| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2005 12:38:56 PM · #76 |
Painting with a bit of a broad brush on that one perhaps...while I think your statement may be true in some cases, others are simply trying to get a firm grasp on what is allowed and what isn't.
kirbic makes a great suggestion - if you're not sure of what is legal and what isn't, send a note to one of the SC members for clarification. I know I've done that a couple of times when I've had a question that fell into a grey area of the rules. The answers haven't always been what I wanted to hear, but at least they were honest and timely.
My 2 cents.
Originally posted by dr3amz:
spot on - its plain english, those that disagree are merely trying to bend the rules to suit their image. |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:41:13 PM · #77 |
I think the answer to your questions may be found in the beginning of this thread...
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
I guess it wasn't clear from this thread what was the problem with the dq'd image. Was that not done in camera? Or is it the removal of light fixtures only that caused it? |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:44:33 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I think the answer to your questions may be found in the beginning of this thread...
Originally posted by yurasocolov:
I guess it wasn't clear from this thread what was the problem with the dq'd image. Was that not done in camera? Or is it the removal of light fixtures only that caused it? |
|
Very helpful, thank you. :-/ |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:44:46 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The answers haven't always been what I wanted to hear, but at least they were honest and timely. |
and it's better than being dq'd.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:46:49 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
it seems you just don't like the answer. |
To assume that I don't like the answer is totally outrageous. I am totally confused as to what is allowed here now.
It seems you have tried the best but everyone else is confusing me. Talking about zoom blur and radial blur. What was stated is that changing or adding pixels is not allowed and it seems that both images have done so. So if one is dq'ed the other should be as well. All I am saying is no matter how much is changed it is still a major element and it seems that fotoshootme is right people are playing favorites. What is confusing is one is allowed and the other is not. What is the difference between zoom blur and radial blur. If Joey's image didn't have the zoom blur added then it would be a much different image. There was a lot of debate about his image when it won. People were talking about it being digital art. Well it wasn't dq'ed so we assumed that is ok but then someone puts a radial blur on something and it is dq'ed. I am totally confused and it does seem a little unfair for David. I have pm'ed him to let him know that I think it is unfair that one can add zoom blur and not get dq'ed. My opinion is that. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:48:11 PM · #81 |
| it's not a matter of zoom blur vs. radial blur. it's about HOW MUCH of the effect was applied. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:53:15 PM · #82 |
| Isn't there a difference between removal and enhancing? When you offer an advanced editing challege, you should make it clear how much manipulation can be made for artistic significance. And clearly what kind. I also think that photos should be challenged and disqualified before they are posted as winners. For the ethnic purists, perhaps, you ought to offer a challenge in which the photo is submitted straight from the camera. However, I frankly think that digital photography presupposes enhancement. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 12:54:22 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
it's not a matter of zoom blur vs. radial blur. it's about HOW MUCH of the effect was applied. |
you take a picture.
you look at it on your monitor.
you ask, "what do i have to do to this to make this presentable?"
you ask, "what do i have to do to this to make it WOW!!!
you do whatever, then you compare the original to the result.
if they hardly bear a resemblance to each other, you've probably done TOO MUCH |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:04:34 PM · #84 |
Doesn't it all go back to what is a major element? I know it was batted around pretty well in the thread linked below.
Shannon (scalvert) said it pretty well earlier - if you try to describe the photo what would you say?
For the Joey Lawrence image it's a guy screaming.
For the image dq'd in Leading Lines II it's what (fill in the blank)?
If you look at the original image and say the same thing, then I guess the major element wasn't impacted too much. If you come up with something entirely different to describe the original vs the challenge entry then the image WAS impacted too much.
You know what? This IS hard to put into words...oh well, it was fun taking a stab at it anyway.
Have fun and keep smiling! ;^)
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
What happened to the forum post that discussed rule updates that were under review? |
It's right HERE. |
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:08:26 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by rex:
What is confusing is one is allowed and the other is not. What is the difference between zoom blur and radial blur. |
No difference. They're both legal, and they can both be used in an illegal manner. In Joey's shot, the blur was comparatively minor and all major elements of the original are still recognizable in the final. We had a long debate over this one, but it was narrowly validated. In Redmoon's case, the effect was applied to such an extreme that EVERY element except the person was completely obliterated. That would result in a DQ whether he used a blur, clone, dodge or any other tool. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:11:52 PM · #86 |
Isn't this a photography site? Shouldn't we be striving to take better photographs rather than being the best photoshop editors out there.
Shouldn't we be striving as photographers to take a great images that don't need to be digitally turned into something that it wasn't.
Give the Poor guys in the council a break. If they as a group rule that something goes over the limit, then accept it. Try not to stretch the limits all the time.
Remember this is a Fun site, there are no prizes other than Pride. I'm sure the image had tons of positive comments which is normally what we do this for. Next time let's try to create the same image by zooming the lens or using camera movement rather than relying on expensive editing tools. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:16:51 PM · #87 |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 01:17:11 PM · #88 |
| My guess is if you were in second or third and got dq'ed you wouldn't take it so lightly if another entry in another challenge wasn't dq'ed. Instead you are on the positive end of the dq. I can not speak for redmoon but I would be disappointed. My question was regarding how the two are different and scalvert has answered that. So with that I am done with this thread. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 02:04:21 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Ditto, what aKiwi said. |
Second that!
