| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2008 04:20:49 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Why not just ask the photographer...? |
Because he may have quit DPC when he received the DQ news. (sound familiar, anyone?) LOL!
Message edited by author 2008-01-25 04:21:43.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 07:45:05 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As far as having the "photographer's permission" to post the explanation, I can't imagine why this should be required. Either the transgression was accidental (didn't know it wasn't allowed, forgot what ruleset was being used, pushing the envelope, whatever) or it was deliberate (hoping nobody would catch it). If the former, why would anyone object to the details being released, since they will help fellow-members in the future? And if the latter, who cares? I got no sympathy in me for deliberate transgressors. I can see asking permission to post the unaltered original, however, if that's what we're talking about. Although, personally, I think that posting originals of all ribbon-winners ought to be REQUIRED as part of the challenge terms, because there's so much we can learn that way. But I suppose there are some folks who like to keep their PP close to their vests, so to speak...
I think it's an EXCELLENT idea to post a more detailed explanation of WHY the DQ happened, anyway; that's the bottom line. Just this single line "The stars were added" goes a long way towards answering everyone's questions.
R. |
I suggested getting the photographer's permission to post the original, not in reference to posting a detailed reason.
In fact, I think these pictures should be put into a section all together with before/after and the detailed explanation. I'm guessing there would be enough volunteers; I know I'd gladly submit my original from my DQ way back. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 07:48:23 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Why not just ask the photographer...? |
Because he may have quit DPC when he received the DQ news. (sound familiar, anyone?) LOL! |
Under the column "Original" just put N/A.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 08:10:46 AM · #29 |
First of all I would like to thank you all for the votes, for all your comments and for starting up a discussion regarding unclear rules here on DPC. I on the other hand feel forced to get involved and clear my point of view, and by doing so, hoping that further discussions will lead to a more thorroughly executed rules.
It‘s imprinted in DPC‘s Manifesto that you may ‘use layers, layer masks, and alternative layer modes.’ On the other hand it also declares that you may not ‘use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).’
As I very clearly stated in my testimony of work-procedure, I used Two layers to create the light effect that would by most people be perceived as stars. As we all know, you MAY use the erase tool to work your way through the process of fine polishing the image. As the manifesto states, it’s prohibited to create new objects, which this (the ‘stars’) could perhaps be perceived as, but where do you draw the line? These are two layers of the same image. One very bright and one close to the original. I did use the erase tool to get the effect, just as I would use it to get a slightly different color effect elsewhere.
Now, since these are the rules, then let’s start with defining them. The explanation of an Object could in theory be pinned down to each pixel. So by using layers and erase tools, you’re in theory erasing ‘objects’ throughout the whole work-procedure. Let’s say I would have made a much much bigger gap in the sky, to get a different light result, that would be allowed, wouldn’t it? But by creating smaller gaps in the sky, by using the same tool, and the same method/procedure, it’s ultimately banned and disqualified. I can though understand the viewpoint of it perhaps being on a gray area, but after observing and consulting the rules with other members, I came to the conclusion that it would not be crossing any lines. Therefore I uploaded the image with a clean slate and no second thoughts or worries that I had broken any rules. Nonetheless I do feel now like I’ve deliberately attempted to swindle.
one simple example: You can use tools such as Burn or Dodge to alter the image. Many people, I myself included, have used these tools on a large scale, sometimes burning such a big area (or in some cases, simply burned a complete area) that you MAY WELL ARGUE those actions to be, exactly: ‘create new image area, objects or features’.
I think It̢۪s very necessary to get to the bottom of this, for every participant and for the future of this site. If you make rules, then you must make them clear. That̢۪s the essence of rules. Otherwise they̢۪re nothing more than a rough guideline with no certainty of a correct outcome for any partial.
I do NOT agree with the decision and I stand very strongly on my viewpoint. I hope that others will lay their input into this discussion, and I hope people can see my point of view.
