| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2009 12:44:12 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
It was validated as legal....don't call attention to it...I don't want a DQ !
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by kenskid:
You should have done it like my cat entry....maybe you would have not got a DQ. LOL....
 |
Was this validated? Because I'm pretty sure the Thanksgiving shot that stirred up the fuss over this the last time also had a new object but was DQ'ed for fooling the voters by being a picture of a picture.
Matt |
|
I didn't bring it up, you did. And since you did I think it should also be added to the discussion. So you were asked for original and editing steps and this was validated by SC?
Matt |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 12:50:29 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by AP:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
HOLY CRAP!
Are you kidding?
This is legal.
And this is not?
If I were delin I'm afraid I'd be pretty ticked off as well. Sorry, don't mean to "stir it up", but this is a pretty hard call to defend... |
Yeah just to chime in, these shots are identical in concept and technique - there can't be a justification for one and not the other. Allowing challenge topic to interpret the rules would be a dubious approach to say the least.
Current controversy aside, I would def agree that having the painter shot be valid from just 2 years may definitely mislead people as to what is legal, I think a rule refinement is necessary to prevent that. |
Agreed, both shots had the same technique but I guess it is OK to use a wide roller but not a narrow pencil? Where is the common sense in how the rule is applied? To be honest when this tread started I thought I would see the image and say it was a gray area image and likely agree with the SC but after looking at it I feel this one was a bad call.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 01:02:49 PM · #103 |
Well I never thought my little stint of drama queendom would stir up such trouble, I honestly appreciate everyone's interest and concern on this, be it pro or con. I hope there is some productive positive outcome from this. Just the fact that this is debatable cause makes it feel like it was worth bringing up.
I didn't really think my entry was any kind of superstar, technical issues for sure, but I felt it was fairly creative. It was at 6.57 with a few days to go, looks like I might have been 11th in the final standings. Pretty good finish for a hack like me, I always feel like it's pure luck when I do well. Probably most people here know the excitement you feel when you're getting what for yourself is a good score, be it a top ten or the first time above five. It's what makes this fun. This excitement is most likely what fueled my disappointment at a DQ for the first time. Thanks to all those with kind words and encouragement, it really restores my faith here. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 01:08:51 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by delin:
Well I never thought my little stint of drama queendom would stir up such trouble, I honestly appreciate everyone's interest and concern on this, be it pro or con. I hope there is some productive positive outcome from this. Just the fact that this is debatable cause makes it feel like it was worth bringing up.
I didn't really think my entry was any kind of superstar, technical issues for sure, but I felt it was fairly creative. It was at 6.57 with a few days to go, looks like I might have been 11th in the final standings. Pretty good finish for a hack like me, I always feel like it's pure luck when I do well. Probably most people here know the excitement you feel when you're getting what for yourself is a good score, be it a top ten or the first time above five. It's what makes this fun. This excitement is most likely what fueled my disappointment at a DQ for the first time. Thanks to all those with kind words and encouragement, it really restores my faith here. |
Well, the good news is that based on precedent, which is all you had to to go on, you produced a "legal" entry; that is to say, it wasn't so far outside the rules that your score was in any way "unearned", ya know? So you can still take pride in the score itself, because you accomplished a hell of a nice image and the voters were responding well to it.
In the end you got caught in the vise of inconsistency, which isn't the first time it's happened to someone, and probably won't be the last either.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 01:12:21 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by delin:
Well I never thought my little stint of drama queendom would stir up such trouble, I honestly appreciate everyone's interest and concern on this, be it pro or con. I hope there is some productive positive outcome from this. Just the fact that this is debatable cause makes it feel like it was worth bringing up.
