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

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Attention Site Council
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 73, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/23/2005 02:29:59 PM · #26
Tommy, there is no detail in the original sky. Even if all you did was use the dodge tool, you've created something (clouds) that didn't exist in the original. This would be no different than dodging a sun into a fog scene. (what Bear said)

Unfortunately, I think you'd have the same (or higher) score if you hadn't touched the sky.

Message edited by author 2005-01-23 14:32:04.
 01/23/2005 02:32:20 PM · #27
Originally posted by scalvert:
Tommy, there is no detail in the original sky. Even if all you did was use the dodge tool, you've created something (clouds) that didn't exist in the original. This would be no different than dodging a sun into a fog scene. (what Bear said)


Good point Robt & Shannon. I can understand the DQ now.
 01/23/2005 02:32:57 PM · #28
Originally posted by cbeller:
Originally posted by TommyMoe21:
Nope, just ran across it with a dodge tool.


If that is indeed all you did, I guess I do not see how this is any different than other people dodging and burning the crap out of a photo.

I didn't actually vote on this, but the issue is that in "other photos" the dodge/burn effects accentuate or de-emphasize elements already present. In this photo, entirely new visual elements were created where none existed before. Whether that's done with the dodge tool or the airbrush or the "Render Clouds" clouds filter is irrelevant; the result of of "creating elements" is what drove the decision.

It's true that it's subjective, and that there may be a sizeable percentage of people who might legitimately disagree with it (possibly even myself), but that's the way the rules are set up.

A question: if the clouds were not a "major" addition, why add them at all?
 01/23/2005 02:35:33 PM · #29
When the dodge (or burn) tools are used to modify brightness of particular areas of an image, without changing underlying detail, that's fine. When they are used to create detail where none existed, that is "creating an element." In this case, the majority of the SC felt that the sky was a major element in the photo, and that the change was therefore not legal. It isnt' the tool that's used, it's the final result that matters.
@TommyMoe21: I understand how the loss of a high-scoring photo through a DQ can be upsetting, but please realize that we need to uniformly apply the rules and we do so to the best of our ability. Quite a few of the best photogs on the site have been DQ'd at some point. Consider it a learning experince and move forward.
01/23/2005 02:36:31 PM · #30
Are comments still being wiped out for shots that are DQed? I bet most folks didn't much care for the modifications. The shot was a good one and i think I remember commenting on it.
I'm with Imagineer, you didn't need the mod, but when you have only two elements and you change the character of one of them......
 01/23/2005 02:41:04 PM · #31
Adding clouds where is none to be found is illegal,don't be pissed off,next time wait for real ones :-)
 01/23/2005 02:41:31 PM · #32
Wow, great photos!

I'm going to be unfashionable and say that if both had been 'real' unmodified images, I'd prefer the second because the clouds add some serious depth to the image. So kudos to your processing.

If I were you, I'd just stick with the original (as far as your portfolio goes) as it's more true to the capture...but that's just the way I think.

As for the disqualification, it's been discussed already...I just hope this discussion doesn't begin to display the "jump down your throat" gang mentality that occurs so often in these types of threads on this site.

Message edited by author 2005-01-23 14:42:00.
 01/23/2005 02:41:34 PM · #33
Tommy, I'm sorry about the DQ, but thank you very much for posting this - it was quite the lesson!
I, too, prefer the original version, but didn't think the sky was such a major part.
It was a good reminder about the "not adding anything" part of the rules.
 01/23/2005 02:41:54 PM · #34
Tommy,

Add me to the growing chorus of "the original was better". The clean lines and symmetry of the point of view made that shot. Teh original featureless sky was a perfect background for the clean, simple lines.

Take comfort in the fact that you shot an excellent image. If you do it once, you can do it again. There will be many, many other challenges and other opportunities for you to excel. You have talent and a good eye.

So be pissed off or disappointed (I know I would be) but don't take it out on anybody else. Then move on and take another great picture.

Dave
 01/23/2005 02:49:02 PM · #35
Tommy, I'm sorry you are so upset over this.

This is from the advanced editing rules. "Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. You may not post-process your entry from or to include elements of multiple images, multiple exposures, clip art, computer-rendered images, or elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week), and other similar items."

As it clearly states, you cannot use computer-rendered images. The clouds are exactly that as they don't exist in the original image. The clouds were significant enough to be added and so, by the same token, they were clearly considered a major element to the SC. This is not an issue of whether or not the dodge tool can be used but as to how it was used. In this case it was used to create a major part of the scene that didn't previously exist.

An image can be DQ if the original file is requested but then is not provided or if by viewing the original file it is determined that illegal editing was performed on the image. We are not trying to upset anyone but we are enforcing the rules.

Tommy, in the future you may want to rethink how you respond to situations that upset you. You will be better off taking a mature attitude and trying to understand the rules better for next time. When you calm down I hope you will continue to participate on this site, it does have a lot to offer. And the SC is not just a bunch of meanies :)

T

Message edited by author 2005-01-23 14:50:04.
 01/23/2005 02:49:04 PM · #36

This is one of my favorite images here. It was not taken during a storm. It was slightly overcast. I don't think it should be DQ'd either. But to me, this was far more MAJOR than what I did.