Message edited by author 2008-01-25 09:31:16. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 08:20:42 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
As far as having the "photographer's permission" to post the explanation, I can't imagine why this should be required. Either the transgression was accidental (didn't know it wasn't allowed, forgot what ruleset was being used, pushing the envelope, whatever) or it was deliberate (hoping nobody would catch it). If the former, why would anyone object to the details being released, since they will help fellow-members in the future? And if the latter, who cares? I got no sympathy in me for deliberate transgressors. I can see asking permission to post the unaltered original, however, if that's what we're talking about. Although, personally, I think that posting originals of all ribbon-winners ought to be REQUIRED as part of the challenge terms, because there's so much we can learn that way. But I suppose there are some folks who like to keep their PP close to their vests, so to speak...
I think it's an EXCELLENT idea to post a more detailed explanation of WHY the DQ happened, anyway; that's the bottom line. Just this single line "The stars were added" goes a long way towards answering everyone's questions.
R. |
I suggested getting the photographer's permission to post the original, not in reference to posting a detailed reason.
In fact, I think these pictures should be put into a section all together with before/after and the detailed explanation. I'm guessing there would be enough volunteers; I know I'd gladly submit my original from my DQ way back. |
I think you should keep in mind that some reasons for DQ are best left to the discretion of SC. These reasons may or should not be made public for various reasons but we all should put faith into the authority of SC and not question them when they choose not to make details of a DQ to the members.
Another interesting point in this discussion is the fact that many of the DQ̢۪s are for not supplying the original image so therefore negating the need to discuss and compare the original image.
The other problem I see is that it will open up further debate on whether an image is valid or not. Once an image is DQed it is out of here, the jury has made it̢۪s decision. We should not be questioning the authority of SC or the reasons they give for a DQ.
I do agree that anyone that has a DQ image and is willing to explain what went wrong and supply the original would be a good learning tool and perhaps a new forum topic could be dedicated to it but I don̢۪t want it turned into a bitch and moan forum for the site ranters.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 08:30:03 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Structor:
First of all I would like to thank you all for the votes, for all your comments and for starting up a discussion regarding unclear rules here on DPC. I on the other hand feel forced to get involved and clear my point of view, and by doing so, hoping that further discussions will lead to a more thorroughly executed rules.
It‘s imprinted in DPC‘s Manifesto that you may ‘use layers, layer masks, and alternative layer modes.’ On the other hand it also declares that you may not ‘use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).’
As I very clearly stated in my testimony of work-procedure, I used Two layers to create the light effect that would by most people be perceived as stars. As we all know, you MAY use the erase tool to work your way through the process of fine polishing the image. As the manifesto states, it’s prohibited to create new objects, which this (the ‘stars’) could perhaps be perceived as, but where do you draw the line? These are two layers of the same image. One very bright and one close to the original. I did use the erase tool to get the effect, just as I would use it to get a slightly different color effect elsewhere.
Now, since these are the rules, then let’s start with defining them. The explanation of an Object could in theory be pinned down to each pixel. So by using layers and erase tools, you’re in theory erasing ‘objects’ throughout the whole work-procedure. Let’s say I would have made a much much bigger gap in the sky, to get a different light result, that would be allowed, wouldn’t it? But by creating smaller gaps in the sky, by using the same tool, and the same method/procedure, it’s ultimately banned and disqualified. I can though understand the viewpoint of it perhaps being on a gray area, but after observing and consulting the rules with other members, I came to the conclusion that it would not be crossing any lines. Therefore I uploaded the image with a clean slate and no second thoughts or worries that I had broken any rules. Nonetheless I do feel now like I’ve deliberately attempted to swindle.
one simple example: You can use tools such as Burn or Dodge to alter the image. Many people, I myself included, have used these tools on a large scale, sometimes burning such a big area (or in some cases, simply burned a complete area) that you MAY WELL ARGUE those actions to be, exactly: ‘create new image area, objects or features’.
I think It̢۪s very necessary to get to the bottom of this, for every participant and for the future of this site. If you make rules, then you must make them clear. That̢۪s the essence of rules. Otherwise they̢۪re nothing more than a rough guideline with no certainty of a correct outcome for any partial.
I do NOT agree with the decision and I stand very strongly on my viewpoint. I hope that others will lay their input into this discussion, and I hope people can see my point of view. |
Structor I can understand what you are saying and feel for you. Perhaps you could post your original so others don̢۪t fall into the same trap.
