| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2010 12:47:10 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
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. |
Do all the other rulings get reversed as well.....? |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 12:51:45 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
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. |
Same here... Please restore Enzo's ribbon, and clarify that damned rule. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:01:30 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Granted that is the rule. But I'm not sure its that clear. Why not restate it:
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object (but not parts of an object) within it."
Originally posted by scalvert:
but you can't stray outside the natural boundaries |
|
Per the above post, the infringement appears to be a single petal being half colored in, even being seperated by the piece of chalk, it's still considered 1 object. That is understandable, but why not point out some of the larger objects that are half desaturated?
I do disagree with this DQ, as I do not think anyone was fooled with new object area, and the object was broken into 2 objects by the piece of chalk.
Per my crappy MS Paint circles, why aren't the Flower stems mentioned? I mean most of the flower stems on the top are green, yet none are green in the bottom? Were these considered seperate objects, being broken up by leaves etc...? There is also a part of the leaf on the right side that isn't green. If anything, I would think that them stems of the flowers would have more of a valid point the part of a petal. Nonetheless, both 'objects' are seperated by other objects, and in my mind that makes them new unique objects that are part of a whole.
If I took a picture of my sexy man face, and selectively desaturated everything except my eyes, would that get DQ'd? I mean, my eyes are on object on my face, but All-in-All, my face is 1 object, my eyes are just a part of the object that is just seperated by my nose and other stuff.
Just my thoughts, I don't clearly understand this DQ. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:02:04 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
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. |
Same here... Please restore Enzo's ribbon, and clarify that damned rule. |
Do all the other rulings get reversed as well.....?
I do not like the rule either but I would much rather there be consistency in rulings, I believe the rule needs to be addressed in some fashion to allow for some latitude but overturning a ruling that was consistent with prior rulings would not be fair either. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:07:56 PM · #55 |
This happens over and over again. The rules need to be linked to their clarifications or you will continue to have these fights whenever there's a DQ.
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 13:22:33.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:11:41 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
OK, just to be clear and for the future, is it the area inside the blue triangle that caused the dq? |
The area below the chalk is also appears to be a new arbitrary shape. You can desaturate the entry or any object within it (a whole petal), but you can't stray outside the natural boundaries for the same reason you can't draw your name or a rainbow in a blank sky. |
OK, just to be clear in the future, This would have been legal, right?
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 13:38:56. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:18:48 PM · #57 |
| This is getting beyond pitiful. It takes a special kind of person to serve as SC and fortunately for me (and you) I'm not that special. But if I were, I'd surely ask myself how Kafkaesque I wanted this to become. And then I'd answer, "That'd be about enough now, thanks." |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:19:20 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
OK, just to be clear and for the future, is it the area inside the blue triangle that caused the dq? |
The area below the chalk is also appears to be a new arbitrary shape. You can desaturate the entry or any object within it (a whole petal), but you can't stray outside the natural boundaries for the same reason you can't draw your name or a rainbow in a blank sky. |
OK, just to be clear in the future, This would have been legal, righ?
|
From my understanding, that still wouldn't pass, as the Petal on the bottom right is white, yet red on the left side. I also have a hard time distinguishing where the petal to the right of it starts and stops clearly. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:21:59 PM · #59 |
. oops, sorry.
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 13:22:27.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 01:32:10 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
OK, just to be clear and for the future, is it the area inside the blue triangle that caused the dq? |
The area below the chalk is also appears to be a new arbitrary shape. You can desaturate the entry or any object within it (a whole petal), but you can't stray outside the natural boundaries for the same reason you can't draw your name or a rainbow in a blank sky. |
OK, just to be clear in the future, This would have been legal, righ?
|
As I understand the rule, I agree that this version would have been legal. The individual petals are either colored or desaturated respectively. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 03:08:04 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I do not like the rule either but I would much rather there be consistency in rulings, I believe the rule needs to be addressed in some fashion to allow for some latitude but overturning a ruling that was consistent with prior rulings would not be fair either. |
But the rulings haven't been consistent as pointed out earlier. See image below.
I know people want to believe that 2007 was back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and thus subject to much different rules back then but has anybody actually checked to see if that was the case?
Here's the rule from 2007 BC
You may saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it.
Here's the rule now:
You may saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it.
Does anybody see a difference?
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 03:16:25 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by yanko:
I know people want to believe that 2007 was back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and thus subject to much different rules back then but has anybody actually checked to see if that was the case? |
The rules may be the same, but the arbiters are not. That entry squeaked by on a very narrow majority, and several of those who validated are no longer on the SC. I seriously doubt it would pass today since this decision and all but one of the examples I posted were unanimous. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 03:19:56 PM · #63 |
Which just provides further testament that the rule needs to be clarified and is too vague.