I didn't really think my entry was any kind of superstar, technical issues for sure, but I felt it was fairly creative. It was at 6.57 with a few days to go, looks like I might have been 11th in the final standings. Pretty good finish for a hack like me, I always feel like it's pure luck when I do well. Probably most people here know the excitement you feel when you're getting what for yourself is a good score, be it a top ten or the first time above five. It's what makes this fun. This excitement is most likely what fueled my disappointment at a DQ for the first time. Thanks to all those with kind words and encouragement, it really restores my faith here. |
Well, the good news is that based on precedent, which is all you had to to go on, you produced a "legal" entry; that is to say, it wasn't so far outside the rules that your score was in any way "unearned", ya know? So you can still take pride in the score itself, because you accomplished a hell of a nice image and the voters were responding well to it.
In the end you got caught in the vise of inconsistency, which isn't the first time it's happened to someone, and probably won't be the last either.
R. |
Thanks for that |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 01:14:39 PM · #106 |
Man...I'm just kidding about "not calling attention to it" !! LOL...
Yes...I was asked and submitted the original...However, this cat shot may not be similar to the entry in question. I posted it b/c of the desat creating squiggly lines and the "hand in picture" aspect.
It was validated as legal.
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by kenskid:
It was validated as legal....don't call attention to it...I don't want a DQ !
Originally posted by MattO:
Originally posted by kenskid:
You should have done it like my cat entry....maybe you would have not got a DQ. LOL....
|
Was this validated? Because I'm pretty sure the Thanksgiving shot that stirred up the fuss over this the last time also had a new object but was DQ'ed for fooling the voters by being a picture of a picture.
Matt |
|
I didn't bring it up, you did. And since you did I think it should also be added to the discussion. So you were asked for original and editing steps and this was validated by SC?
Matt |
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 13:16:33. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 01:15:45 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
2. When I saw "The Painter" in voting I knew it was going to be DQed. How could it not be? Same thing with "Sky Blue". |
Not to nitpick, but "The Painter" wasn't DQed (and shouldn't be), making it seem legal, no?
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 01:36:48 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by delin:
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
2. When I saw "The Painter" in voting I knew it was going to be DQed. How could it not be? Same thing with "Sky Blue". |
Not to nitpick, but "The Painter" wasn't DQed (and shouldn't be), making it seem legal, no? |
I think Nathan's point was, when he saw the "Painter" image during voting, he was sure it would BE disqualified...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 01:37:40 PM · #109 |
My point was that it seemed super obvious to me that "The Painter" would be DQed for violating the rule that states: "You May: apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process."
Even after that other thread on the subject I'm still super baffled that it wasn't DQed. As the rule is written, I believe your shot should also have been DQed. I totally understand that your editing would seem to be legal if using "The Painter" as your precedent. You obviously got caught in the middle of an inconsistent ruling, and that totally sucks. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 02:05:29 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In the end you got caught in the vise of inconsistency, which isn't the first time it's happened to someone, and probably won't be the last either.
R. |
I've never considered inconsistency a vice.....more an aberration......or in my case, a character trait......8>)
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:00:24 PM · #111 |
[quote=freakin_hilarious] My point was that it seemed super obvious to me that "The Painter" would be DQed for violating the rule that states: "You May: apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process."
I guess it depends on what is considered a new shape, I look at this image and to me no new shapes were formed but rather the original colors and tones were adjusted to create a more meaningful image, you are allowed to adjust colors to create effects which is how it appears to my limited thinking. The colors in the image were either kept or desaturated but no changes to the photo shapes occurred. Every image created with advanced editing on this sight it typically gets adjusted for color, contrast, dodged and burned using spot editing which which can significantly alter the look and feel of the original image, in this case the effect was not as drastic as some of the HDR effects which we have seen applied which in my mind alter the image just as significantly but because it is done in color its overlooked. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:23:25 PM · #112 |
| I wish they'd treat the rule similar to the way they treat the existing artwork rule. A pre-existing photograph can be used in your photo as long as it is not trying to fool the viewer--and that it's obviously a photograph. I think the selective saturation/desaturation should be legal as long as you're not trying to fool the viewer. i don't think that anyone actually believed that there were pencil lines or paint roller lines in the sky--so make it legal. However, if someone is doing it to create lens flare or a contrail that didn't exist, it should be illegal. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:25:35 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I guess it depends on what is considered a new shape, I look at this image and to me no new shapes were formed... |
I don't get it. You don't see the brushstrokes in color? Or you do see them, but you don't think they're new shapes? So we'd be able to see them without the selective desat, right?
