DQ'ed why?? - DPChallenge Forums

02/13/2006 09:01:53 AM · #101

Comments posted in the DQ'd image: "I took the image and resized it to 6px x 4px, then resized it again to 640px x 427px, selecting Nearest Neighbor as the sampling method. "

If you take an entire image and resize it DOWN to 6px x 4px, doesn't it blend/merge all the pixel data into that 6x4 area? In essence kind of melting everything. Didn't that create something new that didn't exist before?

Yes, I've read this entire thread and I've noticed that many think that the pixel type block that the image ended up being are individual pixels pulled from an image and resized UP. Kind of like the example Robert (bear_music) put up by pulling pixels from the sun area of his example photo.

In reality, the "pixels" in the DQ'd image aren't really image pixels - they're an enlargement of a computer generated 6x4 data merge.

JMO. ;^)

02/13/2006 09:06:22 AM · #102

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

You resized upward by a factor of 100. In doing so, you duplicated major elements 24 pixels from the original photograph) 10,000 times each.

My vote to DQ was based not on removal of major elements but on duplication.

~Terry

OK, so what factor is acceptable when resizing?

If I resize an original image to fit DPC requirements, 640 by XXX that everyone of those pixels in the 640 by XXX image is new, created by averaging (using some resampling algorithm) some number of pixels in the original image. Similarly, when resizing to a larger size, every one of those pixels is created through interpolation.

If I take an image and choose to crop a section of it that is smaller than 640 by XXX and upsize it to 640 by XXX, is that equally illegal?

I actually took my inspiration from this image that stephan submitted to an earlier challenge under the old rules, no less. I find little or no difference in what I did and got DQ'ed and this earlier entry in the Square challenge, which was not DQ'ed.

I did not expect the image to do well, I anticipated that I might get a DQ request, but I still fail to see how it could actually be DQ'ed.

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 09:13:31.

02/13/2006 09:10:34 AM · #103

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I can't dispute anything you have said here in terms of what happened to the image when I processed it, but the same things happen when ANY entry is resized before submitting, just not to the same extent. If it's a matter of degree, where is the line?

Olympus 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital

02/13/2006 09:15:55 AM · #104

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

I'm not trying to pull your thought process down I'm simply trying to illustrate that your interpretation is one of many equally valid interpretations.

You say each pixel has been duplicated - yes if you choose to view it that way.
Alternatively you could say that each of the resized squares is representative of the 24 original pixels.

Therefore it boils down to a judgement call again which is what the new rules have to avoid. I would rather the new rules don't go down the track of 'resizing upto a limit of x%' because thats going to be hellishly difficult to enforce.

Ombra_foto

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

02/13/2006 09:21:10 AM · #105

Honestly I see nothing illegal here, just extreme.
But I also think it would have done very poorly on voting.

Another case of the voters being able to take care of it without needing SC intervention.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/13/2006 09:23:50 AM · #106

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

... If it's a matter of degree, where is the line?

I think it was the DOWN, then back up, that went over the line. It certainly was creative, points for that. Had you just taken a 6x4 crop from some section of the untouched original then resized up...

A general rule that has stuck in my head since I heard Shannon (scalvert) mention it some time ago, is how would you describe the image before and after. If you have a picture of 3 MM's before and afterwards it's 24 blocks of color - no match, image dramatically changed and not comparible to the original.

It's fairly clear that there are two camps on this issue reading thru the thread. I guess in the end, it depends on if there is a majority (greater than 50%) in your camp for the final right/wrong decision.

Thanks for sharing this debate and keeping it out of 'Rant'...it's been interesting. ;^)

edit - typo.

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 09:24:57.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/13/2006 09:28:49 AM · #107

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

OK, so what factor is acceptable when resizing?

It's not a number or a percentage- it's a matter of whether you can still see the subject of your capture. You took a picture of three M&Ms (or at a minimum three round shapes). By any reasonable judgement, those objects are gone in your entry. We compare your original to the entry: photo of M&Ms---> no M&Ms = DQ. Sure, all you did was crop, but here's another crop of the same image:

How can that NOT be removal of major elements?

02/13/2006 09:35:11 AM · #108

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
OK, so what factor is acceptable when resizing?

It's not a number or a percentage- it's a matter of whether you can still see the subject of your capture. You took a picture of three M&Ms (or at a minimum three round shapes). By any reasonable judgement, those objects are gone in your entry. We compare your original to the entry: photo of M&Ms---> no M&Ms = DQ. Sure, all you did was crop, but here's another crop of the same image:

How can that NOT be removal of major elements?

Shannon - so you are now saying that there is a limit to the crop which means you have to keep all major elements inside the crop area.

An example from my portfolio - where I deliberatly cropped off the head of the tulip - for sure its a major element. Is this not just a question of how much is acceptable again?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2006 09:36:49 AM · #109

Originally posted by Falc:

Alternatively you could say that each of the resized squares is representative of the 24 original pixels.

But they weren't 24 "original" pixels. They were 24 pixels which had been created from 307,200 other pixels.

I didn't vote on this, but I agree that if this had been 24 original pixels cropped from the camera capture it would be legal under the current rules. But in this case, the "original" source image is those 24 pixels which were upsized, not the camera capture. The image has not just been upsized, but it has been "distorted" from the camera capture by the original resizing process, just as if an effects filter had been used.

It's a clever technique though.

