Macro XIII Results Recalculated - DPChallenge Forums

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

08/19/2025 09:56:49 PM · #1

Unfortunately, the former 3rd place entry has been DQ'd.

Congratulations to the new Ribbon winner and Honorable Mention.

LevT

OM System OM-1

08/19/2025 10:07:42 PM · #2

Sorry to hear that!
“Use of an automated editing tool made unintended changes (unallowed) to the image.”
Can someone explain what happened, so we don’t inadvertently make the same mistake?

Message edited by author 2025-08-19 22:08:21.

GolferDDS

Canon EOS R5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/20/2025 04:42:15 AM · #3

Originally posted by LevT:

Sorry to hear that!
“Use of an automated editing tool made unintended changes (unallowed) to the image.”
Can someone explain what happened, so we don’t inadvertently make the same mistake?

Yes, let me explain my error. There was some water around the head and the leaf of the lantern fly which created a slight opacity which I wanted to selectively dehaze. There are several ways to do this in photoshop; cloning, spot healing, content aware and generative fill. Generative fill is fairly new in photoshop. The problem is that it sometimes adds elements that are unintended. I chose to use generative fill in my editing because it is faster and easier than the other techniques in some cases and frankly I was careless. It changed the appearance of the area by adding unintended elements which in my haste and carelessness I just overlooked. They are minor but make a difference none-the-less. The site council made me aware of the change and I am in total agreement that my entry should have been DQ'd. Had I seen it (which I should have) I could easily have corrected the error before submission.

Here is the original unedited image:

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

08/20/2025 05:21:12 AM · #4

I assume you mean that some of leaf veins weren't there before? It took me quite some time to spot the difference so it is not a major element, just small part of the background. If the original had non transparent spot your image would not have been DQ'd? Or am I misunderstanding the nature of the offense?

nam

Sony DSLR-A580

08/20/2025 09:46:11 AM · #5

Originally posted by MargaretNet:

I had to go back and forth, too, but I think I spotted the problem. It's not leaf veins but rather a couple of small, black things (for want of a better word) that could almost be short antennae, not there at all in the original. Am I correct?

LevT

OM System OM-1

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

08/20/2025 10:36:03 AM · #6

Originally posted by nam:

Yes, I think you're right. Those protrusions are so tiny, no wonder that Larry overlooked them, I probably would've too. A dangerous tool, this grnerative fill! It tried to sneak in things too a few times when I tried to just fill in the featureless background next to something else, thankfully they were not that tiny.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

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

08/20/2025 12:06:56 PM · #7

Hmmm... I understand the double and triple checking of the AI, but I do question this. Previously, we would clone to do this, and that wasn't perfect.

The small antenna, would be an added element, though it seems like it really didn't change the photo.

But can the SC please chip in: if the leaf veins were a little different, would that be enough to DQ it? I've certainly cloned things out that haven't been perfect before. And I'm curious how strict this is going to be?

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens

08/20/2025 12:49:04 PM · #8

Good conversation, and thank you Larry for the additional details. That is appreciated.

Let's look at this side-by-side at scale (the cropped 1200 version).

The question was asked about the leaf vein changes being enough to DQ this; can't say for sure. I know it would have been discussed. IMO, it probably would have been validated, although don't take that as an absolute because we do discuss and try to come to a consensus. When there's a stalemate we vote on it.

The thing that pushed it over the edge was the added elements (the antennae's).

Please remember, when you use automated editing tools, check the results / changes. You're responsible for the final product.

skewsme

Canon EOS-6D

08/20/2025 01:07:42 PM · #9

Not making much sense to me. Way too small and insignificant. How many portraiteers put eyelashes on people? Catchlights? Tons of waves and curves from Denoise and Clean. Humongous overbearing vignettes.

And then there is this:

08/20/2025 01:21:46 PM · #10

Yes, I think the DQ was more about using AI than about introducing a major element into the image that wasn't there before, nitpicking, I say! ;) Reinstate Larry's image!

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

08/20/2025 01:34:30 PM · #11

One more comment - I know you are all new to validations and still finding your legs but please, be like Bear, wise and broad minded. All DPCers will appreciate that.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

08/20/2025 01:34:42 PM · #12

The SC has a lot to deal with at the moment. Change-over in people, new AI stuff. I appreciate all you do, and the difficulties.

My only concern is that we have gone from not making major changes, to allowing huge amounts of things to be removed from a scene, which probably wasn't always perfect in how they were accomplished, to being very nitpick-y.

May I make a suggestion? If the AI change is something that could have been done sooooooo much more painstakingly in another way, and if the resulting changes are pretty much insignificant and would not at all affect the description of the scene or the object, that a person receive a friendly heads-up the first time, that the example be posted for public consumption and that it's not DQd because it is so insignificant.

I know that in the past I've cloned out feathers, cloned out atenna that changed the bug, but didn't matter because it was cloning out.