Sorry for continuing to rehash this old argument. To tie it in, I'll reiterate that I think both "The Painter" and the OP's image use the exact same technique. They should either both be valid or both be DQed. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:32:08 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
[quote=freakin_hilarious]I guess it depends on what is considered a new shape, I look at this image and to me no new shapes were formed but rather the original colors and tones were adjusted to create a more meaningful image, you are allowed to adjust colors to create effects which is how it appears to my limited thinking. The colors in the image were either kept or desaturated but no changes to the photo shapes occurred. Every image created with advanced editing on this sight it typically gets adjusted for color, contrast, dodged and burned using spot editing which which can significantly alter the look and feel of the original image, in this case the effect was not as drastic as some of the HDR effects which we have seen applied which in my mind alter the image just as significantly but because it is done in color its overlooked. |
I find the rule to be pretty straightforward. I look at "The Painter", and I see shapes of paint roller strokes on the photo; if I was to describe the photo to someone, I would mention those strokes of the paint roller. But the problem is that they were shapes that were created in post.
The same as the photo in the OP. The pencil lines are a significant part of the image, and were created in post.
Don't concentrate on the fact that it's desaturation that gives the effect. The same rule would apply if I, in Advanced Editing used Photoshop to burn the word "Hello!" into the side of a building.
There was another photo that was DQed because a beam of light was created in post by dodging a shape into the photo.
Regular dodging, burning, saturation, desaturation, etc is used to either enhance certain elements, or downplay others.. But this does not introduce NEW elements into the photo.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:35:00 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I wish they'd treat the rule similar to the way they treat the existing artwork rule. A pre-existing photograph can be used in your photo as long as it is not trying to fool the viewer--and that it's obviously a photograph. I think the selective saturation/desaturation should be legal as long as you're not trying to fool the viewer. i don't think that anyone actually believed that there were pencil lines or paint roller lines in the sky--so make it legal. However, if someone is doing it to create lens flare or a contrail that didn't exist, it should be illegal. |
The existing artwork rule is different, however, because the artwork actually existed in the original, unaltered photograph. That's not the case with these brush strokes.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:36:46 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by mchalmers:
Regular dodging, burning, saturation, desaturation, etc is used to either enhance certain elements, or downplay others.. But this does not introduce NEW elements into the photo. |
YUp. I think we're nearly all on the same page there: in BOTH photos the technique was used to "create" something that didn't exist, shapewise, and it's actually the whole POINT of the photos to boot.
What the issue has evolved to, now, is that a lot of us can't understand why the second one was DQ'd if the first was legal...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 03:39:10 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What the issue has evolved to, now, is that a lot of us can't understand why the second one was DQ'd if the first was legal... |
aka "How the heck was the first one deemed legal?" |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 04:08:47 PM · #118 |
Not for me.... I'd says that if you desat a photo and leave color in the "shape" letter "S" no NEW shape was created.
Let's say you have a color shot and you take the desat brush and just wave haphazardly all around the photo. It now looks like a jumbled mess with shapes of all kinds...is this a DQ?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mchalmers:
Regular dodging, burning, saturation, desaturation, etc is used to either enhance certain elements, or downplay others.. But this does not introduce NEW elements into the photo. |
YUp. I think we're nearly all on the same page there: in BOTH photos the technique was used to "create" something that didn't exist, shapewise, and it's actually the whole POINT of the photos to boot.
What the issue has evolved to, now, is that a lot of us can't understand why the second one was DQ'd if the first was legal...
R. |
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 04:20:14 PM · #119 |
wow. My original idea was something very similar to  delin's.
The Painter was sort of my inspiration for it. I was going to do something with flowers but alas it is the midwest and April, so everything is grey and yucky instead of nice colors. I was going to go even further and use the dry media brushes in photoshop to make it look like pencil lines--I even practiced on another image. Glad I didn't!
