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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> DQ for a border?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 120, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/12/2009 03:52:21 AM · #51
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Or that the border must not be mistakable as part of the original capture.


This is too subjective to be a rule IMO
 08/12/2009 03:53:03 AM · #52
Originally posted by rinac:
Originally posted by Judi:
Read what BeeCee wrote....PLEASE!!!!


Apologies, I was 20 seconds too slow for you apparently.


I think she was answering Lutchenko's reply to yours :)
 08/12/2009 03:53:38 AM · #53
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by eyewave:
why don't you just post the UNCROPPED original?


Here we are



So what you did had the same effect as removing everything around the blue border - removing major elements.


No I simply took a picture and cropped the bit I wanted. Is this illegal?

Message edited by author 2009-08-12 03:54:56.
 08/12/2009 03:55:21 AM · #54
I can't take it. either my head just exploded or I have grown tired of this thread. sorry about the DQ, Lutchenko.
 08/12/2009 03:56:23 AM · #55
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by eyewave:
why don't you just post the UNCROPPED original?


Here we are



So what you did had the same effect as removing everything around the blue border - removing major elements.


No I simply took a picture and cropped the bit I wanted. Is this illegal?


Please note that I wrote "the same effect as"
 08/12/2009 03:58:09 AM · #56
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
This is too subjective to be a rule IMO


Clearly recognizable is the least subjective you can write IMO. It is there to forbid an increase in canvas size, exactly what you did. How would you write this rule then?
 08/12/2009 03:59:14 AM · #57
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I can't take it. either my head just exploded or I have grown tired of this thread. sorry about the DQ, Lutchenko.


I think your head exploded. I just heard a muffled boom from way up here, kinda like when Mt. St. Helen's blew.
 08/12/2009 03:59:56 AM · #58
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by eyewave:
why don't you just post the UNCROPPED original?


Here we are



So what you did had the same effect as removing everything around the blue border - removing major elements.


No I simply took a picture and cropped the bit I wanted. Is this illegal?


Please note that I wrote "the same effect as"


I'm not sure what you're getting at though, yes I cropped around the part of the pic and yes I disguarded the part I didn't want
 08/12/2009 04:02:15 AM · #59
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I can't take it. either my head just exploded or I have grown tired of this thread. sorry about the DQ, Lutchenko.


Cheers Ken... I'll be back :)
 08/12/2009 04:04:04 AM · #60
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by rinac:
Originally posted by Judi:
Read what BeeCee wrote....PLEASE!!!!


Apologies, I was 20 seconds too slow for you apparently.


I think she was answering Lutchenko's reply to yours :)


Thanks BeeCee.
 08/12/2009 04:14:14 AM · #61
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
This is too subjective to be a rule IMO


Clearly recognizable is the least subjective you can write IMO. It is there to forbid an increase in canvas size, exactly what you did. How would you write this rule then?


No not really as what is clear to one person is certainly not clear to another.
One option is to state that the border must not come into contact with any part of the image that is the same colour as the border.
Of course this then lends it's self to a pantone discussion I suppose.

Another option would be to state that all borders must be symmetric about either/or of the vertical and horizontal axes.
In addition there could simply be a limit to the size of the border say 10 pixels etc etc
 08/12/2009 04:17:28 AM · #62
It is pretty obvious. If the border appears to be a part of the original photo, then it is illegal. Simple!
 08/12/2009 04:27:04 AM · #63
Originally posted by Judi:
It is pretty obvious. If the border appears to be a part of the original photo, then it is illegal. Simple!

I still never saw where that is written in the rules...
 08/12/2009 04:27:47 AM · #64
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Judi:
It is pretty obvious. If the border appears to be a part of the original photo, then it is illegal. Simple!

I still never saw where that is written in the rules...


Me either
 08/12/2009 04:30:31 AM · #65
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Judi:
It is pretty obvious. If the border appears to be a part of the original photo, then it is illegal. Simple!

I still never saw where that is written in the rules...


Me either


"Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border."

It's pretty obvious to me that if it appears to be part of the original photo it's not clearly recognizable as a border.
 08/12/2009 04:33:38 AM · #66
Originally posted by BeeCee:
It's pretty obvious to me that if it appears to be part of the original photo it's not clearly recognizable as a border.


Sometimes what is obviously a border to one person is NOT as obvious to another.



:P
 08/12/2009 04:45:10 AM · #67
Damn...it's like pulling teeth....I'm out of here!
 08/12/2009 04:46:21 AM · #68
Originally posted by BeeCee:
"Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border."

It's pretty obvious to me that if it appears to be part of the original photo it's not clearly recognizable as a border.


This thread made my head hurt.

I dont think that much white can be counted as a border, well not in my world anyway. Your border has changed the image completely and to me the thin line around the edge is the border, everything inside looks like you shot it - I know its a slightly diffrenent shade of white, but that isnt all that noticable.

"Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border." Which it isnt. Sorry, it was a funky image & a dq sucks, but to me it did break the rules.

08/12/2009 04:54:44 AM · #69
Originally posted by Judi:
Damn...it's like pulling teeth....I'm out of here!

WAIT! I need a molar extraction!
 08/12/2009 04:57:02 AM · #70
Originally posted by Starbanana:
"Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border." Which it isnt.

Yeah, I can't continue to argue with that. Seems settled. But I still think this thread should continue...
 08/12/2009 05:05:58 AM · #71
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Starbanana:
"Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border." Which it isnt.

Yeah, I can't continue to argue with that. Seems settled. But I still think this thread should continue...


Ok let me clear one thing up here I am NOT saying I should not have been DQd.

I am saying that there is no clear quantative distinction in the rules that states at what point a legal border becomes illegal.
 08/12/2009 06:27:24 AM · #72
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I am saying that there is no clear quantative distinction in the rules that states at what point a legal border becomes illegal.


Because there is no such point. Either it's recognizable, or not. Clearly means that everybody should recognize it as a border, not just the photographer ;-)

Originally posted by BeeCee:
It's pretty obvious to me that if it appears to be part of the original photo it's not clearly recognizable as a border.


This seems obvious indeed.

08/12/2009 06:37:47 AM · #73
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
Originally posted by Lutchenko:
I am saying that there is no clear quantative distinction in the rules that states at what point a legal border becomes illegal.


Because there is no such point. Either it's recognizable, or not. Clearly means that everybody should recognize it as a border, not just the photographer ;-)

Originally posted by BeeCee:
It's pretty obvious to me that if it appears to be part of the original photo it's not clearly recognizable as a border.


This seems obvious indeed.


Totally subjective as what one person recognizes as something another may not, and based on your definiton "Everybody" would have to be polled in order to determine legality.
Remember that just because you interpret someting in a particular way does not mean that everyone else would.

08/12/2009 07:03:23 AM · #74
It would be clearer if we simply didn't add borders of any type.

For my part I assumed originally that the border was that thin black line...which is nice

But from the original I see that the border is that massive white area which I originally thought was jolly clever lighting. Being new to this photogrpahy lark I'm struggling to get quality whited out backgrounds ... its a photographic skill I've yet to master.

Which I'm guessing is why in this case the image was disqualified because the border is actually part of the photograph rather than a simple framing aid.

Pity ... I think its a great image.
 08/12/2009 07:08:08 AM · #75
This isn't super hard to determine. If the border is ambiguous it's a probable DQ. Ask somebody you know who didn't know what your process was "does this have a border? Show it to me"

I don't think anybody would have guessed the white area was border.

Message edited by author 2009-08-12 07:09:08.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/27/2025 02:46:09 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: 09/27/2025 02:46:09 PM EDT.