| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2006 10:14:03 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Recognizability is subjective. |
Excuse me, I don't get your meaning... What part of the submission is a recognizable from the original? |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:14:46 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
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. |
Again, when resizing, none of the resultant pixels exist prior to resizing.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:22:01 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Recognizability is subjective. |
Excuse me, I don't get your meaning... What part of the submission is a recognizable from the original? |
The basic colors and the regions of the image they occupy. Evidently that's not enough for some, but it's evident to me.
I feel like Marcel DuChamp and this is my urinal....
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:23:09 AM · #129 |
So resizing is an editing tool, but we are all required to use it to enter challenges...so it's both an editing tool subject to DQ and a requirement to enter challenges?
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 10:25:28. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:25:21 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by amber:
So resizing is an editing tool, but we are all required to use it to enter challenges...so it's both an editing tool subject to DQ and a requirement to enter? |
It wasn't disqualified because of the editing tool used, it was disqualified for the end result.
Just about any editing tool can result in a DQ if abused. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:27:19 AM · #131 |
| So what constitutes abuse? |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:28:57 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by amber:
So resizing is... both an editing tool subject to DQ and a requirement to enter challenges? |
"...using ANY editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted." |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:35:37 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by loriprophoto:
I would be interested to know how you created the final 24 pixel shot. I have tried enlarging your original and can't get anything near what you have LOL so it looks like you didnt use that technique. What technique did you use? Thanks so much. |
Lori,
It depends on your resampling algorithm. In Photoshop, edit/preferences/general has a drop-down for resampling; he used "nearest neighbor", as did I on my version. If you use "bicubic" it goes all soft and fuzzy.
His steps; resize the original to 6x4 pixels, then upsize the 6x4 to DPC size using "nearest neighbor" as his algorithm.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:03:39 AM · #134 |
Aaaah thanks Robert, I learn something about PS every day, it is an amazing tool. How do you guys come up with all these ideas LOL.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:06:33 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by loriprophoto:
Aaaah thanks Robert, I learn something about PS every day, it is an amazing tool. How do you guys come up with all these ideas LOL. |
Me? I don't; I'm very conservative. Spaz, on the other hand, is demented :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:23:53 AM · #136 |
Definitely time for a rewrite of the rules. The current rules, despite good faith writing, are just too ambiguous. Under the current rules I find this DQ to be outrageous, especially considering the challenge premise of "Abstract".
On second thought, perhaps we should just leave the rules as they are now and permit the voters to evaluate whether or not an entry is valid or not. SC could select candidates for DQ and submit images, with explanations both pro and con, to the voters after the fact of initial challenge vote. The voters seem to be rather unerring (and occasionally unforgiving) in their collective opinions!
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:25:27 AM · #137 |
| I kind of tend to agree with SC on this one. You duplicated 22k pixels to make it look smooth. Next time, if you want a picture of colored squares, take that picture. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:32:26 AM · #138 |
I'm glad it was DQ'ed.
I don't care how legal it might have been, but if the end result doesn't at least resemble the original, it is no longer a photo and NOT acceptable in a PHOTO challenge.
Instead of constantly trying to beat the system by pushing the rules to their limit, it would be nice if the "spirit" of the site/rules was honored.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:54:48 AM · #139 |
To me, it's beyond comprehension how the SC are continuing to DQ images based on the way the current rules are written.
The term "Major Element" has caused so much controversy so far, no one knows (other than SC members) what a major element is, let alone when it's considered removed or obscured. I really hoping for clearer terms in the new rules.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 11:55:57. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:58:46 AM · #140 |
To me in this case the deciding factor was that you couldn't really tell if the finished image actually came from the submitted original or not. It might have come from it, then again, it could have come from a 100 other images. No way to tell really.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:58:52 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I'm glad it was DQ'ed.
I don't care how legal it might have been, but if the end result doesn't at least resemble the original, it is no longer a photo and NOT acceptable in a PHOTO challenge.