I guess I would only weigh in with the fact that it is disappointing that they are DQ'd photos (under current rules). Its an interesting way of doing selective desat, and it really makes the viewer think. I think it is still more photography than digital art, and I like the idea of a black and white world being painted or drawn into color.
Its advanced editing! Whats the problem?! I think this is much less processed than some of the overly tonemapped or lucisart style images. I understand for a contest there has to be rules, but sheesh! I think it loses the spirit of the competition and discourages new users when the rules get so ambiguous yet specific. Ah well. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 04:35:37 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Not for me.... I'd says that if you desat a photo and leave color in the "shape" letter "S" no NEW shape was created.
Let's say you have a color shot and you take the desat brush and just wave haphazardly all around the photo. It now looks like a jumbled mess with shapes of all kinds...is this a DQ?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by mchalmers:
Regular dodging, burning, saturation, desaturation, etc is used to either enhance certain elements, or downplay others.. But this does not introduce NEW elements into the photo. |
YUp. I think we're nearly all on the same page there: in BOTH photos the technique was used to "create" something that didn't exist, shapewise, and it's actually the whole POINT of the photos to boot.
What the issue has evolved to, now, is that a lot of us can't understand why the second one was DQ'd if the first was legal...
R. |
|
I don't understand the logic. What is your definition of the word "shape"? |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 04:39:39 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't understand the logic. What is your definition of the word "shape"? |
A "shape" in this limited sense is anything that stands out from the surround as having distinct boundaries. For example, drawing a circle with the selection tool and desaturating the selection would produce a round shape.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 04:46:55 PM · #122 |
It would take all color out of the photo except for color in the shape of a circle.
Desat 11 "circles" overlaping each other...is that a DQ? Look at the painter....it has a "color" polygon of give or take...16 sides.
What about a desat from the center of the photo with a 212 sided polygon...DQ?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't understand the logic. What is your definition of the word "shape"? |
A "shape" in this limited sense is anything that stands out from the surround as having distinct boundaries. For example, drawing a circle with the selection tool and desaturating the selection would produce a round shape.
R. |
Message edited by author 2009-04-20 16:49:05. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 04:52:49 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
It would take all color out of the photo except for color in the shape of a circle.
Desat 11 "circles" overlaping each other...is that a DQ? Look at the painter....it has a "color" polygon.
What about a desat from the center of the photo with a 212 sided polygon...DQ?
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
I don't understand the logic. What is your definition of the word "shape"? |
A "shape" in this limited sense is anything that stands out from the surround as having distinct boundaries. For example, drawing a circle with the selection tool and desaturating the selection would produce a round shape.
R. |
|
If you can see a distinct, and arbitrary, boundary, then it's a DQ, yes, as I understand it. If the boundary is entirely congruent with an already defined shape within the image, it's legal, as I understand it. Talking about "11 overlapping circles" is irrelevant: all that matters is whether the finished work displays a distinct, and arbitrary, boundary.
Let's assume I divided an image into 4, rectangular selections, which together comprised the entirety of the image. If I desaturated all 4 of them 100%, there'd be no visible boundary and no foul. If I desaturated the 4 of them 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%, then there'd be distinct, and arbitrary, boundaries, shapes would have been "created", and the image would be DQ'd.
R.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2009 04:53:12 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
It would take all color out of the photo except for color in the shape of a circle.
Desat 11 "circles" overlaping each other...is that a DQ? Look at the painter....it has a "color" polygon of give or take...16 sides.
What about a desat from the center of the photo with a 212 sided polygon...DQ? |
Da Rulez: "You may... desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it." Were the circles or polygons existing objects within your photo? If not, it's a DQ. |
|
|
|
04/20/2009 04:57:03 PM · #125 |
| Sorry if I missed something, but could we have a ruling on "The Painter" versus the OP shot? Was it a different rule-set or has the interpretation changed or what, just wanted to clarify. |
|
