| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2010 12:02:57 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by PGerst:
At the risk of starting a long drawn out argument....
What was the specific difference between the DQ and this:
...for my own understanding. |
This was was back in 2007, and it's my understanding that it wouldn't be validated today -- that the rules have evolved and changed since that challenge. |
Actually, that one was controversial at the time it was validated. Many thought it was a slam dunk DQ. To my knowledge the rules really haven't changed since then in regards to that technique, only the SC's interpretation.
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 00:03:19.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:04:27 AM · #27 |
| Just so everybody knows, my intention was to make it look like I was colouring in with chalk and naturally took the line I did on the petal. I did not see that as creating a new area or breaking any rule at all. Selective desaturation is not against the rules. This has bamboozled me. I really work hard to obey the rules in every sphere of life and conduct, and I still cannot see what has gone on here. Very disappointed. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:05:23 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
To further clarify, the rule:
You May
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it."
is really:
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object (but not parts of an object) within it. |
Then the rule should say this :( |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:06:46 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Would be be legal, then, if he colored that whole petal? |
Yes. |
Shannon, that's really a joke right? |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:07:54 AM · #30 |
| Isn't it funny and ironic that I called this COLOUR INSIDE THE LINES :) |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 05:30:28 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by hotpasta:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Would be be legal, then, if he colored that whole petal? |
Yes. |
Shannon, that's really a joke right? |
So, please show me how the rules state that if you colour something in and not something else it's a DQ. Not trying to be smart...just need to know |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 07:41:02 AM · #32 |
Which is the exact nature of my point. If the SC is going to enforce the rule this way, then it needs to be very clearly stated. It is not intuitive by the current wording that what you did was against the rules.
Again, as I stated before, based on the rules there is no justification for your DQ. That justification only comes from examining the forums, which should not be a prerequisite for an entry.
Just imagine how a new user would feel receiving a blue ribbon early in their tenure to have to taken away by an ambiguous interpretation.
Originally posted by hotpasta:
I really work hard to obey the rules in every sphere of life and conduct, and I still cannot see what has gone on here. Very disappointed. |
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 07:56:27 AM · #33 |
As a new user, my own experience with the brutal scoring has been discouraging as well as disappointing.
Fortunately I have been able to go down in score each week so far, so I am not in any real concerns over loosing a ribbon, even a brown one.
That would be so very unenjoyable.
Since I can not tell at all what he did wrong, or more importantly, what he could have done differently to avoid the DQ,
I think it discourages creativity. Forces more of that "thinking inside the tight little box"
If you can not clearly state where and how the violation occurred, I question the validity of the offense.
I think if you appealed it to the users for a vote, they would overwhelmingly vote the image did NOT DQ.
Great image, worthy of the Blue BTW. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 10:47:11 AM · #34 |
I don't think it is a hard rule to enforce; nor do I think that it is being applied subjectively - quite the opposite really since even subtle transgressions get DQ'd. No interpretation needed.
As the OP noted, I got DQ'd for the same technique - it took me a little while to get my head around why, but once I did it became very clear. The interesting thing is that I know that I would never fall foul again because the rule is very unambiguous and easy to work around. I'm also pretty sure that Enzo will never fall foul of this rule again either.
In terms of answering  amsterdamman's query about how to avoid this - Don't create a new image area. If you've made an edit that would allow you to trace your cursor around an area that wasn't defined and discrete in the original image then you've broken that rule. Or, perhaps more simply, never create a new boundary anywhere in your image.
I don't think I've said anything that hasn't already been said but perhaps different wording helps? |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 10:56:53 AM · #35 |
I wonder exactly how much outside the lines is too much. There's no perfectly bounded selective desaturation. Especially when something might be a bit out of focus boundaries can be quite unclear.
Senor Kasper made asked a good question which I think was mostly ignored.
Was it the part in the blue triangle that had this disqualified?
I think the rules are clear enough (sorry to disagree with many folk).
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it."
I don't see any ambiguity in this. An object is a petal, flower, person, table, toy, the sky, a face, but an object is not parts or sections of these.
Where ambiguity may lie is with this one
Had the photographer edited the whole lower lip would that have sufficed? Or would upper and lower lips have to have been done?
I think as you have two lips you'd've only needed to have done the bottom one (in the same sense that if there were 10 petals in the photo of this discussion you wouldn't have to have saturated the 10 of them).