Probably no comfort to you but I think the image would have won the blue ribbon with or without the stars.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 09:06:40 AM · #32 |
While the following rule seems to be the one applied in determining to DQ the image being discussed ...
Originally posted by Advanced Editing Rules:
You may not: use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn̢۪t already exist in your original capture(s). |
... I can see where this one could actually be more applicable (underline added for emphasis).
Originally posted by Advanced Editing Rules:
You may not: use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken. |
The underlined text (...typical viewer's description...) is the one I think about the most if I'm considering some aggressive PP (which is rare for me).
JMO.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 09:17:19 AM · #33 |
So it seems to me, by Structor's explanation, that the stars were added. How can anybody be confused by that? Sheesh.
:-/
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 09:26:53 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Structor:
Let̢۪s say I would have made a much much bigger gap in the sky, to get a different light result, that would be allowed, wouldn̢۪t it? But by creating smaller gaps in the sky, by using the same tool, and the same method/procedure, it̢۪s ultimately banned and disqualified. |
Wouldn't  De Sousa's DQ contradict this part of your statement?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 09:43:52 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I think you should keep in mind that some reasons for DQ are best left to the discretion of SC. These reasons may or should not be made public for various reasons but we all should put faith into the authority of SC and not question them when they choose not to make details of a DQ to the members.
Another interesting point in this discussion is the fact that many of the DQ̢۪s are for not supplying the original image so therefore negating the need to discuss and compare the original image.
The other problem I see is that it will open up further debate on whether an image is valid or not. Once an image is DQed it is out of here, the jury has made it̢۪s decision. We should not be questioning the authority of SC or the reasons they give for a DQ.
I do agree that anyone that has a DQ image and is willing to explain what went wrong and supply the original would be a good learning tool and perhaps a new forum topic could be dedicated to it but I don̢۪t want it turned into a bitch and moan forum for the site ranters. |
The suggestion is not to give the ranters something to bitch about but to help others avoid DQ. The ranters will rant no matter what.
In fact, showing before & after can help support the DQ just as easily as encourage people to question it.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 09:48:54 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
While the following rule seems to be the one applied in determining to DQ the image being discussed ...
Originally posted by Advanced Editing Rules:
You may not: use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn̢۪t already exist in your original capture(s). |
... I can see where this one could actually be more applicable (underline added for emphasis).
Originally posted by Advanced Editing Rules:
You may not: use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken. |
The underlined text (...typical viewer's description...) is the one I think about the most if I'm considering some aggressive PP (which is rare for me).
JMO. |
When I first saw the picture I was immediately drawn to the stars. The stars were created and that's why it was DQ'd. While that seems simple to me, it was because another shot was DQ'd previously for the same reason. Had there been the before/after reference for the previous stars, Structor would not have added them if he saw the other DQ, since it's obvious from his post he thought it was legal. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 09:56:45 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
In fact, I think these pictures should be put into a section all together with before/after and the detailed explanation. I'm guessing there would be enough volunteers; I know I'd gladly submit my original from my DQ way back. |
I think it would be helpful to have a visual reference for DQ'd entries, are there any major problems with creating a DQ collection? Might even lighten SC's workload as far as entry legalities go. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 10:16:43 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by andersbs:
I think it would be helpful to have a visual reference for DQ'd entries, are there any major problems with creating a DQ collection? Might even lighten SC's workload as far as entry legalities go. |
I like that idea. It could contain examples with text explaining why it was DQ'd.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 10:38:03 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
While the following rule seems to be the one applied in determining to DQ the image being discussed ...
Originally posted by Advanced Editing Rules:
You may not: use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn̢۪t already exist in your original capture(s). |
... I can see where this one could actually be more applicable (underline added for emphasis).
Originally posted by Advanced Editing Rules:
You may not: use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken. |
The underlined text (...typical viewer's description...) is the one I think about the most if I'm considering some aggressive PP (which is rare for me).
