I can't believe it!!! - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

10/21/2003 12:41:32 PM · #1

The one time I hardly touch any of my Photoshop buttons, I get a DQ request!

Crikey... that'll teach me to not fiddle with my shots...

((tongue firmly planted in cheek))

I did get a request though, and would love to know why.

Trinch

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

10/21/2003 01:10:03 PM · #2

Can you tell us which photo was requested for DQ? I figured once it's DQed we can discuss. (May need a ruling on that though)

JC_Homola

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

10/21/2003 01:26:49 PM · #3

I only recieved a request.. it's in discussion at the moment.
If it does get DQ'd I'll be sure to point it out

Trinch

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

10/21/2003 01:29:03 PM · #4

Sounds fair.

10/21/2003 01:33:34 PM · #5

I received one too and I am very annoyed by it. Far as I know I did nothing wrong, everything I did was done to the entire image and it really is irrating me. When I look at the image I can only say one thing the person requesting the dq has no clue how to use any photo editing and doesn't know that the effect of my photo can be accomplished legally. I can't say much more or I will be actually saying which photo is mine.

10/21/2003 01:36:32 PM · #6

In both cases, proof was requested because it is not obvious from the submitted version that the rules were not broken. The request is an
opportunity to show that the rules were followed - if they were that's fine. That's why we have the process in place.

10/21/2003 01:37:52 PM · #7

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

I requested the DQ. I cannot tell from what you submitted if it is legal or not - which is why we would like to see the original. The whole point of how your image was processed is about removing information. As a result, we can't tell if its legal or not - its a by product of the editing you chose to do - hence why people asked in the first place.

10/21/2003 01:39:44 PM · #8

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
I received one too and I am very annoyed by it. Far as I know I did nothing wrong, everything I did was done to the entire image and it really is irrating me. When I look at the image I can only say one thing the person requesting the dq has no clue how to use any photo editing and doesn't know that the effect of my photo can be accomplished legally. I can't say much more or I will be actually saying which photo is mine.

I requested the DQ. I cannot tell from what you submitted if it is legal or not - which is why we would like to see the original. The whole point of how your image was processed is about removing information. As a result, we can't tell if its legal or not - its a by product of the editing you chose to do - hence why people asked in the first place.

Ever here of leaving a comment first and seeing if the person resonds and avoid upsetting people?

10/21/2003 01:43:30 PM · #9

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

Ever here of leaving a comment first and seeing if the person resonds and avoid upsetting people?

Several voters asked for the dq request. I didn't go looking for it in the first place. We don't publish all of the dqs in the forums.

Isn't a private request less upsetting that pulling people up in public? I'm confused why you would find having the opportunity to defend the image in private more upsetting than being accused in public on the forums.

It isn't like your picture has been disqualified, you've just been asked how you achieved the particular effect - because it is entirely non-apparent from the submitted image if it is legal or not.

10/21/2003 01:48:48 PM · #10

It's upsetting cause it is something that has been done over and over in challenges it isn't the first time that effect was done.

OK now I am to the point after this one I am definately in agreement about the change needing to be made to the editing rules. I sent you a pm about the process I used let me know if I did anything wrong with it.

If you notice I didn't state what effect was used in the photo nor did I point out which photo it is. But seriously if that effect is legal in one photo it should be legal in all photos no matter how it is acheived. It is a matter of how your editing program acheives it.

JC_Homola

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

10/21/2003 01:49:51 PM · #11

Originally posted by sslickk:

Gordon,, as you see,, I was poking fun at myself too...
I'm patiently waiting the outcome,, and confident I will be OK'd... I know I did nothing illegal.

vonautsch

Nikon Coolpix B500

10/21/2003 01:51:04 PM · #12

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

I received one too and I am very annoyed by it. Far as I know I did nothing wrong...

If you're not absolutely sure yourself, then perhaps the DQ request is just? Just a thought...

