originally against a white background. Everything in the new background was essentially drawn into place where no features formerly existed.
Yes, the "Frau bei der Toilette" shot has a new and rather dramatic texture added, but it doesn't have new "features" added to it that weren't in the original. Moatz took what was already there and enhanced it; LOWLANDS created entirely new features. |
Thanks, Alan. I appreciate your responding. I disagree, but that's not a real problem. :) |
Im with you, I dont see any difference in what the 2 images have, other then the actual different textures, but both have textures applied to them that weren't there before. |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 02:00:19 PM · #80 |
Jeffrey, the same texture was applied to the entire expanse. The visual effect is still of a plain wall, it's just a painted plain wall instead of a photographed plain wall. Now I would appreciate it if you would stop picking on the SC all the time. Sheesh. They're just trying to help.
(((insert smiley the size of texas))) |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 04:04:42 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Jeffrey, the same texture was applied to the entire expanse. The visual effect is still of a plain wall, it's just a painted plain wall instead of a photographed plain wall. Now I would appreciate it if you would stop picking on the SC all the time. Sheesh. They're just trying to help.
(((insert smiley the size of texas))) |
you feeling okay, today?
:) |
|
|
|
09/17/2007 04:25:32 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by karmat:
you feeling okay, today?
:) |
I just want some good karma!! |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 11:27:49 PM · #83 |
This may not be the correct thread to post this question; my 2nd post on the board after #1 just being a "kudos" kinda post. I did a search but didn't see a closer thread that had recently been updated.
The question is... why does this DQ rule even exist? ::
"add text to your entry or its border during editing. This includes copyright statements."
I'm left with a big "???" regarding the latter point. I'd expect a site like this to be especially sensitive to copyright ownership. Being new to higher-end photography, and RAW converion, I just began using this watermark, and configured Lightroom to put a tiny "The Mato Family © 2007" at the bottom of all my "keepers" from the 3500 pix I just took in Tanzania as an example.
So, means...
a) if I were to post one of those pics, I should expect a DQ?
b) I'd have to make a 2nd JPG conversion from RAW explicitly excluding my copyright statement?
Could someone confirm or deny?
So as you gather, I just can't understand the reasoning for not allowing a copyright statement. Not trying to be inflamatory or confrontational. Really would like a mature helpful response to let me understand.
thanx,
Steve |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 11:31:05 PM · #84 |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 11:32:40 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by m8o:
The question is... why does this DQ rule even exist? ::
"add text to your entry or its border during editing. This includes copyright statements." |
Entries are supposed to be anonymous during voting. If you had a copyright statement on there, then everyone would know who the photographer is. Besides, there are copyright notices in the Terms of Service and at the bottom of every page on this site. |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 11:36:57 PM · #86 |
Yes Steve, if you enter a photo in a challenge with any text added, even copyright notice, it would be DQ'd. An important reason for this is that, anonymity of entries is very important to the way the challenges function. If shots had a copyright notice, then everyone would know whose shots they were.
The site does infact hold copyrights to be extremely important. Copyright is covered in the TOS. Every page of DPC has a statement on the bottom, where the site map is about copyright. Even the url of every full size image has a use prohibited as part of the url itself. On top of all this, site members are literally all over just about every photo site out there, and are very good at finding 'ripped off' images, and taking action against them.
Hope this helps some :-)
edit to correct spelling!
Message edited by author 2007-09-21 23:37:58. |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 11:42:11 PM · #87 |
Dang Shannon! I could've beat you if I'd used the condensed version like you did! :-P
Also, to add, Steve, think of how quick and extremely easy it would be to clone or crop out a tiny name and copyright notice at the bottom of a stolen pic. :-)
Not to mention, stolen images are quite frequently found with the name and copyright notices still on them! That definitely won't stop people. |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 11:42:30 PM · #88 |
Yes, ok, the anonymity point wasn't one I knew about or realized on my own, but does make perfect sense.
Thanx,
-steve
p.s. edit: ...and MAN, you folks are quick! ;^P
Message edited by author 2007-09-21 23:45:29. |
|
|
|
09/21/2007 11:58:51 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Yes, the "Frau bei der Toilette" shot has a new and rather dramatic texture added, but it doesn't have new "features" added to it that weren't in the original. Moatz took what was already there and enhanced it; LOWLANDS created entirely new features. |
Not that it matters, but I completely disagree with this whole line of thinking. If the texture was the added element in the first, it is in the second, plain and simple. You talk of white as if it's nothing, when in fact, it is every color or light. Lowlands didn't completely remove the background element, he just obscrured it a little with some texture.
Yeah, what's done is done. Just registering an opinion.
|
|
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: 08/04/2025 10:59:38 AM EDT.
