DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Please be consistent in DQ's
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 89, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/14/2007 08:34:31 AM · #1
Wondering why some photos are DQ'ed and others are not when similar filters/effects have been used. For example:

DQ'ed:


Not DQ'ed:


09/14/2007 08:38:10 AM · #2
The original DQ'd shot had a white background; the texture was completely invented. That's why it was disqualified, and the other one was not. New features were added to the DQ'd shot.
 09/14/2007 08:40:55 AM · #3
The disqualified shot was also a tough call. There were a few of us who actually felt it should not be disqualified, but the majority did feel that it "created a feature."
 09/14/2007 08:47:33 AM · #4
DQ'ed under the "no clip art allowed" rule:


Not DQ'ed although clip art was used:


SC, I know I brought this example up to you earlier and you gave an explanation of why it was allowed, but I don't agree with that explanation. I think if the rule says "no cip art allowed", then the rule should be either enforced or done away with. No clip art should mean no clip art, regardless of the size or where on the photo/border it is placed.

09/14/2007 08:59:25 AM · #5
Hmm, some tough calls. I'm glad I'm not on the SC. They have to draw a line somewhere, and as kirbic said, it comes down to a vote. Now, if the flowers had actually been font asterisks, then maybe they would be allowed. :)

I remember another entry, from hotpasta, I think, where he wanted a round spot label on the album cover, and he made sure to use a large full-stop, so that it would fit under "text is allowed" concession. :) I don't think I would have though of that! Very clever.

But I totally understand KarenNfld's position as well. There are many shots that add vignettes, and that's a tough call too. It's a risk we have to take every time we edit.
09/14/2007 09:14:37 AM · #6
The image with the Nike swish looks like a trademark logo infringement. Companies like Nike are very aggressive when their logos and trademarks are infringed upon. If anyone from Nike sees it, they very well could demand that it be removed. And rightfully so. I'm surprised that it was not DQ'ed. Unless the creater had permission to use it. I know people that have used the bunny ears of Playboy, a parody of the name Toy's R Us and others that got very specific letters demanding they remove it from the company lawyers.

If DPC got a letter like that, would the image be DQ'ed or just removed?

Mike
 09/14/2007 10:32:30 AM · #7
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
DQ'ed under the "no clip art allowed" rule:


Not DQ'ed although clip art was used:


SC, I know I brought this example up to you earlier and you gave an explanation of why it was allowed, but I don't agree with that explanation. I think if the rule says "no cip art allowed", then the rule should be either enforced or done away with. No clip art should mean no clip art, regardless of the size or where on the photo/border it is placed.


The DQ notices used are often boilerplate; they are used as a convenience to SC members. So "broader" conditions than a photo violates is often included. The mention of clipart is not the relevant part of the DQ. The DQ'd image was an ADVANCED challenge. Graphics/Artwork was added to this image and is a significant part. That breaks advanced editing rules (the text is ok due to special rules.)
 09/14/2007 10:44:41 AM · #8
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The DQ notices used are often boilerplate; they are used as a convenience to SC members. So "broader" conditions than a photo violates is often included. The mention of clipart is not the relevant part of the DQ. The DQ'd image was an ADVANCED challenge. Graphics/Artwork was added to this image and is a significant part. That breaks advanced editing rules (the text is ok due to special rules.)

What's the difference between "clipart" and "Graphics/Artwork was added". Aren't they the same as far as being legal - (neither one is legal unless exempted in special rules are they)?

The Nike Swoosh could be a photo of their trademark I guess, but even then that wouldn't fly for Motivational Poster II as only text was the exemption.

I ask only because it does seem confusing.
 09/14/2007 11:06:15 AM · #9
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The DQ notices used are often boilerplate; they are used as a convenience to SC members. So "broader" conditions than a photo violates is often included. The mention of clipart is not the relevant part of the DQ. The DQ'd image was an ADVANCED challenge. Graphics/Artwork was added to this image and is a significant part. That breaks advanced editing rules (the text is ok due to special rules.)

What's the difference between "clipart" and "Graphics/Artwork was added". Aren't they the same as far as being legal - (neither one is legal unless exempted in special rules are they)?

The Nike Swoosh could be a photo of their trademark I guess, but even then that wouldn't fly for Motivational Poster II as only text was the exemption.

I ask only because it does seem confusing.


I got to agree with that. Nowhere in the special rules is an exemption made for adding clip art OR adding a second image, the only exemption is for adding text. Seems to me an error was made here.

R.
 09/14/2007 11:08:51 AM · #10
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Seems to me an error was made here.