JMO. |
When I first saw the picture I was immediately drawn to the stars. The stars were created and that's why it was DQ'd. While that seems simple to me, it was because another shot was DQ'd previously for the same reason. Had there been the before/after reference for the previous stars, Structor would not have added them if he saw the other DQ, since it's obvious from his post he thought it was legal. |
Yet the rule states that adding something to the image rather that enhancing an existing effect/object is illegal.
Message edited by author 2008-01-25 10:38:16. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 10:44:24 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by andersbs:
I think it would be helpful to have a visual reference for DQ'd entries, are there any major problems with creating a DQ collection? Might even lighten SC's workload as far as entry legalities go. |
I like that idea. It could contain examples with text explaining why it was DQ'd. |
It's been suggested at least a couple of times. Something along the lines of a category under Photos/Galleries for DQ'd images. Hopefully it's on Langdon's to do list. :-)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 11:06:12 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by andersbs:
I think it would be helpful to have a visual reference for DQ'd entries, are there any major problems with creating a DQ collection? Might even lighten SC's workload as far as entry legalities go. |
I like that idea. It could contain examples with text explaining why it was DQ'd. |
It's been suggested at least a couple of times. Something along the lines of a category under Photos/Galleries for DQ'd images. Hopefully it's on Langdon's to do list. :-) |
Actually, such a gallery already exists. We use it to compare and discuss past precedents. Probably the main reason it's not public is the same reason DQ explanations aren't always specific and the originals aren't posted for comparison: we don't want to "call out" photographers for their mistakes. It wasn't that long ago that DQs weren't visible at all. I often get annoyed when people (or even the photographers) are ranting away over how terribly unjust our decision is without seeing the original for themselves. While we could post the original and immediately silence most of the critics, it's not our place to do so. A public DQ gallery might sound like a good idea, but it would inevitably draw comparisons to photos entered under different versions of the rules or complaints about photos that seem fine when you haven't seen the original for comparison. We'd probably also get complaints about intentional cheaters (although a small minority of the DQs) getting even more views and attention. Personally, I'd rather see radically simplified rules to reduce confusion and excuses- even if it comes at the expense of some artistic freedom. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 11:25:48 AM · #42 |
| Shannon, Thanks for the info and insight. Much appreciated. :-) |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 11:28:33 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by langdon:
Originally posted by dwterry:
So how hard would it be, when DQ'ing an image, to not only state the rule that was broken, but also cite the specific instance for that image? |
That's not a bad idea at all. The reason we don't do it now, and/or haven't up to this point is that we use canned DQ messages. This makes it easier on the person pushing the DQ button (which is not even remotely fun, especially on a wonderul image like this), and also allows us to consult a disqualification gallery on the trickier cases (in attempt to not waffle on issues and look foolish). :) |
 langdon, the canned DQ messages are simply not explicit enough, in some cases, to tell the photographer exactly what went wrong. While I most certainly sympathize with the person who must push the DQ button, I also sympathize with the photographer who still doesn't know what went wrong. It's better to spell it out than to leave a DPCer confused. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 11:51:35 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Actually, such a gallery already exists. We use it to compare and discuss past precedents. Probably the main reason it's not public is the same reason DQ explanations aren't always specific and the originals aren't posted for comparison: we don't want to "call out" photographers for their mistakes. It wasn't that long ago that DQs weren't visible at all. I often get annoyed when people (or even the photographers) are ranting away over how terribly unjust our decision is without seeing the original for themselves. While we could post the original and immediately silence most of the critics, it's not our place to do so. A public DQ gallery might sound like a good idea, but it would inevitably draw comparisons to photos entered under different versions of the rules or complaints about photos that seem fine when you haven't seen the original for comparison. We'd probably also get complaints about intentional cheaters (although a small minority of the DQs) getting even more views and attention. Personally, I'd rather see radically simplified rules to reduce confusion and excuses- even if it comes at the expense of some artistic freedom. |
I'm suggesting a voluntary gallery, nothing to "call out" photographers. Certainly there are photographers here who don't want others to repeat the mistake they made.
If somebody intentionally cheats, don't include them in the gallery.
In addition to the gallery, post the ruleset.
And yes, simplify the rules.
Message edited by author 2008-01-25 12:21:02. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 12:18:05 PM · #45 |
Structor, I'm still confused about what you did.