Originally posted by scalvert:
The rules may be the same, but the arbiters are not. |
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 03:37:25 PM · #64 |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 03:40:48 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... all but one of the examples I posted were unanimous. |
that's disappointing... there may be more damage to the hull than I first suspected.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 03:46:01 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
I know people want to believe that 2007 was back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and thus subject to much different rules back then but has anybody actually checked to see if that was the case? |
The rules may be the same, but the arbiters are not. That entry squeaked by on a very narrow majority, and several of those who validated are no longer on the SC. I seriously doubt it would pass today since this decision and all but one of the examples I posted were unanimous. |
If you guys can't all agree on what the rule means how is anyone else suppose to? I mean lets look at the rule. It doesn't define what an object is nor does it say you can't paint outside of the boundaries of such. Surely the rule can be more clear but you'll probably never make it ironclad, which is why I suggested long ago that there should be a site council rulings page that listed off all prior validations and disqualifications. That way anybody can look and see how a specific rule has been interpreted in the past with actual examples. The data is already there it just needs to be mined and displayed in a more user friendly way. Currently the only recourse you have now is to do a blind search looking for DQed entries one by one or ask some ribbon winners about their experiences or submit a ticket and ask the SC but from my experience unless the question is so obvious (like a newbie never reading the rules) you don't get much help. The responses I have received are of the ilk, well you can try it and see or no guarantees. Submitting to the challenges shouldn't feel like russian roulette.
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 15:49:13.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 03:58:49 PM · #67 |
IMO, its advanced editing. Let use some common sense with these rulings. Its sucks this got DQ'd because of nitpicking color desaturation. All of the previous examples DQ'd or not were great examples of being creative with selective color saturation, none worthy of a DQ.
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 15:59:07. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 04:28:08 PM · #68 |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 04:29:09 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Mystafet:
Per my crappy MS Paint circles, why aren't the Flower stems mentioned? I mean most of the flower stems on the top are green, yet none are green in the bottom? Were these considered seperate objects, being broken up by leaves etc...? There is also a part of the leaf on the right side that isn't green. If anything, I would think that them stems of the flowers would have more of a valid point the part of a petal. Nonetheless, both 'objects' are seperated by other objects, and in my mind that makes them new unique objects that are part of a whole. |
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure when the SC uses the word "object" they really mean shapes.
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 16:30:28.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 04:42:20 PM · #70 |
| I am hoping that common sense prevails on this. Not just for me, but for future dpcers. The SC should make the rule clearer. I am so disappointed. |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 04:46:26 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by yanko:
If you guys can't all agree on what the rule means how is anyone else suppose to? |
Who said we didn't agree on the rule? |
|
|
|
10/26/2010 06:12:26 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
If you guys can't all agree on what the rule means how is anyone else suppose to? |
Who said we didn't agree on the rule? |
Could it possibly be this.....Originally posted by scalvert:
The rules may be the same, but the arbiters are not. That entry squeaked by on a very narrow majority, and several of those who validated are no longer on the SC. I seriously doubt it would pass today since this decision and all but one of the examples I posted were unanimous. |
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 06:26:33 PM · #73 |
It only makes sense that, over time, people and photos push the limits and definitions evolve because of it. Storing the DQ forums in a place where people can access them would make a lot of sense.
If Langdon doesn't want to pull the info together, why not at least create a DQ spot in the forums. Challenge results, current challenge, challenge outtakes, DQ discussions. At least if a new user (or one who's been around for awhile) wants to look up discussions to help clarify things, there'd be one place to look. Yes, I realize that we can do searches, but the search capabilities are not that great, and it takes forever to weed out the chaff. This way there'd be one place to look for discussions like these.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 06:31:49 PM · #74 |
People keep talking about the rule relating to desaturatation when actually the rule Enzo (and others including me) fell foul of was this one:
(You may not) use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).
Specifically, the new image area part.
I think the way it is interpreted now (with no flexibility) is easier and fairer than trying to make a pot-hoc judgement about the intention of the photographer.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2010 06:35:26 PM · #75 |
If a new person comes across the paint roller shot from the 2007 Selective Desat challenge they would be completely screwed. How would they ever know that the interpretation of the rule, whos wording has not changed would be different? They would not know without scouring the forums for threads like this.
This is one of those examples where the ruleset is broken. Not because we can't understand what the ruling is after the fact, but that you need a lot of experience with the site to understand what the ruling would be before the fact.
Message edited by author 2010-10-26 18:35:43. |
|
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 04:05:46 AM EDT.
