| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2009 10:05:58 PM · #26 |
frankly, the reason for the DQ should have been clear to the photog.
photog: i used a screen blending mode.
sc: blending modes other than normal are not allowed in basic editing.
how much more transparent can it be? |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:06:48 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by muckpond:
the photog is welcome to post the information that she provided to us if she chooses.
suffice it to say that, using the editing steps that the photographer provided, we were able to reproduce the image. whether or not you are able to do it through any other means is irrelevant.
i don't mean to sound like i'm coming down on Sandy -- i'm not, and i don't enjoy DQ'ing images in these circumstances. basic editing is very restrictive on what you can do with layers, and contestants need to be aware of that. |
Wait, why is this so nebulous? Can't you just out with it and say "X adjustment layer was in Y blending mode" according to the photographer's provided steps? This seems like a weird DQ to be controvertial. Either she did it or not. It should be obvious to everybody and I don't get why Sandy, a long term member, and the SC, people who know what they are doing, seem at odds about the basic rules. |
The violation was previously posted: the photographer (according to the editing notes) made a duplicate of the BACKGROUND (not an "adjustment layer") -- already illegal -- and then used a blending mode, also illegal.
(emphasis added):
Originally posted by Sandy's photog notes:
Created a duplicate background layer and changed the mode to âScreenâ to lighten it up â then reduced the opacity of the layer to about 35% |
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:08:28 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
frankly, the reason for the DQ should have been clear to the photog.
photog: i used a screen blending mode.
sc: blending modes other than normal are not allowed in basic editing.
how much more transparent can it be? |
Ok, either she didn't understand that it was illegal or she purposely cheated. If she did it on purpose, do you think she'd list that step!? Obviously, it wasn't clear to her. Yet a simple explanation of the problem could have forestalled all of this. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:09:26 PM · #29 |
| Ya, sorry guys. Missed Karmat's post. Well, if Sandy wrote that, then DQ away. It's clearly illegal and I agree it doesn't matter if someone can do the same thing legally later. Rarely would you get exactly the same results anyway. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:09:59 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Ok, either she didn't understand that it was illegal or she purposely cheated. If she did it on purpose, do you think she'd list that step!? Obviously, it wasn't clear to her. Yet a simple explanation of the problem could have forestalled all of this. |
OK she thought it was an advanced editing challenge instead of basic. That's not on purpose. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:11:22 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Ok, either she didn't understand that it was illegal or she purposely cheated. If she did it on purpose, do you think she'd list that step!? Obviously, it wasn't clear to her. Yet a simple explanation of the problem could have forestalled all of this. |
OK she thought it was an advanced editing challenge instead of basic. That's not on purpose. |
VERY RARELY do we think a photog cheated on purpose. I cannot tell you how many times I've started to use the screen mode only to realize that it was basic. It was an honest mistake. Unfortunately, it was against the rules. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:11:52 PM · #32 |
Of course I haven't heard anything about my validation so this just scares the be-jeepers outta me ...
:( |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:12:14 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Yet a simple explanation of the problem could have forestalled all of this. |
i guess i don't understand where we didn't explain this simply. the DQ message, although canned, says "You may use only Adjustment Layers (or their equivalent)." and also says "Adjustment Layers must be applied in Normal mode." |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:13:01 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Ok, either she didn't understand that it was illegal or she purposely cheated. |
Or, she forgot which editing rule set was in effect at the time of submission, and later figured she'd only used legal steps.
I (among many others) have edited a picture "normally" using Advanced rules, only to quickly have to re-edit at the last minute after realizing the submission was intended for a Basic rules challenge ... |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:13:04 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Ok, either she didn't understand that it was illegal or she purposely cheated. If she did it on purpose, do you think she'd list that step!? Obviously, it wasn't clear to her. Yet a simple explanation of the problem could have forestalled all of this. |
OK she thought it was an advanced editing challenge instead of basic. That's not on purpose. |
I'm just saying that there was obviously something that she misunderstood. Just taking a little bit of time to explain the specifics, instead of a general DQ statement would have saved all of this time defending a DQ that sounds like it was perfectly valid. All of these threads recently seem to stem from a lack of more specific information. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:14:45 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Citadel:
Of course I haven't heard anything about my validation so this just scares the be-jeepers outta me ... |
Me too, especially since I have a relatively recent DQ "on file" ... ;-) |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:20:45 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm just saying that there was obviously something that she misunderstood. Just taking a little bit of time to explain the specifics, instead of a general DQ statement would have saved all of this time defending a DQ that sounds like it was perfectly valid. All of these threads recently seem to stem from a lack of more specific information. |
As  muckpond pointed out, this particular "generic" message "just happens" to list the specific violations ...
