I am a bit embarressed... - DPChallenge Forums

12/26/2004 08:45:36 PM · #26

So I can clone out anything I want but not move stuff by cloning? I don't really see a difference here.

12/26/2004 08:48:29 PM · #27

No, you can't clone out anything you want. "Major elements" may not be added, moved or removed.

-Terry

12/26/2004 08:53:02 PM · #28

So the rules have changed since Crab entered his shot of the owl or did that get dq'ed?

12/26/2004 08:55:08 PM · #29

Originally posted by Sonifo:

So the rules have changed since Crab entered his shot of the owl or did that get dq'ed?

Link?

12/26/2004 08:59:20 PM · #30

//www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=52122

sorry, it is not an owl, but the fencing was removed and isn't that a major part of the photo?

12/26/2004 09:02:27 PM · #31

with fence

removed

Awesome photo!

12/26/2004 09:21:00 PM · #32

Originally posted by Sonifo:

So the rules have changed since Crab entered his shot of the owl or did that get dq'ed?

They have changed at least three times since then.

Danny's entry was submitted under the December Member Rule Set, which was a prototype for, but quite different than, the current Advanced Editing rules.

The Advanced Editing Rules were not introduced until January 23, 2004, and that version did not include the Major Elements clause. That clause was added in the April 25, 2004 version.

-Terry

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

12/26/2004 09:29:15 PM · #33

ok, since the rules were changed I will shut up.

dipaulk

Canon EOS-5D

12/26/2004 10:58:43 PM · #34

I guess I'm being nosey (or is it nosy? I'm such a bad speller) but how did they know that your photo might not qualify? Did someone ask for the photo to be validated? I know they ask for the first 5 or so to send the originals in, but the voting wasn't over. What made them suspicious? (Is that spelled wrong, too?)

di

AutumnCat

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/26/2004 11:04:28 PM · #35

Originally posted by Sonifo:

with fence

removed

Awesome photo!

Wow - amazing photo.
And I find it even more amazing that the fence in the original could be removed with no evidence.
Cool!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/26/2004 11:16:27 PM · #36

Originally posted by dipaulk:

We generally do not disclose the reasons given on an initial DQ request... but a DQ request came in and at least 3 SC members felt proof was necessary to make a decision.

-Terry

deapee

Kodak V803

12/26/2004 11:17:38 PM · #37

Originally posted by autumncat:

Originally posted by Sonifo:
with fence

removed

Awesome photo!

Wow - amazing photo.
And I find it even more amazing that the fence in the original could be removed with no evidence.
Cool!

I agree -- that's an awesome shot, and an awesome photoshop job. wow

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/27/2004 12:04:49 AM · #38

Re: "cloning out anything you want", the rule's a little fuzzy: using cloning to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable....

From a semantic point of view, any "imperfection" may be removed, minor or major as long as it is not a "distracting element." Not to be anal or anything, but I am currently an editor by trade. I'm sure this isn't what the rulemakers meant.

For example, in the bird photo above, by current rules, the wire is clearly a distracting element, and it's a major one, so it can't be removed. However, if there were only one wire, near the bottom, that might be a "minor" distraction and legally removeable. On the other hand, if the wires were behind the bird, they might classify as a distraction but only a minor one, and off with their heads...

Seems to be a ton of room for nitpicking here...

I'm not sure i could come up with a better wording, though... It seems to me the intent of the rule is pretty clear.

In the title image, the rule was clearly disregarded, as the composition was totally rearranged by the photographer. No that I'm blaming her or anything, I might have made that error myself had I not read this thread and looked more closely at the rule.

(robt)

Message edited by author 2004-12-27 00:05:15.

12/27/2004 12:15:20 AM · #39

You're right, bear_music, I didn't read those rules. I assumed it was ok what I did. I wish I would have known better because I had another shot I had in the challenge up until 8 minutes before 12:00pm. :-(

Oh well. Life goes on. Lesson learned. Hopefully it taught a few others in the process.

12/27/2004 12:16:44 AM · #40

oh wait that other shot might have been illegal too. I will find it real quick and see if it was.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

12/27/2004 12:20:31 AM · #41

Is it legal?

Before

After

heida

Canon EOS-5D

12/27/2004 12:24:01 AM · #42

I think this one would have been legal

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

12/27/2004 12:31:34 AM · #43

I agree... looks legal to me.

deapee

Kodak V803

12/27/2004 12:32:15 AM · #44

same -- legal.

I don't see why you would want to do that though -- it's obviously something that is accessible to you at your home -- just go move whatever it is to the left or right or rip it off and reshoot. Is there a reason that wasn't an option for the one that you did get DQ'd on?