Please be consistent in DQ's - DPChallenge Forums

09/16/2007 09:37:56 PM · #26

That "created" word is a bit slippery lately.

Message edited by author 2007-09-16 21:41:33.

09/16/2007 09:41:00 PM · #27

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

That "created" word is a bit slippery lately, especially after Impressionism.

Care to elaborate? If you're intent was to level an accusation of inequity, at least be specific. If it was not, then more clarity might avoid misinterpretations.

09/16/2007 09:43:28 PM · #28

I've argued that the majority of Impressionism entries were "created" paintings, which change the average viewer's description of the photo. Yet, these stars are a very minimum feature in this photo.

09/16/2007 09:46:42 PM · #29

But let's compare Rebecca's photo to the photo of the bridge....just to be fair and not to make this into yet another of my rants about how laughable Impressionism turned out.

09/16/2007 10:03:02 PM · #30

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I've argued that the majority of Impressionism entries were "created" paintings, which change the average viewer's description of the photo. Yet, these stars are a very minimum feature in this photo.

I'll again point out that modification of existing image data is different than creating it arbitrarily.
Effects filters are legal in Advanced. They always have been and, AFAIK, they will be for the forseeable future. We define a feature as something that appears to be an identifiable shape or object in the shot. We specifically allow textures, which is what many of these "impressionistic" effects qualify as.

09/16/2007 10:04:15 PM · #31

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

But let's compare Rebecca's photo to the photo of the bridge....just to be fair and not to make this into yet another of my rants about how laughable Impressionism turned out.

We have consistently allowed "breakout" of the image into the border area, even in Advanced. The "addition" in the bridge shot qualifies as a border.

09/16/2007 10:05:10 PM · #32

Care to explain the created photo in the bridge photo?

That is not a border, it's a 3D image, a photo, within the photo, IF it's a border I can do it in Advanced. Giving me permission?

Message edited by author 2007-09-16 22:06:27.

09/16/2007 10:23:43 PM · #33

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Care to explain the created photo in the bridge photo?

That is not a border, it's a 3D image, a photo, within the photo, IF it's a border I can do it in Advanced. Giving me permission?

Not a border?
- It surrounds the image
- It does not contain clip-art or text
- It does contain a gradient and a drop shadow, both of which have been allowed consistently in the past
- It does have "breakout" of the subject into the border area, which we have allowed in the past.

Bottom line, there was no compelling reason not to consider it a border.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

09/16/2007 10:31:02 PM · #34

Originally posted by scalvert:

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.

So is a two thirds majority used or would something like an 8-7 decision hold up?

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/16/2007 10:33:35 PM · #35

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by scalvert:

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.

So is a two thirds majority used or would something like an 8-7 decision hold up?

A two thirds majority is required to keep ursula from filibustering.

David Ey

Nikon D80

09/16/2007 10:34:27 PM · #36

I think there would be a heck of a lot fewer DQ's and less complaining about those that were DQ'd

Originally posted by David Ey:

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?

09/16/2007 10:37:40 PM · #37

Originally posted by David Ey:

I think there would be a heck of a lot fewer DQ's and less complaining about those that were DQ'd

Originally posted by David Ey:

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?

And a shedload of complaints about the ones *not* being DQ'd.

09/16/2007 10:38:24 PM · #38

Originally posted by kirbic:

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.

Does this logic only apply to expert editing? Couldn't you say that LOWLANDS' inverted background merely altered existing pixels? I'm surprised to here that photo was DQed because of an inverted background. The only thing inversion does is change the color of the pixels to it's opposite. I thought color shifts were legal?

09/16/2007 10:42:07 PM · #39

Originally posted by yanko:

Does this logic only apply to expert editing? Couldn't you say that LOWLANDS' inverted background merely altered existing pixels?...

Can you point me at this image? I'm not sure which one you're referring to...

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

09/16/2007 10:47:37 PM · #40

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by yanko:
Does this logic only apply to expert editing? Couldn't you say that LOWLANDS' inverted background merely altered existing pixels?...

Can you point me at this image? I'm not sure which one you're referring to...

alanfreed posted earlier in this thread saying it was DQed because of the inverted background.

David Ey

Nikon D80

09/16/2007 10:48:11 PM · #41

Originally posted by kirbic:

And a shedload of complaints about the ones *not* being DQ'd.

The reply would be "SC member (name) believes the photo should not be DQ'd for the following reason....bla bla bla"

Why you think there are complaints in the first place? Even youse guys can't agree and get your "shed" together.

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/16/2007 10:49:30 PM · #42

Originally posted by alanfreed:

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.

Invented, not inverted ;-)

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

09/16/2007 10:51:04 PM · #43

Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by kirbic:
And a shedload of complaints about the ones *not* being DQ'd.

The reply would be "SC member (name) believes the photo should not be DQ'd for the following reason....bla bla bla"

Why you think there are complaints in the first place? Even youse guys can't agree and get your "shed" together.

First thing tomorrow I'm asking for a pay raise.

09/16/2007 10:51:08 PM · #44

LOL. I need to get my eyes checked!

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/16/2007 10:52:32 PM · #45

Originally posted by David Ey:

David,
Consensus is the best way to ensure that the rules are consistently applied. When a single vote can overrule the majority, you'll have *very* inconsistent rulings. Think about it.

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/16/2007 10:54:01 PM · #46

Originally posted by ursula:

First thing tomorrow I'm asking for a pay raise.

Do you think there would be a majority vote on that one...shesheshesehseh!!!!

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

09/16/2007 10:54:32 PM · #47

Originally posted by ursula:

First thing tomorrow I'm asking for a pay raise.

I say, we vote ourselves a 100% raise! Oh, wait...

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

09/16/2007 10:55:52 PM · #48

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by ursula:
First thing tomorrow I'm asking for a pay raise.

I say, we vote ourselves a 100% raise! Oh, wait...

And if we don't get it, I'll filibuster.

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/16/2007 10:56:44 PM · #49

Originally posted by ursula:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by ursula:
First thing tomorrow I'm asking for a pay raise.

I say, we vote ourselves a 100% raise! Oh, wait...

And if we don't get it, I'll filibuster.

Is that filibuster...OR...bilifuster???