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 02:30:52 PM · #90 |
Wow, Site Council and the rules underfire and I'm not involved... I must be getting soft! ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 02:33:37 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Wow, Site Council and the rules underfire and I'm not involved... I must be getting soft! ;-) |
I would say so! :)
I don't really feel they are under fire per say but with everything the blue ribbon winner said about his editing, I would love to see the original also. I asked him on the picture's page, we'll see what happens. I know it's hard for site council on these and their decision is final but if it does stand I would again, love to see the original just so we can see just how far we can push those boundries, if they were really pushed at all.
Deannda |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 02:45:18 PM · #92 |
Oh my, after reading Pawdrix's post on page two of this thread, I decided to do some sluething on the Blue Ribbon photo to find what was actually in the removed background. After a few phone calls to the NYC Central Park Authority, the results are surprising!!! See for yoruself! You be the judge:
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 02:48:47 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Oh my, after reading Pawdrix's post on page two of this thread, I decided to do some sluething on the Blue Ribbon photo to find what was actually in the removed background. After a few phone calls to the NYC Central Park Authority, the results are surprising!!! See for yoruself! You be the judge:
|
Looks like another "Enquirer exclusive"!!!!! |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 04:17:08 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Oh my, after reading Pawdrix's post on page two of this thread, I decided to do some sluething on the Blue Ribbon photo to find what was actually in the removed background. After a few phone calls to the NYC Central Park Authority, the results are surprising!!! See for yoruself! You be the judge:
|
Looks like another "Enquirer exclusive"!!!!! |
omg, im laughing so hard right now!
This must be a really tough call since its taking SC so long to make a decision...
On redmoon's dq Im sure everyone would be inIterested to see the original but that of course is completely up to him. Otherwise I dont think we (people who have not seen the original) should try to guess what or what wasnt in the original and the effect or extent of blurring. I guess the same thing can be said of muur's blue ribbon shot.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 04:33:30 PM · #95 |
Actually, in the absence of a DQ we may assume it's been allowed to stand. There's NO precedent for SC to come into the forum to announce "Guess what! The blue ribbon shot is LEGAL!" And it would be a bad precedent to start... I find this aspect of the thread to be highly disturbing. It's as if the members, or some of them, have formed a vigilante gang or something, maybe an action group, to push their own perceptions on SC.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 16:33:49.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 04:37:12 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Actually, in the absence of a DQ we may assume it's been allowed to stand. There's NO precedent for SC to come into the forum to announce "Guess what! The blue ribbon shot is LEGAL!" And it would be a bad precedent to start... I find this aspect of the thread to be highly disturbing. It's as if the members, or some of them, have formed a vigilante gang or something, maybe an action group, to push their own perceptions on SC.
Robt. |
This type of reaction/discussion is also a predictable response to the new listing of DQ'd images with the challenge results -- there's now some basis for comparison of photos which were/were not DQ'd, and the rationale (if any) underlying any apparent inconsistencies. |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 04:39:49 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
... It's as if the members, or some of them, have formed a vigilante gang or something, maybe an action group, to push their own perceptions on SC.
Robt. |
Actually, I'm kinda reminded of the nature special I watched a few months ago where this group of vultures circled around a wounded antelope waiting for it to die...
Message edited by author 2005-07-05 16:40:08.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 04:49:04 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Actually, in the absence of a DQ we may assume it's been allowed to stand. There's NO precedent for SC to come into the forum to announce "Guess what! The blue ribbon shot is LEGAL!" And it would be a bad precedent to start... I find this aspect of the thread to be highly disturbing. It's as if the members, or some of them, have formed a vigilante gang or something, maybe an action group, to push their own perceptions on SC.
Robt. |
Robert you are my anti-signiture! I concur. Your " cut to the chase" comments have earned you a spot as one of my favorites. (sarcasm starts here)Perhaps they'll DQ the top 174 entries and I can ribbon!!!! I'll lobby for that (end of sarcasm)woo hoo!
|
|
|
|
07/05/2005 04:53:13 PM · #99 |
take the journeyman pic - load it into photoshop, ramp up the brightness, now ramp up the contrast...
whats with the severely dodgy looking steps just along the edge of the rail - looks like someone couldn't tune the magnetic lassoo tool properly to me.
:P |
|
|
|
07/05/2005 04:55:14 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by rex:
Originally posted by muckpond:
it seems you just don't like the answer. |
To assume that I don't like the answer is totally outrageous. I am totally confused as to what is allowed here now. |
I have to say that I think muckpond's post here is VERY rude.
To suggest that Rex's motivations on continuing to seek clarity are motivated by another other than genuine confusion is petty and uncalled for.
Given how widespread the confusion is about the major element rule (it comes up again and again and again) it's hardly surprising that, despite the valiant attempts to explain it in this thread, someone could genuinely continue to be confused about it.
Just because someone continues to question the SC in order to seek clarification on an important issue, and those questions are found to be a pain in the butt for SC to answer does NOT mean that ASC are justified in questioning that person's motives in this way.
It might seem a minor thing but I have to say I do think it's very disappointing.
|
|
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: 06/20/2025 11:37:55 PM EDT.