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 09:37:30.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/13/2006 09:38:04 AM · #110

Your original was a photo of a tulip and your entry was a photo of a tulip, so no problem. Could anybody say that the red square (or Spazmo's entry) was a photo of M&Ms?

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS

02/13/2006 09:40:33 AM · #111

Originally posted by scalvert:

Your original was a photo of a tulip and your entry was a photo of a tulip, so no problem. Could anybody say that the red square (or Spazmo's entry) was a photo of M&Ms?

The challenge was ABSTRACT for the love of Ike...you aren't SUPPOSED to be able to see that they were m&m's or tulips or shoes or forks or anything. ::rolls eyes::

ralph

Nikon Z9

02/13/2006 09:41:39 AM · #112

so the mosaic filter in ps is a no-no ...

-does the same thing but the mechnisim is hidden-

02/13/2006 09:43:05 AM · #113

Originally posted by scalvert:

Your original was a photo of a tulip and your entry was a photo of a tulip, so no problem. Could anybody say that the red square (or Spazmo's entry) was a photo of M&Ms?

Sure I agree, but what I'm challenging is your definition of major element. There isn't a hard and fast definition, just a working assumption .

I'm trying to show you that it is possible to have alternative interpreations which can be just as valid. In this case no major element has been removed, just represented differently.

02/13/2006 09:46:27 AM · #114

Originally posted by Falc:

... In this case no major element has been removed, just represented differently.

You're kidding right? There is no major element anymore. Gone - vanished, with the merging of all image data into a 6px x 4px blob.

Why even use a camera anymore if this is going to be allowed?

02/13/2006 09:47:27 AM · #115

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Falc:
... In this case no major element has been removed, just represented differently.

You're kidding right? There is no major element anymore. Gone - vanished, with the merging of all image data into a 6px x 4px blob.

Why even use a camera anymore if this is going to be allowed?

Oh...that's right. We're supposed to be a photography site, and besides that, an original photo needs to be submitted. My bad...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2006 09:48:27 AM · #116

It doesn't "represent" the camera capture -- there is no one-to-one correspondence between any of the pixels in the original and the final.

Would you be as happy if I took a photo, ran the Gaussian Blur at a 64 pixel diameter a gouple of times, then cropped out 24 pixels and blew them up?

The original image was unacceptably distorted prior to resizing -- as people have been saying, it should be result-based, not tool-based.

Resizing is legal, but creating new elements is not, even if done using a "legal" technique.

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 09:49:09.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/13/2006 09:52:27 AM · #117

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Would you be as happy if I took a photo, ran the Gaussian Blur at a 64 pixel diameter a gouple of times, then cropped out 24 pixels and blew them up?

YES in a challenge called ABSTRACT !!

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/13/2006 09:57:00 AM · #118

Originally posted by laurielblack:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Your original was a photo of a tulip and your entry was a photo of a tulip, so no problem. Could anybody say that the red square (or Spazmo's entry) was a photo of M&Ms?

The challenge was ABSTRACT...you aren't SUPPOSED to be able to see that they were m&m's...

Meeting the challenge isn't a validation issue. Ensuring that the entry has some reasonable connection to the original is. This isn't the same as an extreme macro that renders objects unrecognizable. He didn't crop down to interesting forms or lines. He cropped down to a 24 pixel entry (which isn't legal, there's a 160pixel minimum) and scaled it back up. If you crop a photo down to a single fiber of photo paper, is it still a photo?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2006 09:57:07 AM · #119

The idea was to take a picture where the object was unrecognizable, not just take any old photo and blur the heck out of it until you can't recognize it any more.

As I said, had those 24 pixels been cropped and anlarged, I'd have no problem with it myself, because those would have been an unrecognizable representation (a super-duper macro) of the original.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2006 09:59:31 AM · #120

Originally posted by scalvert:

He cropped down to a 24 pixel entry (which isn't legal, there's a 160pixel minimum) and scaled it back up.

No, he didn't crop -- which is the problem for me. It was resampled down to the small image, which acted as a distortion filter to create composite pixels which never existed before. Those are what was then enlarged to the final image.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/13/2006 10:02:35 AM · #121

Originally posted by Ombra_foto:

Another case of the voters being able to take care of it without needing SC intervention.

Except for the fact that someone (a voter) requested DQ thereby bringing SC into the picture...

02/13/2006 10:02:47 AM · #122

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by scalvert:
He cropped down to a 24 pixel entry (which isn't legal, there's a 160pixel minimum) and scaled it back up.

No, he didn't crop -- which is the problem for me. It was resampled down to the small image, which acted as a distortion filter to create composite pixels which never existed before. Those are what was then enlarged to the final image.

Isn't ANY resized image similarly resampled? Not to the same extent, but still resampled.

Message edited by author 2006-02-13 10:03:58.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/13/2006 10:03:40 AM · #123

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by scalvert:
He cropped down to a 24 pixel entry (which isn't legal, there's a 160pixel minimum) and scaled it back up.

No, he didn't crop -- which is the problem for me. It was resampled down to the small image, which acted as a distortion filter to create composite pixels which never existed before. Those are what was then enlarged to the final image.

Isn't ANY resized image similarly resampled?

Not to the point that it is unrecognizable...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/13/2006 10:11:30 AM · #124

None of those 24 pixels existed in the original. None, zero. That, to me, seems to be "creating a major element" -- can't be more major than 100% of the image.

One more time, for me, it's not the upsampling to create the final image which is a problem, but the creation of the 24 "base" pixels used for it -- had they simply been cropped from the original image and upsized I'd have no argument with it.