DQ for a border? - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

08/12/2009 10:26:29 AM · #101

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

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

Too bad you didn't use a white bg to start with instead of the blue, then you'd had no problem at all. As it is now, it seems that you replaced one bg for another.

Clever idea BTW. :-)

Agreed and the truth of the matter is I only ever intended to use a thin border which is why I didn't bother with the white card bg, but after playing around it looked better they way it came out.
I'm not complaining about the DQ I just think the border rule makes for an interesting debate

You've been given some good answers.

You may add a border according to the rules
Originally posted by according to the rules:
add a border to the outside edge of your entry. Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border

Your border isn't distinct and clearly recognizable. In fact, you extended the canvas, altering the composition of the shot, as you, yourself noted.

This violates part of this rule
Originally posted by according to the rules:
use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didnâ��t already exist in your original capture(s).

It was a good shot, and an unfortunate dq, especially as it could have been done just as easily "legally."

To repeat...

I'm not questioning the DQ I was just suggesting the rule is vague and was interested in the opinion of others for the sake of a discussion.

However I do think that white space in my pic is a clear representation of the border along the Rio Grande.... and therefore ok (before anyone kicks off that was a joke)

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

08/12/2009 11:06:49 AM · #102

And I'm not "defending" the dq, per se, I'm simply telling you *why* it was dq'ed and explaining that it is not as ambiguous as you are claiming, based upon your own explanation. If it changes the composition, it is too much.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/12/2009 11:16:44 AM · #103

Everyone else has done quite a good job of explaining why this was DQ'd...

I have to ask... if this is the effect you wanted:

Why not start with a piece of white construction paper and create the effect for real? It couldn't be that hard to achieve legally.

I'm not trying to sound smart here... I'm just saying that anytime someone submits an entry that has been radically changed from the original (in this case, trying to represent a lot of photographic real estate as being a "border"), you're definitely risking a DQ.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/12/2009 11:19:28 AM · #104

Originally posted by alanfreed:

Everyone else has done quite a good job of explaining why this was DQ'd...

I have to ask... if this is the effect you wanted:

Why not start with a piece of white construction paper and create the effect for real? It couldn't be that hard to achieve legally.

I'm not trying to sound smart here... I'm just saying that anytime someone submits an entry that has been radically changed from the original (in this case, trying to represent a lot of photographic real estate as being a "border"), you're definitely risking a DQ.

My original intention was the three black squares with a small simple border but after messing around with it I could see it looked better as I entered it.
I didn't have time to redo what in essence is a simple shot but would take some time for preparation so I added what I quite genuinely thought would be a legal border.
I'm not questioning it but there you go...

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/12/2009 11:43:47 AM · #105

Originally posted by Lutchenko:

I'm not questioning the DQ I was just suggesting the rule is vague and was interested in the opinion of others for the sake of a discussion.

Well, on that basis alone, I don't think the rule is "vague" at all. If it's not "distinct and clearly recognizable as a border", there's gonna be a DQ. I don't know why we need to be more specific than that. We'd just be stifling creativity, and to what end?

R.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

08/12/2009 11:44:54 AM · #106

I think it was said earlier, but I it's worth repeating. A good rule of thumb is when your border matches or almost completely matches your background, it's not going to be obvious that it's a border.

I had a shot that I took that was too close to the top of the photo. If I put a black border around it, it look much better because it wasn't touching the top anymore. Since my background was black, it extended the canvas and looked more natural. However, when I put a different colored border around it, the subject was still touching the top of the photo, and was even more evident because it was touching the border.

Regardless of the reason for doing it, a border that matches or almost completely matches the background makes it so you can't tell where the border starts and stops, and thus is dq'able.

08/12/2009 11:53:59 AM · #107

Originally posted by vawendy:

Regardless of the reason for doing it, a border that matches or almost completely matches the background makes it so you can't tell where the border starts and stops, and thus is dq'able.

Very true but mine was a white border next to a predominately black part of the image.

VitaminB

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/12/2009 12:15:30 PM · #108

I havent read all the posts, so I am not following the conversation much, but I just wanted to leave my opinion on this.

When I look at the photo, it looks like three little photos beside each other, almost like a triptych. The black boxes around the clock looks like a border, and the black box around the entire photo looks like a border, but the white doesnt strike me as a border at all, rather, it looks like part of the photo. I think that is why the DQ stands, and I think the rule isnt vague at all, because it states that the border has to be clearly recognized as a border, and IMO the white part added, doesnt look like a border

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/12/2009 12:17:53 PM · #109

Originally posted by VitaminB:

I'm not disagreeing with the finding all I was doing here was starting a discussion about "when does a legal border become illegal canvas addition" and more than
just "when it appears to be canvas extension" as that is way too vague for me lol

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

08/12/2009 12:30:53 PM · #110

Originally posted by VitaminB:

When I look at the photo, it looks like three little photos beside each other, almost like a triptych. The black boxes around the clock looks like a border, and the black box around the entire photo looks like a border, but the white doesnt strike me as a border at all, rather, it looks like part of the photo.

Exactly... any addition that looks like part of the photo will ALWAYS fail the "Clearly recognizable as a border" requirement.

dougi555

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

08/13/2009 05:30:43 PM · #111

irrespective of all the debate............it's a great image!

jhomrighaus

Nikon D5300

Sigma 18-300mm f3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM

08/13/2009 10:11:28 PM · #112

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

...........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.

I really think this is the core of it all, if a person were to just look at the photo they would think it was a large white sheet with 3 black bordered holes that you photographed, then added that nice black border around your "Photo". I know that was my first impression of it, and upon reading your process description was very confused. If any given person is likely to confuse your border as part of the photo then the border is now illegal, its actually far more simple than you are trying to make it out to be, you may not like it, but its pretty easy to understand.

George

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

08/13/2009 10:36:06 PM · #113

Are you all still arguing this? Seriously?

IMO, the white border adds to the composition. The image becomes semi-minimalist because the border is larger than the original AND the image is off-center. Perhaps you should've used a white card with a cutout that had the same effect as that border? Even if it led to shading that you could not blow out or clone, at it wouldn't have led to a DQ. And in my opinion, a little shading would have improved it, the same way a solid-color background with a little lighting on it can improve portraits.

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

08/13/2009 11:01:19 PM · #114

To me, it's not appearing to be a border, but part of the photo in Step One.

I think it's because of the irregularity of the border leading me to believe that it's paper or some sort of cardstock blocking the image.

I just call 'em as I see 'em.

And I'm glad I'm not on the SC.

senor_kasper

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/13/2009 11:15:03 PM · #115

This would have been legal right? (Sorry Art, couldn't help it)

vlado

Canon EOS-70D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

08/13/2009 11:20:06 PM · #116

Originally posted by senor_kasper:

This would have been legal right? (Sorry Art, couldn't help it)

Great! Just when I thought this thread was on its deathbed, now you go and stir up the whole "existing artwork" debacle... ;)

senor_kasper

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

08/13/2009 11:26:29 PM · #117

I think it is a lame effort. I wonder how Art would have done it.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/14/2009 04:29:37 AM · #118

ahmadbaara

Nikon D90

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

08/14/2009 06:12:32 AM · #119

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Timeless XD

senor_kasper