| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/05/2025 04:04:15 PM · #1 |
Unfortunately, the former 4th place winner was DQ'd due to extending the 'canvas'.
Congrats to the new HM winner. |
|
|
|
11/05/2025 05:44:06 PM · #2 |
The canvas was not extended, I had a bad choice of words apparantly in my description. I simply cloned out the white left & right edges of the frame (from the softbox that created the rim light on the glass). My cloning had zero effect on the main subject of the photograph. I strongly disagree with your ruling, and I find it hypocritical that you allow filling of gaps in panoramas and removal of objects via cloning which requires artificial creation of new textures, and find that my photo was illegal when all I did was clone out solid white for solid black. Did you even look at the RAW file that I sent in, or just draw conclusions from my text description? I'm am deeply disappointed. And PS, even though I did not do any canvas extension (where image dimensions are increased) - there is no mention of canvas extension in the Standard Editing rules. I am sorry if I sound rude, but I did read the rules beforehand and I was absolutely sure I was within the rules. A lot of effort went into this, and I feel I have been wronged with this disqualification.
Message edited by author 2025-11-05 17:59:18. |
|
|
|
11/05/2025 06:00:02 PM · #3 |
| If all he did was to clone out white regions on the sides of the black backgrpund card, it should be legal. |
|
|
|
11/05/2025 06:39:25 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by LevT:
If all he did was to clone out white regions on the sides of the black backgrpund card, it should be legal. |
I've certainly done similar things. If it wasn't extending the canvas, it would be good to review this decision. |
|
|
|
11/05/2025 06:48:55 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Oligamli:
The canvas was not extended, I had a bad choice of words apparantly in my description. I simply cloned out the white left & right edges of the frame (from the softbox that created the rim light on the glass). My cloning had zero effect on the main subject of the photograph. I strongly disagree with your ruling, and I find it hypocritical that you allow filling of gaps in panoramas and removal of objects via cloning which requires artificial creation of new textures, and find that my photo was illegal when all I did was clone out solid white for solid black. Did you even look at the RAW file that I sent in, or just draw conclusions from my text description? I'm am deeply disappointed. And PS, even though I did not do any canvas extension (where image dimensions are increased) - there is no mention of canvas extension in the Standard Editing rules. I am sorry if I sound rude, but I did read the rules beforehand and I was absolutely sure I was within the rules. A lot of effort went into this, and I feel I have been wronged with this disqualification. |
Of course we looked at the original file. It was evident right away that the black area of the challenge entry was much wider than the original.
Then, based on your comments, it was pretty evident how you came to have the additional black area in the edited version.
Photographer editing steps as listed on submission:
"Image was cropped, black background plate was extended, unwanted milkdrops and dust were removed with a healing brush and finally a black&white conversion." |
|
|
|
11/05/2025 06:59:30 PM · #6 |
| I have asked admin to reevaluate this decision as all of our team members in Imagio I in (the Leage competition), we understand the rules that way that nothing wrong has been done here but the choice of words in the photographers describtionl. English is not our first language. The photographer has sent the original and we hope Admin will have a look at this again. |
|
|
|
11/05/2025 07:42:40 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Oligamli:
The canvas was not extended, I had a bad choice of words apparantly in my description. I simply cloned out the white left & right edges of the frame (from the softbox that created the rim light on the glass). My cloning had zero effect on the main subject of the photograph. I strongly disagree with your ruling, and I find it hypocritical that you allow filling of gaps in panoramas and removal of objects via cloning which requires artificial creation of new textures, and find that my photo was illegal when all I did was clone out solid white for solid black. Did you even look at the RAW file that I sent in, or just draw conclusions from my text description? I'm am deeply disappointed. And PS, even though I did not do any canvas extension (where image dimensions are increased) - there is no mention of canvas extension in the Standard Editing rules. I am sorry if I sound rude, but I did read the rules beforehand and I was absolutely sure I was within the rules. A lot of effort went into this, and I feel I have been wronged with this disqualification. |
Of course we looked at the original file. It was evident right away that the black area of the challenge entry was much wider than the original.
Then, based on your comments, it was pretty evident how you came to have the additional black area in the edited version.
Photographer editing steps as listed on submission:
"Image was cropped, black background plate was extended, unwanted milkdrops and dust were removed with a healing brush and finally a black&white conversion." |
The image has not been "extended", no pixels were added height or width wise. The black area (a physical square black plate) was cloned over parts of the white area of the image to "extend" the plate itself and the full image then cropped down to a pleasing aspect ratio. This is clearly a misunderstanding due to interpretation of the wording of how the edit was done and needs to be re-evaluated properly. |
|
|
|
11/05/2025 09:22:00 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Ragga2000:
I have asked admin to reevaluate this decision as all of our team members in Imagio I in (the Leage competition), we understand the rules that way that nothing wrong has been done here but the choice of words in the photographers describtionl. English is not our first language. The photographer has sent the original and we hope Admin will have a look at this again. |
Thank you. We are discussing it. |
|
|
|
11/05/2025 10:04:47 PM · #9 |
| It's the Site Council’s current position to take the new information in good faith and reverse the DQ. |
|
|
|
11/05/2025 11:47:44 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
It's the Site Council’s current position to take the new information in good faith and reverse the DQ. |
Why do you say "good faith", is there still any doubt? I thought that SC makes decision based on facts, not religion.
I think SC has become a bit overzealous. |
|
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: 11/06/2025 01:50:43 AM EST.