Also, if people don't understand an SC ruling, perhaps they might want to think about opening a Ticket to discuss the matter (I did) -- I'm trying to figure out why people want these things debated out in the public, unless they are trying to embarrass the SC, though it seems they usually end up embarrassing themselves ... |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:21:32 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm just saying that there was obviously something that she misunderstood. Just taking a little bit of time to explain the specifics, instead of a general DQ statement would have saved all of this time defending a DQ that sounds like it was perfectly valid. All of these threads recently seem to stem from a lack of more specific information. |
I agree. Looking back at the recent dust-removal dq thread, and the self-portrait-but-not-a-self-portrait dq thread, much of the frustration on the part of the photographer seems to be the way the DQ was communicated to them (regardless of whether a rule was broken) - ref: Sandy's comment;
Originally posted by SandyP:
No, Jeb, they didn't. I got the computerized impersonal note with the standard, "You may use only Adjustment Layers (or their equivalent). An Adjustment Layer is a special type . . . . .Thank you for your participation in dpChallenge. . ." Grrrrrrrr |
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:24:50 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm just saying that there was obviously something that she misunderstood. Just taking a little bit of time to explain the specifics, instead of a general DQ statement would have saved all of this time defending a DQ that sounds like it was perfectly valid. All of these threads recently seem to stem from a lack of more specific information. |
As muckpond pointed out, this particular "generic" message "just happens" to list the specific violations ...
Also, if people don't understand an SC ruling, perhaps they might want to think about opening a Ticket to discuss the matter (I did) -- I'm trying to figure out why people want these things debated out in the public, unless they are trying to embarrass the SC, though it seems they usually end up embarrassing themselves ... |
I think there needs to be a more concerted effort on the part of the SC to NOT use a Generic stamp of a DQ and take the 2 minutes it takes to put the EXACT reasoning for the DQ in the message rather then a generic stamp. Surely it can't be that difficult can it?
Matt |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:24:57 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm just saying that there was obviously something that she misunderstood. Just taking a little bit of time to explain the specifics, instead of a general DQ statement would have saved all of this time defending a DQ that sounds like it was perfectly valid. All of these threads recently seem to stem from a lack of more specific information. |
I agree. Looking back at the recent dust-removal dq thread, and the self-portrait-but-not-a-self-portrait dq thread, much of the frustration on the part of the photographer seems to be the way the DQ was communicated to them (regardless of whether a rule was broken) - ref: Sandy's comment;
Originally posted by SandyP:
No, Jeb, they didn't. I got the computerized impersonal note with the standard, "You may use only Adjustment Layers (or their equivalent). An Adjustment Layer is a special type . . . . .Thank you for your participation in dpChallenge. . ." Grrrrrrrr |
|
I'm sure the SC must be swamped, but it does seem like being more specific to the user in the DQ process would save a lot of time in the long run... perhaps use the generic message for the photo, but more specific to the individual user. It can then be up to the user if they want to share the specifics.
Message edited by author 2009-07-02 22:25:54. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:27:57 PM · #41 |
As it appears if Sandy said that she used screen mode to lighten it up then it should stand as a valid DQ. There appears to be a discrepancy between what is bein said now vs what was said in the validation email to SC. Also question for SC regarding opacity, I was led to believe that you had to use 100% in basic as well. Is that true?
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:28:04 PM · #42 |
I just heard from Rob (Muckpond) and now I'm even more upset than ever -- but I guess its more at myself -- because apparently in my explanation of the steps I used, in my super exhausted and excited frame of mind, I typed out a step I used in my zen photo, that I didn't do in my ground up photo. They were just a couple of days apart, and I was SO exhausted and excited. I've been working weekends with extra work projects, and staying up late doing wedding photos, and I was so tired -- In my excitement and exhaustion I blew it and got my ground up photo and my zen photo mixed up and said I did a duplicate layer and a screen mode in my ground up photo when I did it in my zen photo -- not my ground up photo.
I wish there was a history somewhere I could reproduce that shows what I did from start to finish because it would definitely validate that this was done right. It's a TYPE-O thing, not a rule thing.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:29:32 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Also, if people don't understand an SC ruling, perhaps they might want to think about opening a Ticket to discuss the matter (I did) -- I'm trying to figure out why people want these things debated out in the public, unless they are trying to embarrass the SC, though it seems they usually end up embarrassing themselves ... |
What's not to understand? When you submit a trouble ticket only the person who submits it will get the answer. When you discuss the question out in the public everyone gets the answer. One thing these threads prove time and time again is a lot of people are confused about the rules. Do you really want 100s of tickets asking these questions individually?
