| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/21/2005 02:40:03 AM · #1 |
Well after the longest 6 days ever on DPChallenge at least for this member, I've been DQ'ed at the final buzzer. Not sure I agree with the outcome and don't understand the explanation as was given to me, but the end result is... DQ for this composition.
The official explanation is: 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.
With the extra rules that were provided for this challenge, I'm not sure what exactly they were referring to, but it must have been one agonizing decision for them to make or it wouldn't have taken 6 days for them to come to this conclusion... One of the S/C members even went so far as to give me this explanation:
The problem is that you've either moved major elements beyond what was allowed by the additional rules or used more than 3, depending upon how you look at it. You see, in a "normal" challenge the entry must come from a single original, with or without a border, and you can't move major elements relative to one another. Triptych is a bit different because it allows up to three originals, but all other rules remain. Of course, one photo could be repeated (cropped, flipped, etc.) to get the three images. In that case each iteration would be one of the three permitted images, even though they came from the same original. Under that principle, you have used more than three images (three individual leaves plus the background).
Yes, I know there were only three originals, but each piece you move around is considered a separate image because otherwise you would be moving major elements relative to each other, and that's NOT allowed. In this entry, you've essentially used a shot of two leaves as "parts" and moved them in relation to each other. That practice has been consistently DQ'd in the past.
Thus the DQ: if each image is separate, then you've used more than three photos. If your three ORIGINALS are the images, then you've moved major elements in relation to each other. Please remember that we're not targeting you or anyone else(actually, one of the SC members was facing the same problem until we found out that no major elements were moved). I hope you take this in stride and look forward to seeing more of your shots in the future."
Once again, I'm not sure I understand what this means as the extra rules said we could cut and paste to get three panes, but they did give me the benefit of 6 days of deliberation before giving me the thumbs down.
To the S/C, Thank you. I did know I was going a little outside the box. I don't think the DQ is right, but it is what it is, a DQ that you took almost the whole voting period to come up with...
To the two individuals (I just got home from work and haven't looked to see who you are yet) that picked this as a favorite, this means more to me than the 6.xxx that I would have gotten had the composition been allowed to remain in the challenge.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 02:47:10 AM · #2 |
Good image and nice to see someone not agro for being DQ.
I actually agree entirely with the decision and feel they have explained themselves well. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 02:53:43 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I actually agree entirely with the decision and feel they have explained themselves well. |
Without the extra rules for this challenge I would agree! |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 02:55:19 AM · #4 |
There was another entry, the indian feathers one, that was DQ'd for exactly the same reason. For what that's worth.
It seems to me there is a "simpler" way to look at this; the three leaves are the elements of the triptych. If the "leafmeal background" were black, it would clearly be a border. So it seems to me it is a border comprised of an image, and that's not allowed.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 02:57:56 AM · #5 |
I'm sorry for your loss -- and even more sorry the SC choose to ignore the issue during the submission stage, choosing instead to wait for a DQ to make the tough call. As you well know, this question (and many others) were posed mere hours after the challenge topic was announced (Triptych Question).
David
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:01:05 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
... It seems to me there is a "simpler" way to look at this; the three leaves are the elements of the triptych. If the "leafmeal background" were black, it would clearly be a border. So it seems to me it is a border comprised of an image, and that's not allowed.
Robt. |
If that were the case, there is a ribbon winning image that needs to be looked over again. :( ... and no I don't think it actually needs to be looked over, just in fairness if the above were held as the reason.
David
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:04:26 AM · #7 |
 = total of 3 images (within the rules)
= total of 4 images ( hence the DQ ) |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:08:51 AM · #8 |
This is the rule I thought was violated:
alternative borders are allowed, as long as they do not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork.
...but that is from the Basic Editing rules. I couldn't find anything in the Advanced Rules regarding borders. Seems like there should be something in there about it.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:11:04 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
[/url] = total of 4 images ( hence the DQ ) |
Only used 3 photos. Quote: Create an entry consisting of three panels that tells a story or illustrates a concept or object. End Quote. Quote: Your panels can be made up of one photo or up to three separate photos End Quote. Quote: You may use up to three photographs for this challenge. However, all other rules still apply. End Quote. Apparently there is another rule that I don't understand.