Instead of constantly trying to beat the system by pushing the rules to their limit, it would be nice if the "spirit" of the site/rules was honored. |
Then shouldn't that be adressed in the rules?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:03:31 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
To me, it's beyond comprehension how the SC are continuing to DQ images based on the way the current rules are written. |
Among other things, the rules state this:
"The Site Council will disqualify any photo it finds violates either the letter or spirit of these rules. "
Every photo is subject to DQ on wholly subjective grounds -- those are the rules you agree to when you enter the challenge, as you certify you've done by checking the box on the entry page. Sorry, but the choice is your's, whether to enter under the current rules. We'll continue to interpret and enforce the rules as rationally an fairly as we can.
Notice that among the non-SC commenters on this thread, there are several strong opinions expressed on each side of this decision. In any subjectvely-drawn decision, there will be people barely on the wrong side of the line who will have a complaint. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:03:45 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Then shouldn't that be adressed in the rules? |
I sincerely hope they will find a way to include that in the re-write of the rules.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:05:19 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Beetle:
I'm glad it was DQ'ed.
Instead of constantly trying to beat the system by pushing the rules to their limit, it would be nice if the "spirit" of the site/rules was honored. |
Then shouldn't that be adressed in the rules? |
From the rules:
"The Site Council will disqualify any photo it finds violates either the letter or spirit of these rules." (emphasis added)
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 12:05:40. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:08:57 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Instead of constantly trying to beat the system by pushing the rules to their limit, it would be nice if the "spirit" of the site/rules was honored. |
Beetle, Spaz wasn't "pushing the rules to their limits", he took a highly original approach that would appear to many of us be viable within the exisiting rules and was VERY challenge-specific; the challenge was "abstraction" and he used NOTHING but the resize function, twice, to make a pure abstraction of his original shot.
The voters were hammering him, which is to be expected, but that this should be DQ'd seems sort of counterproductive to me, given the VERY specific challenge topic that mentions "not recognizable as an object" and the fact that ALL he did was resize the image...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:09:58 PM · #146 |
It seems to me that some images are entered with the sole purpose of ridiculing Site Council. It's presented as pushing the rules to the limits, but I think it's more an attempt to show that SC either doesn't really know the rules, or doesn't know how to apply them.
OK, fine, you guys want to ridicule SC, go for it. But you're not learning about photography, or making art in the process. You're just making fun of someone else. Yipee! I do not have much respect for that.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:10:33 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Notice that among the non-SC commenters on this thread, there are several strong opinions expressed on each side of this decision. |
Which is why I think the current rules would be fine if DQ's required a super majority or better-yet, unanimous vote. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:12:26 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by ursula:
It seems to me that some images are entered with the sole purpose of ridiculing Site Council. It's presented as pushing the rules to the limits, but I think it's more an attempt to show that SC either doesn't really know the rules, or doesn't know how to apply them.
OK, fine, you guys want to ridicule SC, go for it. But you're not learning about photography, or making art in the process. You're just making fun of someone else. Yipee! I do not have much respect for that. |
Simplistic generalization. THere may be a few of those, but there are way more legitimate entries that push the envelope or unintentionally even cross the line. They're not all out to get you. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:12:55 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Notice that among the non-SC commenters on this thread, there are several strong opinions expressed on each side of this decision. |
Which is why I think the current rules would be fine if DQ's required a super majority or better-yet, unanimous vote. |
It was unanimous. Including 2 SC that didn't vote on the image agree with the DQ. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 12:15:00 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Notice that among the non-SC commenters on this thread, there are several strong opinions expressed on each side of this decision. |
Which is why I think the current rules would be fine if DQ's required a super majority or better-yet, unanimous vote. |
It was unanimous. Including 2 SC that didn't vote on the image agree with the DQ. |
Well that's good enough for me. :) But it should be required on all DQ's giving the benefit of the doubt to the photog.
**Note: I forgot we were talking about this specific image in this thread. |
|
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: 07/17/2025 09:22:39 AM EDT.