I dunno. Sorry for your DQ, Enzo.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 10:56:59 AM · #36 |
I thought I understood, but now I'm a little confused. Didn't he actually select a discreet area that was already boundaried? I originally thought that it was because the flower petal was cut in half. But that flower petal is already cut in half by the chalk. Didn't he just select the part of the petal that had boundaries of the other petals and the chalk? Now I'm a little confused...
for that matter, in Paul's photo the part of the lip that is colored is separated out because the lower lip is separated by a line and the crayon. Would this have been legal if the bottom lip was red, but not the top? Or are the lips one contiguous item and they have to be treated the same? I'm not trying to stir up something, I thought I understood the problem, but now it's getting a little fuzzy...
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 10:59:52.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 11:02:54 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
for that matter, in Paul's photo the part of the lip that is colored is separated out because the lower lip is separated by a line and the crayon. Would this have been legal if the bottom lip was red, but not the top? Or are the lips one contiguous item and they have to be treated the same? I'm not trying to stir up something, I thought I understood the problem, but now it's getting a little fuzzy... |
I think an object is an object regardless if it's cut off by a crayon. Suppose it was a cup and the sight of the cup was cut in half by a crayon, I think you'd need to colour the whole cup.
But, if the cup was broken, you'd only need to colour whatever shards you want to colour. But you'd need to do the whole thing. A shard is an object.
(is it shards of cups as well as glass?)
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 11:03:51.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 11:05:30 AM · #38 |
The intent of the "no creation of new objects" clause is to prevent the voter from being 'fooled' into thinking the object was in the original photo when it wasn't.
(Robert's red dress with white dots is a good example.)
It was obvious to all voters Enzo did selective desaturation in his entry - no viewer was fooled into thinking otherwise. Enzo's photo falls well within the intent of the rule and should be allowed.
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 11:09:17. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 11:12:01 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
The intent of the "no creation of new objects" clause is to prevent the voter from being 'fooled' into thinking the object was in the original photo when it wasn't.
(Robert's red dress with white dots is a good example.)
It was obvious to all voters Enzo did selective desaturation in his entry - no viewer was fooled into thinking otherwise. Enzo's photo falls well within the intent of the rule and should be allowed. |
Fully agree, but the rule has been applied on other images in a consistent manner with this DQ. I do not agree with the rule and the way it gets applied however it is the rule. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 11:13:02 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I thought I understood, but now I'm a little confused. Didn't he actually select a discreet area that was already boundaried? I originally thought that it was because the flower petal was cut in half. But that flower petal is already cut in half by the chalk. Didn't he just select the part of the petal that had boundaries of the other petals and the chalk? Now I'm a little confused...
|
It's that sharp line from the stem to the crayon that's the only problem I can see (I'm assuming it didn't exist in the original). The actual boundary of the petal is the little curve on the side. Hard luck! |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 11:16:21 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
The intent of the "no creation of new objects" clause is to prevent the voter from being 'fooled' into thinking the object was in the original photo when it wasn't.
(Robert's red dress with white dots is a good example.)
It was obvious to all voters Enzo did selective desaturation in his entry - no viewer was fooled into thinking otherwise. Enzo's photo falls well within the intent of the rule and should be allowed. |
Ah, but it's unfair to judge on something subjective... the rules need to apply to everyone.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 11:26:39 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
The intent of the "no creation of new objects" clause is to prevent the voter from being 'fooled' into thinking the object was in the original photo when it wasn't.
(Robert's red dress with white dots is a good example.)
It was obvious to all voters Enzo did selective desaturation in his entry - no viewer was fooled into thinking otherwise. Enzo's photo falls well within the intent of the rule and should be allowed. |
Fully agree, but the rule has been applied on other images in a consistent manner with this DQ. I do not agree with the rule and the way it gets applied however it is the rule. |
The intent has to be considered, otherwise the rule-interpretation process becomes an exercise in anality.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 11:31:31 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
The intent of the "no creation of new objects" clause is to prevent the voter from being 'fooled' into thinking the object was in the original photo when it wasn't.
(Robert's red dress with white dots is a good example.)
It was obvious to all voters Enzo did selective desaturation in his entry - no viewer was fooled into thinking otherwise. Enzo's photo falls well within the intent of the rule and should be allowed. |
Ah, but it's unfair to judge on something subjective... the rules need to apply to everyone. |
Not subjective at all when the process is obvious. "Subjective" is the use of adjustment layer masks which allow for non-boundary selective color adjustments at less than 100% opacity. Much more room for interpretation.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 11:40:47 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
The intent of the "no creation of new objects" clause is to prevent the voter from being 'fooled' into thinking the object was in the original photo when it wasn't.