Don't get me wrong. I do wish it wasn't DQ'ed. BUT I do know that I pushed the boundaries a little and it was DQ'ed... |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:12:21 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by kpriest:
[/url] = total of 4 images ( hence the DQ ) |
Only used 3 photos. Quote: Create an entry consisting of three panels that tells a story or illustrates a concept or object. End Quote. Quote: Your panels can be made up of one photo or up to three separate photos End Quote. Quote: You may use up to three photographs for this challenge. However, all other rules still apply. End Quote. Apparently there is another rule that I don't understand.
Don't get me wrong. I do wish it wasn't DQ'ed. BUT I do know that I pushed the boundaries a little and it was DQ'ed... |
What's the base image ?
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:12:56 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
This is the rule I thought was violated:
alternative borders are allowed, as long as they do not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork.
I couldn't find anything in the Advanced Rules regarding borders. Seems like there should be something in there about it. |
There will be! ;-) |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:16:18 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by kpriest:
This is the rule I thought was violated:
alternative borders are allowed, as long as they do not contain any text, clip art, photographs, or other artwork.
...but that is from the Basic Editing rules. I couldn't find anything in the Advanced Rules regarding borders. Seems like there should be something in there about it. |
I noticed that too. Seems to be an oversight there.
R. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 10:22:22 AM · #13 |
I just wanted to publically thank TooCool for the way he's conducted himself throughout this whole thing. He's been incredibly polite, gracious and patient in requesting us to readdress his photo, while waiting for us to make our determination and then with the result. It's never easy for us to disqualify a photo and this one took a particularly long bit of discussion so I, and I'm sure the other SC, greatly appreciate the way TC has participated in this. Thanks, man!
Originally posted by Britannica:
I'm sorry for your loss -- and even more sorry the SC choose to ignore the issue during the submission stage, choosing instead to wait for a DQ to make the tough call. As you well know, this question (and many others) were posed mere hours after the challenge topic was announced (Triptych Question).
|
I don't see any questions in that thread that address the situation with TooCool's photo. You asked about cutting three sections from one photo, not putting them on a background of another photo. If you feel your questions aren't being addressed, feel free to report the post or submit a ticket. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 02:42:16 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Britannica:
I'm sorry for your loss -- and even more sorry the SC choose to ignore the issue during the submission stage, choosing instead to wait for a DQ to make the tough call. As you well know, this question (and many others) were posed mere hours after the challenge topic was announced (Triptych Question).
|
I don't see any questions in that thread that address the situation with TooCool's photo. You asked about cutting three sections from one photo, not putting them on a background of another photo. |
His original post in this thread says he was DQed for cutting up an image and moving the pieces, in their own frames, relative to their positions in the original uncut image -- as you say, that is exactly what I asked about in the original post of the linked thread.
Using a photo in a way that looks like a background is something Robert suggested in this thread as an easier reason to swallow.
Originally posted by mk:
If you feel your questions aren't being addressed, feel free to report the post or submit a ticket. |
That has unfortunately not been any more effective for me -- at best it gets an opinion -- but, with no offense intended (really), in matters such as this one or two opinions are worthless, only publicly stated rulings are useful.
David
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:06:27 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by kpriest:
[/url] = total of 4 images ( hence the DQ ) |
Only used 3 photos. |
I see four images: 1: Green leaf. 2: Orange leaf. 3: Red leaf. 4: background leaves.
Sorry, not a triptych, izzit? |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:49:18 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by WobblyLegs:
Sorry, not a triptych, izzit? |
It's three panels on a bacground... |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 03:51:57 PM · #17 |
I'm surprised at the length of time it took to see what appears to be obvious; 4 images.
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 04:13:48 PM · #18 |
It appears to be 4 images, but isn't. Two of the leaves were shot on the same original, then moved around relative to each other. So, there were 3 photos used (1 leaf, 2 leaves, background), BUT then one of the photos (the two leaves) was further rearranged as separate parts.