Also, this has nothing to do with what it was scoring.

Also, thanks DSA157. But with the new rules, subjective interpritations will get me suspended.

01/23/2005 02:54:46 PM · #37
While I tend to agree that the example posted is overedited, yours has been even more edited...You actually created an object (clouds) whereas heida only accentuated (albeit drastically) what was there...

Take the grace you've been given, or my fears about the degradation of this thread will materialize!

Message edited by author 2005-01-23 14:55:10.
 01/23/2005 02:56:11 PM · #38
In the picture you refer to, the clouds are there, though. In your picture, they were not. Heida (and others using the same technique) simply changed them slightly to bring out different accents. You created something that did not exist in the first place.

I echo the condolences about the dq. It is not mine, or any of the SC's, favorite part of the job, but in order to insure fairness, it is something we have to do.
 01/23/2005 03:07:18 PM · #39
Originally posted by karmat:
In the picture you refer to, the clouds are there, though. In your picture, they were not. Heida (and others using the same technique) simply changed them slightly to bring out different accents...........


I think its was more then a slight change. But, I dont think should have been DQ'ed. But to say it was a slight change is not really correct.
 01/23/2005 03:15:25 PM · #40
wow...the original is MUCH stronger. That being said -- if you dodge and burn existing detail, there's no problem. It looks to me like you used the render clouds filter then maybe dodge/burned that some whereas heida just darkened and lightened objects (clouds) that already existed in her photo.

Sorry about the DQ...and might I add, that original is a KILLER photo!!!
 01/23/2005 03:17:43 PM · #41
It could be argued that she added a storm that wasn't in the oringinal.
 01/23/2005 03:25:52 PM · #42
Originally posted by Niten:
It could be argued that she added a storm that wasn't in the oringinal.


You can't 'add a storm' to a photo. She dodged and burned existing pixels -- she didn't use a filter to render or add in something that wasn't there.
 01/23/2005 03:33:18 PM · #43
What was your submission called? You didn't submit it as archi2, did you?
 01/23/2005 03:33:49 PM · #44
Damn, I like that shot too. It sucks that it was DQ'ed. It's good even without the "clouds". Anyway, I hope you don't leave completely, you have some good stuff.


01/23/2005 03:36:05 PM · #45
Originally posted by deapee:
she didn't use a filter to render or add in something that wasn't there.


I didn't either. All I did was dodge existing pixels. They happened to turn lighter and look like clouds.

It's a new technique to me that really worked well. I'll be using it again when needed. But for sure, not around here.
 01/23/2005 03:48:06 PM · #46
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Niten:
It could be argued that she added a storm that wasn't in the oringinal.


You can't 'add a storm' to a photo. She dodged and burned existing pixels -- she didn't use a filter to render or add in something that wasn't there.


I said that it could be argued. I dont give a rip, so I'm not about to.

Tim
 01/23/2005 04:05:32 PM · #47
Originally posted by karmat:
In the picture you refer to, the clouds are there, though. In your picture, they were not. Heida (and others using the same technique) simply changed them slightly to bring out different accents. You created something that did not exist in the first place. ...

Sorry, but I have to agree with Tom that there is little to no difference between his adding clouds that weren't needed to have a strong photo, and heida adding a 'divine halo' around her angel that wasn't needed.

@Tom: the original is very strong, with the interplay of rigid lines and convergences -- but by adding the 'clouds' the image just seems to have been dirtied up a bit. It is just not a clean compositionally as the original. Also, if you had waited for an overcast day, the image would have suffered by not having the contrast of light and shaded halves -- the original is much better. Thanks for posting it. :)

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by TommyMoe21:
They deleted it.

Actually, it's just "hidden" for now.

Per the new rules it will be back in a few hours, right?

David
 01/23/2005 04:20:28 PM · #48
Originally posted by TommyMoe21:
Originally posted by deapee:
she didn't use a filter to render or add in something that wasn't there.


I didn't either. All I did was dodge existing pixels. They happened to turn lighter and look like clouds.


Your original sky is just as smooth as can be. There is no detail to be brought out or enhanced. The only way to get clouds out of that original would be to use a cloud filter or "draw" them in with a tool. That's quite a bit different than burning existing clouds to make them darker. If I doged certain areas in a photo and it happened to form a window frame or person's shadow where none existed before, then I would expect a DQ, too.
 01/23/2005 04:42:39 PM · #49
I just want to emphasize that many of the decisions of the SC are subjective and that is exactly why there are many of us that vote on most of these decisions. I personally think that this particular image is pretty black and white because there simply were not any clouds in the sky to began with. You can't enhance or fix something that never was there. However, the image with the stormy clouds forming the halo seems much more subjective to me because it could be interpreted in more then one way. They were effecting the values of parts of the already existing clouds but they were doing it in order to create a very unnatural or supernatural halo around the figure. It's a fantastic photo but I feel it goes a bit too far and enters into the digital art category. As I said, these are subjective but that is why we vote. If you don't want controversy there are still a nearly infinite amount of images to create that are well within the rules.

T

01/23/2005 06:38:21 PM · #50
what I'm wondering is how someone was able to discern that the clouds looked fake enough to DQ.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 06:07:31 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: 09/01/2025 06:07:31 PM EDT.