Message edited by author 2009-07-02 22:31:16.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:29:38 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by MattO:
I think there needs to be a more concerted effort on the part of the SC to NOT use a Generic stamp of a DQ and take the 2 minutes it takes to put the EXACT reasoning for the DQ in the message rather then a generic stamp. Surely it can't be that difficult can it? |
no, it's not that difficult. it's just that the canned message said EXACTLY what happened so there's no reason to reword it.
we (i) DO write specific messages if it's something kooky. but 90% of the DQs are for the violations that we have a stored message for...like this one.
a later communication with the photog even said "oh, duh...that's what i told you?" (essentially.) |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:30:38 PM · #45 |
| I've been trying to remember to make sure history is turned on when I edit for challenges, for this exact purpose. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:31:03 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I'm just saying that there was obviously something that she misunderstood. Just taking a little bit of time to explain the specifics, instead of a general DQ statement would have saved all of this time defending a DQ that sounds like it was perfectly valid. All of these threads recently seem to stem from a lack of more specific information. |
I agree. Looking back at the recent dust-removal dq thread, and the self-portrait-but-not-a-self-portrait dq thread, much of the frustration on the part of the photographer seems to be the way the DQ was communicated to them (regardless of whether a rule was broken) - ref: Sandy's comment;
Originally posted by SandyP:
No, Jeb, they didn't. I got the computerized impersonal note with the standard, "You may use only Adjustment Layers (or their equivalent). An Adjustment Layer is a special type . . . . .Thank you for your participation in dpChallenge. . ." Grrrrrrrr |
|
Just to play devils advocate I think that the way SC tells us of rule violations is a lot like sport. "2 minutes for high sticking". Not "The blade of your stick was in the left nostril of the opposing player". Basically here is the rule you broke - end of story. Like sports, the participants don't always agree with the referees, umpires etc.
Now to jump back to DPC. The rules are not always clear cut. We know what high sticking looks like. We don't always recognize that our edits are illegal. It really helps the rest of us to know how a rule was broken so we can avoid breaking the same rule. As Karmat said. We aren't trying to break the rules. We're just trying to play by the same rules. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:34:37 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
I wish there was a history somewhere I could reproduce that shows what I did from start to finish because it would definitely validate that this was done right. It's a TYPE-O thing, not a rule thing. |
In photoshop
Edit->Preferences->General. Select the History Log and then the text file. In Edited Log items, select Detailed. From that point whatever you do in photoshop will be recorded to text file, which you can reference for validation or directly copy and paste and send to the SC. |
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:36:36 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by MattO:
I think there needs to be a more concerted effort on the part of the SC to NOT use a Generic stamp of a DQ and take the 2 minutes it takes to put the EXACT reasoning for the DQ in the message rather then a generic stamp. Surely it can't be that difficult can it? |
no, it's not that difficult. it's just that the canned message said EXACTLY what happened so there's no reason to reword it.
we (i) DO write specific messages if it's something kooky. but 90% of the DQs are for the violations that we have a stored message for...like this one.
a later communication with the photog even said "oh, duh...that's what i told you?" (essentially.) |
Mucky please bear with me a sec. If this message was sent to Sandy would this thread exist.
Hi Sandy,
After reviewing your submission, original, and editing steps provided we have found that according to step (enter step number here) of your submitted steps you used a blending mode and duplicate background that is not allowed in basic editing. We are sorry to inform you that because of this your entry will be disqualified. Thanks for participating and if you need to discuss this please open a ticket to start a discussion.
Site Council
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:37:05 PM · #49 |
How do you turn the history on. Maybe mine is on and I can prove that I didn't do anything wrong??????
I can't believe I lost a ribbon because I had a brain lapse and got my zen photo and ground up photo that both needed to be validated within two days of each other mixed up when I was TYPING.
I want to prove that I didn't break any rules with this one.
|
|
|
|
07/02/2009 10:37:52 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by SandyP:
I wish there was a history somewhere I could reproduce that shows what I did from start to finish because it would definitely validate that this was done right. It's a TYPE-O thing, not a rule thing. |
In photoshop
Edit->Preferences->General. Select the History Log and then the text file. In Edited Log items, select Detailed. From that point whatever you do in photoshop will be recorded to text file, which you can reference for validation or directly copy and paste and send to the SC. |
oooh....handy. Anything like that for Lightroom or Paintshop pro XI? I know in Lightroom it will keep your steps but does it keep them after the program closes? I forget. |
|
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: 09/19/2025 02:29:44 PM EDT.