Besides, if they judge it within the rules and put a little message saying such about the image, then that may help boost the score from future voters. I know I would vote higher if I saw an effect that looked illegal but was stated to be legal. It shows creativity.

Jacko

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/21/2003 01:52:54 PM · #13

Would you like some

with that whine?

;)

Message edited by author 2003-10-21 13:53:17.

10/21/2003 02:06:04 PM · #14

Thank you very much Gordon I did not state what kind of effect was used in the photo but now you have very nicely pointed out exactly which photo. Since when did site council bring attention to particular photos during voting? Well you just did it!

10/21/2003 02:08:40 PM · #15

Originally posted by Gordon:

btw - your entry now has an admin note. Thanks for providing the original. See - that wasn't so hard ?

Are we talking the same photo? I just looked and no note is coming up when I take a look at it.

vonautsch

Nikon Coolpix B500

10/21/2003 02:10:42 PM · #16

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

Are we talking the same photo? I just looked and no note is coming up when I take a look at it.

You don't vote on your photo, so you wouldn't see the note.

10/21/2003 02:13:06 PM · #17

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

Maybe you shouldn't have made it public in the first place then ?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/21/2003 02:30:17 PM · #18

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Thank you very much Gordon I did not state what kind of effect was used in the photo but now you have very nicely pointed out exactly which photo. Since when did site council bring attention to particular photos during voting? Well you just did it!

Maybe you shouldn't have made it public in the first place then ?

Just for the record I didn't start the thread and I didn't point out which photo it was. I was just making my point known that it is ridculous to request a dq for a photo when it can very easily be created well within site rules. And it has been done so repeatedly.

Not once did I point out which photo it was.

HBunch

HP PhotoSmart 315

10/21/2003 02:39:03 PM · #19

Originally posted by OneSweetSin:

Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Thank you very much Gordon I did not state what kind of effect was used in the photo but now you have very nicely pointed out exactly which photo. Since when did site council bring attention to particular photos during voting? Well you just did it!

Maybe you shouldn't have made it public in the first place then ?

Just for the record I didn't start the thread and I didn't point out which photo it was. I was just making my point known that it is ridculous to request a dq for a photo when it can very easily be created well within site rules. And it has been done so repeatedly.

Not once did I point out which photo it was.

dsidwell

Canon EOS-5D

10/21/2003 02:57:30 PM · #20

I've had several DQ requests in the past, and I just see it as an opportunity to keep things fair. I didn't mind sending the correct materials in.

In a way, it was kind of an honor for several of the photos that were DQ requested: it meant I was baffling people as to how could I have possibly done that!

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

10/21/2003 03:02:09 PM · #21

Originally posted by hbunch7187:

Maybe then it is time for DPC to make a decision as to editing. Either all editing is going to be allowed or no editing. Some people know how to do it legally while others don't. I just learned how to do that recently before then I did it using layering. If I was new here and browsing through galleries,I would see that being done on photos, and I didn't know how to do it legally I am sure I would be more than willing to assume no matter how it is done it would be legal.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

10/21/2003 03:02:16 PM · #22

I would like to point out that just because it CAN be done legally, doesn't mean it WAS. I DQed a photo today for the same effect that was NOT done legally. If we assumed that everyone followed the rules, we wouldn't need to be here.
Just as it has been done legally repeatedly, it has also been done NOT legally repeatedly.[/quote]

I don't necessarily agree with this line of thinking. I do give people the benefit of the doubt and I only DQ a photo if something looks fake or I can't imagine how an effect was achieved legally not if it could be achieved Illegally. There is a big difference there. It's not really about assumptions it's just if an effect could be done legally as well illegally then I am not too quick to vote DQ on it because there isn't enough information to go by.

T

Message edited by author 2003-10-21 15:05:16.

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/21/2003 03:06:29 PM · #23

DQ requests can be a positive thing. It may mean that your shot has pushed boundaries or shown a treatment which some voters were unaware can be achieved. Why the grumbles?