DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Disqualified
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 53, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/06/2003 04:07:05 AM · #26
Originally posted by e301:
I think the reason there is this rule about borders is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, if you'll excuse the pun. Obviously, the intention is to promote photography over digital manipulation of photos: so at some point there has to be a rule that says 'this is as far as you can go'.


Easy to say in principle, the hard part is actually writing a fair, clear, uniformly enforceable rule that will not result in us having to do multiple disqualifications every week for honest mistakes. If you have any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. So far, this is the best we've come up with, and it seems pretty good as this is the first controversy we've had over it since it went into effect. Past versions of the rule raised issues almost weekly.

-Terry
 03/06/2003 06:28:49 AM · #27
Terry -

that was an attempt at an explanation of the reasons for the border rule, rather than a suggestion. I think it's pretty fair: though I also think it would be a shame for it to lead to the disqualification of the particular shot in question.

Ed
 03/06/2003 06:55:52 AM · #28
Here's a suggestion:
"Your submission may include a border, but the border must be straight and may not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork."
03/06/2003 07:13:29 AM · #29
How about this: "Your picture may not include borders." It solves all of these problems and doesn't allow for interpretation and constant wondering about the rule. It also leads back to the theme of TAKING a good picture, not one that needs a border to stand as a great shot.

M
 03/06/2003 10:09:33 AM · #30
Okay - I didn't know I would start all of this - I was just looking for clarification on the rules.

1. No, I am absolutely NOT asking for sympathy voting of any kind. I received the notification, thought it was a done-deal, and asked the question. As far as I know, they WILL be disqualified, so the votes don't matter anyway.

2. Border changes the image...yes and no. In my comments, I have some people who like the border, some who hate it, and most who are angry that I used it at all.

3. Again, I am NEW, and I wasn't sure on the rules. That's it...end of story. Please stop emailing me saying you are angry that I am searching for sympathy votes. That is not my style, and I'm sure my photos won't stick it out. I'm sorry to those of you who think I was using this as a ploy for votes, because that is simply not the case.

Tara
 03/06/2003 10:43:27 AM · #31
Hi Tara

I really don't understand why this story has taken such proportion. I read all your posts and to me, you simply looked a bit deceived and searching for an explanation for the future. In no way did I think you were searching for pity or anything sympathy votes. Disregards those comments. It's just a possible illegal border added, not a cheating case here. Head up and get ready for the next challenges. If the administration have something to clear in the rules, they certainly will.

Good luck

03/06/2003 11:43:54 AM · #32
Both photos in question have recieved Admin notes. Looks as if there will NOT be a DQ on these photos.
For future reference, it's best to not discuss photos in current voting, for the reason that they may not get fair judgement. I understand why you did, and hope that nothing like this happens again. Good luck with your photos.
~Heather~
 03/06/2003 12:08:44 PM · #33
I am surprised they received notes, and although I'm relieved, I'm really sorry for all the hassle it's caused. Thanks for putting up with me anyway - lots of lessons learned here.
 03/06/2003 12:56:47 PM · #34
Hmm...De'Javu
 03/06/2003 06:29:58 PM · #35
I admit I am more confused now than before. I like those pictures do not get me wrong and the photograph has all my sympathy but I do not understand why they are not disqualified . Does it mean that a fading effect filter like this one not applying on the whole picture is valid ?

If it's a border, the rules says no art in the border ( the actual photograph is in the border), and if it's not a border the rules says no filter effect like this one.

Lionel

Message edited by author 2003-03-06 18:39:27.
 03/06/2003 06:42:32 PM · #36
Originally posted by mavrik:
How about this: "Your picture may not include borders." It solves all of these problems and doesn't allow for interpretation and constant wondering about the rule. It also leads back to the theme of TAKING a good picture, not one that needs a border to stand as a great shot.

M


Unfortunately this is not true - the rules allowing borders were introduced to reduce the number of submissions that were being DQed because of borders - intentional or due to cropping errors. I've seen this expressed many times as if a border is going to make the difference between a good and a bad picture - it isn't going to save a bad picture.

If you could search the forums, you'd see that this has been talked to death several times - another reason for borders is that particularly for high or low key images, not having a border and not being able to change the background colour puts those sorts of images at a severe disadvantage.

All this is a long way to say that we tried no borders and that didn't work, and we relaxed the rule to allow specific borders and that made things worse so we further relaxed the rule. In actual fact were we are is perfectly fine - we have a group of people in the site council to sensibly enforce the border rules, I seriously doubt that the pictures in question in this case will be DQed. Future entries that overstep an arbitary mark in each of our own personal interpretation of the rules will be DQed and everything will be fine in the world.
 03/06/2003 06:42:38 PM · #37
Originally posted by lionelm:
I admit I am more confused now than before.


Me too.
 03/08/2003 11:21:19 PM · #38
Originally posted by joanns:
Originally posted by lionelm:
I admit I am more confused now than before.


