| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2006 10:54:07 AM · #1 |
Well my color portrait photo has been discualified ,for the reason of
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
Well all i did was crop ,radial blur ,and use a filter i dont see any of the above used while procecing my photo ,but hey advanced editing doesnt seem so advanced in the end ? Good luck to all that have not been discualified for being different .Yes it is my photo and i am gutted and quite disapointed ,as may be all of you will be if it happend to any of you ,i just had to have moan .By the votes i recived and the 2 favourites taken of my photograph no one else complained ?
Rules are rules ,still very disapointed tho.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 11:15:28 AM · #2 |
Radial blur in post processing has been dq'ed several times in the past. It is considered adding an element to the shot (the blur itself).
Message edited by author 2006-04-22 11:15:52. |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 11:16:56 AM · #3 |
There's been HUGE thread on using the Radial blur in advanced editing challenges, perhaps this will give you an answer to your question about the dq...
thread
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 02:08:41 PM · #4 |
But is still not clarified in new rules.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 02:14:29 PM · #5 |
'adding' radial blur -- is about the same as 'adding' sharper pixels by unsharp-masking.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 02:18:43 PM · #6 |
| A little tip: added radial blurs have been considered [barely] legal in the past, but changes in the Site Council membership have tipped the balance towards DQ as more people now consider the the blur a major element. The filter itself *IS* legal, but even legal tools can be used illegally (i.e.- cloning away an elephant or blurring a detailed background into obscurity). To be on the safe side, motion blurs should only be used to enhance existing motion. Creating movement where none existed before is asking for trouble. |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 02:40:08 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
But is still not clarified in new rules. |
The new rules haven't even been released. |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 02:44:08 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
But is still not clarified in new rules. |
The new rules haven't even been released. |
Good reason for it not to have been clarified ;-)
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 03:41:28 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
But is still not clarified in new rules. |
The new rules haven't even been released. |
If it's not in the rules, then how can it be enforced? Seriously...and I've seen this happen in the past...we've all been down this road before...I'm not trying to beat a dead horse...
I'd demand a re-vote :D
|
|
|
|
04/22/2006 03:43:41 PM · #10 |
The major elements clause (which is generally what radial blur falls under) IS in the rules.
They were referring to the new set of rules that we have been working on. |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 03:51:34 PM · #11 |
that sucks! sorry
you spelt disqualified wrong btw :) |
|
|
|
04/22/2006 06:45:30 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
But is still not clarified in new rules. |
The new rules haven't even been released. |
That's why I said 'in new rules' instead of 'in _the_ new rules'.
At this moment this radial blur thing is based on sc voting, sometimes it has been ok, sometimes it was not. For a user there is no way to make any sense of it. Tomorrow there may be some new SC members and suddenly it could be ok again. When is it legal and when is it not? There is no clear definite pre-challenge clarification on it. Ban it or allow it, but just be clear on this issue in words that can be found in clearly defined rules. To fill the gap to the introduction of new rules I'd suggest to disallow it and make that very clear in the current rules as an added sidenote.
This is becoming like Dutch tax laws. The laws say this and that, but there are a couple of thousand judge clarifications that hardly anyone knows about and that sometimes contradict the rules. Yet we are supposed to know them.
Personally I'm not happy about the use of movement blur filters.
Message edited by author 2006-04-22 18:46:32.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2006 05:24:12 AM · #13 |
This was my first challenge as a member and as you can see all your votes got wasted into the nothing ,which is a great shame ,i want to thank all of you who voted my image even the four 1 votes ''its still a vote and it counts '' .The 405 view's ,15 coments and 2 favourites are still good even for disqualified image ,imagine if did not get disqualified :).Thanks to all again.
|
|
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: 08/30/2025 09:02:42 AM EDT.
