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

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Anyway to appeal a Disqualification???
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/13/2005 04:01:26 PM · #1
My family picture was DQ'd, quite unfairly too, and wanted to know if anyone has or does anyone know if an appeal can occur. The score was ehh, but the principle of it is important. I won't post it yet, in case the SUPERIORS understand my complaint. Thanks.
07/13/2005 04:05:07 PM · #2
Other then griping about it here, their vote is usually final.

Amazing work by the way, I added you to my favorites.
07/13/2005 04:26:12 PM · #3
It's possible, but unlikely. If you think we overlooked something or have additional details that might make a difference, you can PM me or another SC member for consideration.
07/13/2005 04:31:37 PM · #4
Originally posted by louddog:

Other then griping about it here, their vote is usually final.

Amazing work by the way, I added you to my favorites.


Whether it's discussed in the public forums has no bearing on how it will be treated.
In this instance, I believe that if reviewed again the result would almost certainly stand. The BG was found to constitute a major element, and removal of major elements of a photo is not allowed.
Cutter, sorry you were DQ'd, we never like to have to DQ someone, but I hope that you understand that we need to try to be as consistent as is *humanly* possible in the application of the rules.
07/16/2005 11:14:27 AM · #5
Ok, this was my disqualified image for family...



I believe it was DQ'd because I did selective leveling on the background. I did follow the rules, but supposedly abused them to the point of dismissal. Okay, nothing I can do about it, but I don't want to do it again. So obviously this image was received although the same thing was done for this background...



The difference must be a smaller part of the total photo??? So, selective leveling/brightness is okay as long as done to a smaller/less material section of the image, right? SC or fellow DPC'ers, am I right in assuming this? Thanks.
07/16/2005 11:17:05 AM · #6
In the bridge photo, there was apparently very little detail in the black areas to begin with, so the overall effect of the BG leveling was relatively minor, and allowable. Perhaps in your example, there was significanly more detail that has been obliterated?

Robt.
07/16/2005 11:17:12 AM · #7
Can you post the original to compare for ourselves what they might have been thinking?
07/16/2005 11:34:43 AM · #8
I don't understand what you mean by "selective leveling" on the background. How did you select it without 'selecting' it?!? :0)
07/16/2005 11:42:15 AM · #9
I think if you post the original, it would be easier for us to give an opinion as to if you were DQ'd fairly. By the way, looked at your other photos and I think they are excellent.
07/16/2005 11:45:57 AM · #10
It was an advanced challenge which states, "Selective Editing: Adjustments can be made selectively to your photo. Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."

I basically burned to remove a minor distraction. If I do this in the future, I want to make sure it won't be given the boot, because it was too much. Maybe a addition should be made to state something about "unnatural, fake or otherwise manipulated backgrounds done in PP.

I certainly accept these rules and am not really arguing their DQ (anymore). I just am asking if it is considered minor and is a smaller/less material part of the photo can something like this be done. In my photo, the original was a shadowy store front behind the pair. The background makes up maybe 30% of the photo, and maybe 3% effective viewable data (people are subject and only tangible aspect of photo). If someone did selective leveling on a smaller section of the photo like the bridge is this considered more acceptable.

I guess my issue is a removal of something non-material (I am not talking about a person in a candid or a building in a cityscape) should be allowable. Especially since I didn't "Duplicate, create or move" anything, for in essence the "background" is still there just nearly impossible to recognize due to legal leveling.

Basically, I don't want another DQ based on my "following the rules". Thanks.
07/16/2005 11:51:18 AM · #11


I think the way it was considered in the vote was the biggest difference between the bridge and yours is that in the bridge photo, the details were fairly indistinguishable adn already dark. The photog just made them darker. In your background, though not clearly identifiable, it was considerably "lighter" and more cluttered, thus rendering the effect that "more" was removed.