What say we wait until a decision has been reached before declaring mistakes, hmmm? ;-)
 09/14/2007 11:16:48 AM · #11
I would have to say that the excessive blurring on the floor of the nike shot seems to violate the "You may not create new features or obscure significant parts of your original capture." part of the rules as well.

But hey, it is not my opinion that counts. :)

09/14/2007 11:29:04 AM · #12
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Seems to me an error was made here.


What say we wait until a decision has been reached before declaring mistakes, hmmm? ;-)


Sorry, I thought the image had already been validated. By all means discuss :-) If there's been no ruling there's no mistake :-)

R.
 09/14/2007 11:30:59 AM · #13
Originally posted by basssman7:
I would have to say that the excessive blurring on the floor of the nike shot seems to violate the "You may not create new features or obscure significant parts of your original capture." part of the rules as well.

But hey, it is not my opinion that counts. :)


Now that you mention it, it IS pretty funny that in the BG there is a pair of legs that's half-blurred-half sharp, divided by the tape :-) But the blur itself is still legal, since it has merely softened, not obliterated, the details.

R.
 09/15/2007 09:23:02 AM · #14
After looking at the Impressionism entries, I am very surprised that MOST of them were not DQ'ed. Seems to me all the ones that achieved the 'impressionism' effect through post processing all added major elements/new features - texture, appearance of 'brush strokes,' etc. I am very confused on this.

Message edited by author 2007-09-15 09:25:02.
 09/15/2007 10:28:38 AM · #15
DQ's are consistent.

They are consistently inconsistent.
 09/15/2007 09:49:42 PM · #16


With so much being allowed in Expert (and Advanced) anyone want to explain to me why this was DQ'd?


FWIW, the Flood filter is a lot more aggressive at adding graphic elements than a few stars.

Message edited by author 2007-09-15 22:06:09.
 09/15/2007 09:56:16 PM · #17
could this be why......"Lots of color shifts, added stars using a starry sky tutorial I found somewhere, involving just a brush tool at various sizes and degrees of softness. The original was taken at the Rocky Mountain Balloon Festival at Chatfield State Park, Littleton, Colorado. "

09/15/2007 09:58:56 PM · #18
Originally posted by kirbic:
The disqualified shot was also a tough call. There were a few of us who actually felt it should not be disqualified, but the majority did feel that it "created a feature."


How about there being a 100% vote to DQ requirement before a photo is disqualified?
 09/15/2007 10:03:19 PM · #19
Originally posted by David Ey:
How about there being a 100% vote to DQ requirement before a photo is disqualified?


Bad idea. Even a 15-1 vote would lead to many more inconsistent decisons.
 09/15/2007 10:04:31 PM · #20
Originally posted by David Ey:
could this be why......"Lots of color shifts, added stars using a starry sky tutorial I found somewhere, involving just a brush tool at various sizes and degrees of softness. The original was taken at the Rocky Mountain Balloon Festival at Chatfield State Park, Littleton, Colorado. "


I see your point, David, but in the same challenge many entries were not DQ'd which also had added elements - like this one:

and this one:

09/15/2007 10:07:11 PM · #21
It's a tough job isn't it?
 09/15/2007 10:14:27 PM · #22
Originally posted by David Ey:
It's a tough job isn't it?


SC's job is really tough. (specially pleasing everyone is too difficult).
 09/16/2007 02:45:25 AM · #23
"You may not create new features or obscure significant parts of your original capture."

I've always felt the flood filter clearly violated this rule. If one removed the unflooded part of the shot, would anyone be able to recognise what was originally in the flooded section?
And it definitely affects the way a person would describe the shot!
What is the rationale for allowing this one?

eta; I guess it's not allowed in advanced, just ignore me :)

Message edited by author 2007-09-16 02:50:12.
 09/16/2007 09:16:06 PM · #24
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:


With so much being allowed in Expert (and Advanced) anyone want to explain to me why this was DQ'd?


FWIW, the Flood filter is a lot more aggressive at adding graphic elements than a few stars.


No response ehh? It's ok to admit when you're wrong ya know...
 09/16/2007 09:22:09 PM · #25
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:


With so much being allowed in Expert (and Advanced) anyone want to explain to me why this was DQ'd?


FWIW, the Flood filter is a lot more aggressive at adding graphic elements than a few stars.


No response ehh? It's ok to admit when you're wrong ya know...


In Rebecca's shot the stars were purely created, whereas in Marbo's shot, the "flood" is created by modifying image data that already exists. That's the difference.
Does it make a lot of sense? Perhaps not. That is precisely why the Expert Rules are still in trial. We need to iron out some of these difficulties before Expert becomes a "released" ruleset.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 07:47:57 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 08/02/2025 07:47:57 AM EDT.