Something this tiny is definitely something to be aware of and be watched for, but I'm not sure that anyone would think it's an issue for the placement of the photo.

But the person is then on notice to not let it happen again.

Just a thought.

08/20/2025 02:20:30 PM · #13

Originally posted by MargaretNet:

Yes, I think the DQ was more about using AI than about introducing a major element into the image that wasn't there before, nitpicking, I say! ;) Reinstate Larry's image!

Of course you would say that. Expect nothing other than. LOL

08/20/2025 02:24:18 PM · #14

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by MargaretNet:
Yes, I think the DQ was more about using AI than about introducing a major element into the image that wasn't there before, nitpicking, I say! ;) Reinstate Larry's image!

Of course you would say that. Expect nothing other than. LOL

Barry at his best.

08/20/2025 02:26:10 PM · #15

Originally posted by vawendy:

You mention a lot of REMOVING (cloning) of elements, and that's been allowed for a long time.

As for ADDING new elements to a challenge entry, that's allowed in Extended editing. If it was allowed elsewhere where would the line be drawn? What is tiny or small to one may mean more to another. If the item is only 25 pixels, it's ok? What about 35 pixels, or 60, etc.? There has to be a line, and that line is (currently) no new elements in Standard editing (and of course, Minimal).

08/20/2025 02:27:00 PM · #16

Originally posted by MargaretNet:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by MargaretNet:
Yes, I think the DQ was more about using AI than about introducing a major element into the image that wasn't there before, nitpicking, I say! ;) Reinstate Larry's image!

Of course you would say that. Expect nothing other than. LOL

Barry at his best.

Oh Margaret, how I've missed you so. :-D

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/20/2025 02:30:01 PM · #17

Originally posted by MargaretNet:

One more comment - I know you are all new to validations and still finding your legs but please, be like Bear, wise and broad minded. All DPCers will appreciate that.

This

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/20/2025 02:36:05 PM · #18

Originally posted by MargaretNet:

Originally posted by MargaretNet:
One more comment - I know you are all new to validations and still finding your legs but please, be like Bear, wise and broad minded. All DPCers will appreciate that.

This

There was an extensive discussion about this, but in any event this was a results-based decision, the tool(s) used have/had no bearing on it; a feature was added which is a rules violation, even if done "accidentally" ...

GolferDDS

Canon EOS R5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/20/2025 08:12:26 PM · #19

Very interesting comments lead me to realize that many others have had similar experiences as I did but the issue did not come up. I feel that IN THE FUTURE some of the antiquated rules need to be addressed and modified, for instance, GeneralE\'s comment that \"if a feature is added it is a rules violation\". This rule has been in place since 2002 but what exactly is an added feature with all the new technology? How big does it have to be to be considered an added feature? The rules state that in cloning you can remove an object as long as you replace it with what would have been there if the obstruction wasn\'t there. Do we really know what is behind everything we clone out? For example, if there is mud on a dog can we remove the mud and know exactly the pattern of hair underneath? It\'s a guess. Did the generative fill assume that under the water glare that I removed in my picture that there were tiny antennae practically unseen by the human eye!! We can probably discuss an unlimited number of examples of the guesswork that goes into a well done cloning edit. The site council has the unpleasant task of making this very subjective decision. Why is it OK ( Per glad2badad) to change the vein pattern on the leaf? Isn\'t that a subjective decision? And as he stated what size does the added feature need to be before it is considered an \"added feature\"? There needs to be greater clarification or relaxing of these rules. For instance, at what point does a change alter the \"description of the scene or the subject\". Every cloning technique causes an \"addition\" at some level. If we do not address this problem than everyone will be 2nd guessing themselves on every editing step. No one likes to be DQ\'d over a poorly defined or questionable rule\'s violation that the SC needed to have \"extensive discussions\" about.
In conclusion, I am not suggesting that my DQ be reversed. I understand the reasoning based on the past. It is an opportunity to discuss how we can move forward!

Message edited by author 2025-08-20 20:14:46.

08/20/2025 08:43:04 PM · #20

Originally posted by GolferDDS:

How big does it have to be to be considered an added feature?

If we can see it, and it didn't exist on the original, it's probably an added element and is not allowed.

Regarding cloning ... we allow some leniency with cloning (hard to match exactly sometimes) so the veins area would probably have been ok (as I stated in my earlier post).

Note the word 'probably' is used. That's because this isn't an exact science and we're human. That's why we have an SC body to discuss these things.

Originally posted by GolferDDS:

... And as he stated what size does the added ...

I believe you've taken my comments on added elements out of context so I'm going to simply repost that piece as follows:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

As for ADDING new elements to a challenge entry, that's allowed in Extended editing. If it was allowed elsewhere where would the line be drawn? What is tiny or small to one may mean more to another. If the item is only 25 pixels, it's ok? What about 35 pixels, or 60, etc.? There has to be a line, and that line is (currently) no new elements in Standard editing (and of course, Minimal).