The ribbon winner also moved around pieces, but they are arranged as three intact photos. If the photographer had also taken the tree out of the background and moved it into the sky as yet another image, then that would either be 4 photos or moving major elements.
I commend TooCool for keeping his cool through this difficult decision.
Message edited by author 2005-11-21 16:14:12. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 04:28:07 PM · #19 |
Seems like a thin line to me. I mean, if one of the three images is actually of two leaves, and then that image of two leaves is seperated into two parts, isn't that creating (in essence) an additional image?
An example perhaps to clarify: There is one image of three leaves on a black background. That single image is cut into three seperate images and put on a new plain background - how many images are there; 1 or 3?
The way TooCool's image is laid out, it looks like 4 seperate elements. JMO. ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 04:33:38 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
There is one image of three leaves on a black background. That single image is cut into three seperate images and put on a new plain background - how many images are there; 1 or 3? |
Since it's illegal to move major elements, that would have to be treated as three images (each cropped from the same original). Since a plain black background isn't a photo, it's STILL three. |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 05:52:16 PM · #21 |
So what you're saying, is that if he had arranged the three leaves on a black border and took the shot. Then essentially masked them and overlayed the one shot over the other - than it would have been legal.
But he moved two leaves in relation to one another?
*bummer*
Heck, I didn't even know half of these shots were legal. I thought it had to be three sequential frames. And I didn't know you could do overlays like such. (So I've learned as well.)
Although, I must confess. I've re-read the rules and there would be nothing in them that would have made me think such was illegal. I think it'd be a good thing to note in future di/tri/quad/pytch challenges that objects must be kept in relation to themselves.
Perhaps a page explaining what is and isn't legal. As, I know myself. I never would have thought such was illegal from the rules as stated for the challenge. And do not feel they were declared clearly.
I do respect the poster very much for not decrying the evil of the site council.
Kudos...
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 06:34:08 PM · #22 |
OK - So one becomes three in my example. Now, in TooCool's example there are initially 3 images, yes? The image used for the background, a single-leaf image, and a double-leaf image. Based on the example if the double-leaf image is split, it then becomes 2, making a total of 4 images used for his composition.
Smile and keep having fun! ;^)
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
There is one image of three leaves on a black background. That single image is cut into three seperate images and put on a new plain background - how many images are there; 1 or 3? |
Since it's illegal to move major elements, that would have to be treated as three images (each cropped from the same original). Since a plain black background isn't a photo, it's STILL three. |
|
|
|
|
11/21/2005 11:08:29 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It appears to be 4 images, but isn't. Two of the leaves were shot on the same original, then moved around relative to each other. So, there were 3 photos used (1 leaf, 2 leaves, background), BUT then one of the photos (the two leaves) was further rearranged as separate parts. |
Thank you for clarifying that. I guess I wasn't too clear on why I thought it was legal... |
|
|
|
11/21/2005 11:24:23 PM · #24 |
say you take his photo entry, and you shot 3 photos...(green leaf + orange leaf), (red leaf), and (background)...
now let's say you MOVE the relation of green to orange, that would be a DQ because you moved major elements...
But let's say you shot (green and orange) in that exact relation to eachother, then it would be ok.
--
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just trying to explain to those that don't understand what happened.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2005 10:10:25 AM · #25 |
Still looking for feedback on why I think it's 4 images. Anyone agree/disagree on the below logic? Thanks.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
OK - So one becomes three in my example. Now, in TooCool's example there are initially 3 images, yes? The image used for the background, a single-leaf image, and a double-leaf image.
Based on the example if the double-leaf image is split, it then becomes 2, making a total of 4 images used for his composition.
Smile and keep having fun! ;^)
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
There is one image of three leaves on a black background. That single image is cut into three seperate images and put on a new plain background - how many images are there; 1 or 3? |
Since it's illegal to move major elements, that would have to be treated as three images (each cropped from the same original). Since a plain black background isn't a photo, it's STILL three. |
|
|
|