Me too.


Me three. :) So it looks like the border on those pictures is allowable then. I just noticed an Admin note on both of the pics saying they are allowed. This will open up a whole new look to the pictures I think and will make judging pictures harder I think now because of this new element/look that's allowed. I personally think it was the wrong descision to allow it since they really appear to be altered considerably.
03/09/2003 10:14:27 AM · #39
No disrespect to the photographer involved, but I think Admin has made a terrible mistake in allowing this kind of border. It DOES affect directly the image "inside" it and consequently breaks all the spot editing rules that we've ever had.

Bad bad mistake.

03/09/2003 11:44:25 AM · #40
Originally posted by Jak:
No disrespect to the photographer involved, but I think Admin has made a terrible mistake in allowing this kind of border. It DOES affect directly the image "inside" it and consequently breaks all the spot editing rules that we've ever had.

Bad bad mistake.


I agree.
 03/09/2003 11:56:59 AM · #41
Terry, Gordon et al; there is a simple solution to borders...and the difficulty some people have with leaving a border when cropping their photo.
Allow only one (01) solid color border...any width, any color.
This is simple. It meets the need to delineate some photos from the background. I covers the people who cannot crop without going over the line.
And it is SIMPLE. And it is FAIR to all.
Questions??
03/09/2003 11:58:07 AM · #42
I am one who thinks that this kind of "border" should not be allowed. I feel that it does alter (not the look, but the actual pixels) the original photo. However, I think the reasoning behind this is that it WAS a border, just a semi transparent border. What is to stop people from applying something like this to the entire photo (minus a couple pixels in the middle) and calling it a border??
I do think though that while we had to let it slide this time cause nothing in the rules said anything about it, they MAY make it not legal for future challenges.
Even if it does stay legal, by the response I'm seeing here, I wouldn't recomend using it.
By the way, I LOVED the photos. Excelent photography.
~Heather~
 03/09/2003 12:00:05 PM · #43
Originally posted by JEM:
Terry, Gordon et al; there is a simple solution to borders...and the difficulty some people have with leaving a border when cropping their photo.
Allow only one (01) solid color border...any width, any color.
This is simple. It meets the need to delineate some photos from the background. I covers the people who cannot crop without going over the line.
And it is SIMPLE. And it is FAIR to all.
Questions??


That's how it was when we first started allowing borders, seems that people screwed even that up and we had to DQ a few photos for more than one border. We keep having to change the rules because people can't follow the rules. IF they even read them.
 03/09/2003 12:30:05 PM · #44
Originally posted by Paige:
Originally posted by Jak:
No disrespect to the photographer involved, but I think Admin has made a terrible mistake in allowing this kind of border. It DOES affect directly the image "inside" it and consequently breaks all the spot editing rules that we've ever had.

Bad bad mistake.


I agree.


Me2
 03/09/2003 12:41:06 PM · #45
I think it's really not a good idea as well and I do not understand the thinking behind allowing that one (regardless of the fact that the picture is nice or not)
03/09/2003 12:46:58 PM · #46
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Paige:
Originally posted by Jak:
No disrespect to the photographer involved, but I think Admin has made a terrible mistake in allowing this kind of border. It DOES affect directly the image "inside" it and consequently breaks all the spot editing rules that we've ever had.

Bad bad mistake.


I agree.


Me2


Me3. Almost any filter can be justified as a border.
Sander, what kind of motorcycle are you considering?
 03/09/2003 12:57:38 PM · #47
Repeat: My above recommendation is simple and straightforward. Violations are easily spotted.

Consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds but it does offer the virtue of everyone reading off the same page.

Again, simplify as suggested...then hammer anyone who cannot, or will not, read. Be consistent and the message will penetrate even the most dense DPCer.
 03/09/2003 12:59:42 PM · #48
I am not usually picky about the rules that much but I do no understand at all in this case.

"but the border may not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork .."

03/09/2003 01:15:56 PM · #49
I didn't contribute much to this discussion, but I suspect the final decision was to "let the voters speak." If you disapprove of this bordering technique, lower your vote appropriately.
I predict there will NOT be a rush to apply a technique which leads to this kind of controversy and a mediocre score. Conversely, if the photo ends up in the top five, then clearly the vast majority of the voters don't have a problem with a true "anything goes" approach to bordering.
 03/09/2003 01:52:42 PM · #50
ok but then that a 90 degres turn from previously.
We always let the voters rules ... except for the rules that had to be followed.

I am fine with any decision including letting that one go, but it's still look to me against the rules and more than the previous cases when it was a one pixel border. The site was 'consistent' with itself previously which I liked a lot.

I just hope that it's not an open door to heavy photoshop filters and endless controversies (I am stopping personnaly on this one, I was just trying to understand the reason).

Lionel
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 03:33:35 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/29/2025 03:33:35 PM EDT.