That said, it was a great shot, and if you know the man/child, they would probably love a copy of it!
07/16/2005 11:56:49 AM · #12
Just saying the same as karma really... In the bridge photo the background was pretty much black anyway from all the trees with only a few specks of light from little gaps in the leaves, which we didn't consider a major element to remove. In your photo, the background was clearly removed completely, and we felt it was definately a major element, and it didn't resemble the original at all.
07/16/2005 11:57:08 AM · #13
Originally posted by Cutter:

It was an advanced challenge


DOH! Sorry, thought it was basic- should do my homework before I post, but since it was posted from your portfolio I couldn't see basic or advanced... ~L
07/16/2005 11:59:11 AM · #14
Okay, Karmat, thanks. Now so if it is on its way out, illuminatedly speaking, then to help push it over the edge is probably ok. I understand in my case then, how it wasn't on the way out.

So what if it is a small part of the photo, like 40px by 40 px, that you use selective levels to control the darkness of it. Not an entire background by any stretch, but a small bit. Thanks.
07/16/2005 12:00:57 PM · #15
Why won't you post the original? Makes me suspicious that you are hiding something.
07/16/2005 12:06:02 PM · #16
I am not hiding anything, and the DQ is over with. I don't have it handy. I am not really a complainer, just someone who wants to do it right the next time. But that's alright, cynicism is an unhealthy disbelief of existence, and can provide a way down the path of skepticism and a floundering mind.
07/16/2005 12:06:05 PM · #17
There is no need to post the original, unless the photog just wants to. The SC has seen it. He is not hiding anything.

I would think an area as small as that (40x40) would be okay, but don't take that as a hard adn fast ruling. :)
07/16/2005 12:07:20 PM · #18
Originally posted by Cutter:

Now so if it is on its way out, illuminatedly speaking, then to help push it over the edge is probably ok. I understand in my case then, how it wasn't on the way out.


That's probably about hte best definition I've "heard" so far.

07/16/2005 12:14:24 PM · #19
Originally posted by Cutter:

But that's alright, cynicism is an unhealthy disbelief of existence...


Cynicism is more the belief that people are only motivated by self-interest and lack sincerity. Perhaps you are thinking of nihilism, the "belief in nothing" or thought that human existance is without purpose.
07/16/2005 12:21:50 PM · #20
Yes and no MK. I see your point and one that is not wrong, however cynicism is more than simply humanistic in origin. For example, you can be cynical of a corporation or a government or a religion or a concept. To be cynical that heaven exists for example.

Nihilism is a sad point of view as well, but more easily corrected through philosophical argument. Cynicism, I have found, is based on experience and negative outlook on things, and very tough to correct.

That is why I used the the words "unhealthy disbelief of existence", because many things exist in which we argue they do not. Whether someone's sincerity as you pointed out, or something in actual form.
07/16/2005 12:28:19 PM · #21
Originally posted by Cutter:


That is why I used the the words "unhealthy disbelief of existence", because many things exist in which we argue they do not. Whether someone's sincerity as you pointed out, or something in actual form.


Okay, yes, I can see that. I guess I was reading your use of existance to be solely humanistic, my bad! However, I would argue that cynicism isn't an entirely bad viewpoint and not always unhealthy. It's all about moderation, no?
07/16/2005 12:40:51 PM · #22
I would always advise to make intelligent decisions and interpretations in all our dealings. However, I could not in good conscious advise any for cynicism, because it involves negative inferences almost before all facts and thoughts have been explored. And in regards to "Everything in Moderation" and other "wise" sayings, I completely disagree. Tight compact snippets of truth are usually faulty. I would never endorse moderation for a number of things, of which I am sure you could think of. And I wouldn't necessarily think the Oracle of Delphi, in all her hallucinogenic fantasies should be the first person we go running to for wholesome advice.
07/16/2005 06:02:55 PM · #23
Originally posted by Cutter:

I would always advise to make intelligent decisions and interpretations in all our dealings. However, I could not in good conscious advise any for cynicism, because it involves negative inferences almost before all facts and thoughts have been explored. And in regards to "Everything in Moderation" and other "wise" sayings, I completely disagree. Tight compact snippets of truth are usually faulty. I would never endorse moderation for a number of things, of which I am sure you could think of. And I wouldn't necessarily think the Oracle of Delphi, in all her hallucinogenic fantasies should be the first person we go running to for wholesome advice.


you sir, are making none of the sense.
07/16/2005 06:47:57 PM · #24
This is why I say, "Everything in moderation--especially moderation."
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 02:57:32 AM

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: 08/31/2025 02:57:32 AM EDT.