Are you saying that in one version of the shot, the sky was totally white? And by erasing very small chunks, you allowed pieces of that white sky to show? And those pieces were so small that they looked like stars?
If so, then I'm afraid I agree with the DQ - you created stars where there were none. And I don't think the rules are at all confusing on that point.
But if not, could you maybe post the original so we could better understand?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 12:29:45 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Structor, I'm still confused about what you did.
Are you saying that in one version of the shot, the sky was totally white? And by erasing very small chunks, you allowed pieces of that white sky to show? And those pieces were so small that they looked like stars?
If so, then I'm afraid I agree with the DQ - you created stars where there were none. And I don't think the rules are at all confusing on that point.
But if not, could you maybe post the original so we could better understand? |
I believe that's what he did. He used legal tools, but created an illegal effect.
I think this illustrates some confusion about the rules. Many of the rules are based on tools or technique, and there's an assumption that if the tool is allowed your editing will be legal. I know it's clearly stated in the rules, but I think examples would help some of us understand it better. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 12:39:08 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by levyj413:
SC, did someone ask him why he thought it was legal? Did he think the recent rule changes now allowed him to do it? Or is this a long-standing confusion that surfaced now as an essentially random thing? |
He may have been confused by this shot, which is a recent blue ribbon:
There was a long thread not too long ago, also, where Jason was discussing what he conceived us as basically "legal" ways to "create stars" by dodging spots of noise on long exposures. That muddied the waters considerably, I think. But I don't know how much Structor reads the forums...
R. |
That didn't ribbon. :) It came in 6th and thus was never validated. However, I promise stars were there (albeit many were much fainter then they appear after processing).
As far as muddying the waters, I think that was done with the impressionism challenge and some of the contorted explanations as to why the ribbon shots were deemed legal and not creating new effects. I'll have to go back to read the thread, but my takeaway was that the impressionism filters were just enhancing texture that was already there. My argument would be that skies always have noise in them and one could then take that texture and dodge stars out of it.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 12:53:37 PM · #48 |
SC quotes back from this thread.
Originally posted by kirbic:
You can evaluate the semantics here as much as you like, but it boils down to the fact that the shot of the girl was originally against a white background. Everything in the new background was essentially drawn into place where no features formerly existed.
Yes, the "Frau bei der Toilette" shot has a new and rather dramatic texture added, but it doesn't have new "features" added to it that weren't in the original. Moatz took what was already there and enhanced it; LOWLANDS created entirely new features. |
And from this thread:
Originally posted by Scalvert:
Changing the visual qualities of existing objects with a texture, filters, color shift, etc. is allowed in Advanced. Adding an object or sense of motion where none existed before (including details on a previously blank background) or removing something prominent (either by cloning or completely obscuring with a filter) gets into DQ territory. FWIW, this challenge didn't really spark any unusual surge in validation requests. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
IMO, the brushstroke appearance is a quality adjustment of the elements already present (the woman, sheet, background wall...), just as the surface appearance would be altered with a Gaussian blur or added grain. Had the filter been carried to such an extreme that those objects were no longer obvious, it would've been DQ'd. |
The picture that really got people in a huff was this one:
How are these white flecks (which weren't in the original) different from Structor's created stars? I asked this specific question in that thread and was never answered. Perhaps had someone done that Structor would not be looking at a DQ. I knew that impressionism challenge would eventually bite SC in the butt.
Message edited by author 2008-01-25 12:54:56.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2008 12:53:40 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
As far as muddying the waters, I think that was done with the impressionism challenge and some of the contorted explanations as to why the ribbon shots were deemed legal and not creating new effects. I'll have to go back to read the thread, but my takeaway was that the impressionism filters were just enhancing texture that was already there. My argument would be that skies always have noise in them and one could then take that texture and dodge stars out of it. |
"You may not: use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer̢۪s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken."
If you made your noise stars, wouldn't you change the typical viewer's description? |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 12:56:10 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
If you made your noise stars, wouldn't you change the typical viewer's description? |
Maybe. What if I had 3 stars and wanted 30? Would the typical viewer's description change then? (Night scene with stars.)
|
|