(Robert's red dress with white dots is a good example.)
It was obvious to all voters Enzo did selective desaturation in his entry - no viewer was fooled into thinking otherwise. Enzo's photo falls well within the intent of the rule and should be allowed. |
Fully agree, but the rule has been applied on other images in a consistent manner with this DQ. I do not agree with the rule and the way it gets applied however it is the rule. |
The intent has to be considered, otherwise the rule-interpretation process becomes an exercise in anality. |
I agree but the SC has shown in the past their intent in how the rule is going to be applied and changing that now would be even worse. The outcome of this ruling is consistent with past decisions so they did what was right, should the rule be changed I say yes! |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 12:09:06 PM · #45 |
So what was the new object created in the photo? I see the same petal. I see the same flower. The color was different but simply because that was the intention. Does changing the color change the shape? If I were to draw a ball, i would draw a circle. Coloring one half of that circle would not change its shape. It would still be a circle. There would be no new ball created either. If we allow selective desaturation, then we should allow the user to "select" the portion to desaturate, no exceptions, or not at all. I understand the point of the red dress and white dots, but i dont think this is the same thing. Enzo did not create a new petal. The petals were all originally there, with their shapes intact. Even the lipstick in the other example, im having a hard time convincing myself 100% that there was a new shape created. It's still the same set of lips, with selective desat/sat. It's not like the photog added a wart, or a pimple, or a drop of blood. It's the same object with selective color adjustments. And same shape also.
I agree with the color within the lines interpretation. Changing the colors of objects outside their natural shape boundary, indeed, changes the shape of the object. But enzo's work did not change the color of the petals outside the boundaries of each individual petal. The rightmost petal was "in the process" of being colored, like a circle being colored halfway, All color adjustments were well within the natural boundaries of the shape of the petal.
ETA:
Disclaimer: This is an opinion from someone who just won the brown for this challenge :) hehehe.
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 12:14:25. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 12:16:24 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
To further clarify, the rule:
You May
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it."
is really:
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object (but not parts of an object) within it. |
I agree! If Enzo's image is validly DQ'd, then the rule does not state that partial desat of an image is not allowed.
If someone asked me if there was a new object in the image from the original, I'd not even hesitate to say no. There is no new object. The petal is still the petal even though only half is colored.
I'm glad you're balking at the DQ, Enzo... and even more glad that you're doing it with class. (But, I'm not surprised.) |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 12:22:21 PM · #47 |
Just restating what I said below (sorry to sound like a broken record, this point just can't get lost in the postings)
Their ruling may be consistent, and there is no arguring that, but based on the wording of the rule set, it is one that can only be understood by reading previous forum topics. The rule needs to be clarified or linked to previous forums as suggested by myself and Bear.
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I agree but the SC has shown in the past their intent in how the rule is going to be applied and changing that now would be even worse. The outcome of this ruling is consistent with past decisions so they did what was right, should the rule be changed I say yes! |
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 12:28:54 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I agree but the SC has shown in the past their intent in how the rule is going to be applied and changing that now would be even worse. The outcome of this ruling is consistent with past decisions so they did what was right, should the rule be changed I say yes! |
If the rule is going to be followed, without regard to intent, then every desat photo has to be examined at the pixel level to determine if the photog "drew outside the lines" and created a new object.
Somewhere along the line the intent was forgotten.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 12:33:36 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Just restating what I said below (sorry to sound like a broken record, this point just can't get lost in the postings)
Their ruling may be consistent, and there is no arguring that, but based on the wording of the rule set, it is one that can only be understood by reading previous forum topics. The rule needs to be clarified or linked to previous forums as suggested by myself and Bear.
|
Yes, add an explanation/clarification. And give Enzo his ribbon back.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 12:45:42 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by pointandshoot:
Originally posted by PGerst:
Just restating what I said below (sorry to sound like a broken record, this point just can't get lost in the postings)
Their ruling may be consistent, and there is no arguring that, but based on the wording of the rule set, it is one that can only be understood by reading previous forum topics. The rule needs to be clarified or linked to previous forums as suggested by myself and Bear.
|
Yes, add an explanation/clarification. And give Enzo his ribbon back. |
After all is said and done, I think that's the answer. |
|
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 07:01:50 AM EDT.
