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

DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Can you protest a disqualification?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 172, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/19/2009 05:36:18 PM · #26
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Oh, you mean like this:



Good point!! would this photo be legal under the current interpretation of the rules? It would be interesting to hear Scalvert's own opinion.

Did you guys even bother looking at the version posted on that entry without the cross-hatching filter applied? Each clover was desaturated as a whole object, and there were already lines visible. What new shapes or objects were created?


It may be my less than perfect eye-sight but I believe the "pencil lines" on the leaf at 11 o'clock were not there before the filter was applied. In your description you stated that you had ".....hit it with a crosshatch filter to make the strokes" (bold and underline are mine) and I think that is accurate. Please understand, I am not accusing you of any wrong doing, I am fully aware that your photo prceeds the new interpretation of the rules. It is OK if it was legal then and not now, as long as we have a clear idea of what the new rules are.

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 17:37:36.
 04/19/2009 05:45:56 PM · #27
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by delin:
Sorry, I'm sure this has been covered but I can't find anything on it. My Crayon/Colored Pencil entry has been DQ'd, and the reason is just not true. They are saying a tool was used to add something that wasn't in the original. I submitted my RAW original, everything is there that's in my entry. I spent a lot of time on my entry and was getting my 3rd best score ever, with some great comments. Can you protest a DQ?


This photo was originally judged legal, subsequently, a few months ago, it was extensively discussed in This Thread. If you take the time to read the thread you will see that several SC members posted in the thread stating that similar entries in the future would be ilegal. The argument was that the roller tracks did not exist in the original picture and were virtually created by using desat. I Think your picture is similar in that the pencil lines were created by the photoshop brush and not by a pencil. It sucks but it looks like you have no recourse. My brother and I were discussing your entry and thought the only way it would not be disqualified would be if you had actually printed a B&W photo with only part of the sky and the pencil lines in blue, then used that photo to take your final picture, then desat all but the the blue sky and the lines, it would have ended up identical but legal. It is a great picture; too bad you had not become aware of the above captioned thread before the challenge.


Thanks, I do remember that entry now, it was probably in my subconscious when I did mine. Very similar to what I did. I didn't read the follow up discussion back then., I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the tips!
 04/19/2009 05:51:00 PM · #28
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
It may be my less than perfect eye-sight but I believe the "pencil lines" on the leaf at 11 o'clock were not there before the filter was applied. In your description you stated that you had ".....hit it with a crosshatch filter to make the strokes" (bold and underline are mine) and I think that is accurate.

The difference before and after the filter is subtle, and it's certainly not drawing in lines or shapes in a formerly blank area. Now imagine using a saturation brush to draw a duck in the paper above the clover. That wouldn't exactly be enhancing what's already there, would it?
 04/19/2009 05:59:53 PM · #29
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
My brother and I were discussing your entry and thought the only way it would not be disqualified would be if you had actually printed a B&W photo with only part of the sky and the pencil lines in blue, then used that photo to take your final picture, then desat all but the the blue sky and the lines, it would have ended up identical but legal.


No, that would not have been legal at all, as pointed out by Dr.Confuser. That would indeed definitely violate the other often-controversial rule about photographing existing artwork.


So you couldn't take someone else's photo entirely, distort it beyond any allowable rules here (even advanced), put it on your monitor, take a picture of it with your hand in front of it, call it yours, enter it in basic editing, win a blue ribbon and not be disqualified? Oh, I don't know, say with something like this-



I have to admit being called out for a violation by someone who bends the rules like this is very aggravating.

04/19/2009 06:08:52 PM · #30
Originally posted by delin:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
My brother and I were discussing your entry and thought the only way it would not be disqualified would be if you had actually printed a B&W photo with only part of the sky and the pencil lines in blue, then used that photo to take your final picture, then desat all but the the blue sky and the lines, it would have ended up identical but legal.


No, that would not have been legal at all, as pointed out by Dr.Confuser. That would indeed definitely violate the other often-controversial rule about photographing existing artwork.


So you couldn't take someone else's photo entirely, distort it beyond any allowable rules here (even advanced), put it on your monitor, take a picture of it with your hand in front of it, call it yours, enter it in basic editing, win a blue ribbon and not be disqualified? Oh, I don't know, say with something like this-



I have to admit being called out for a violation by someone who bends the rules like this is very aggravating.


As an innocent bystander, that seems unfair. That picture was dated 2005--it sounds like rules have evolved quite a bit since then.
 04/19/2009 06:09:48 PM · #31
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by alanfreed:
I don't see a ticket from you in the queue... but the short story is that your editing created new shapes that didn't exist in the original, specifically the lines "drawn" by the pencil.


Oh, you mean like this:



What great example. Thank you!
 04/19/2009 06:11:58 PM · #32
What would be nice is a Tutorial of each challenge rules (advanced, basic, expert, etc.). It could show legal methods and illegal methods with examples. I think this would help clarify much that seems like interpretation.

Another idea is to add an APPROVED (advanced, basic, expert, etc) on all existing tutorials. Example: Tutorial "Watching & Waiting by Judi" DPC APPROVED for Expert editing. Illegal in Advanced and Basic. This is only an example so don't use this as a factual statement.

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 18:22:46.
 04/19/2009 06:14:26 PM · #33


As an innocent bystander, that seems unfair. That picture was dated 2005--it sounds like rules have evolved quite a bit since then. [/quote]

But reading the rules that were in effect at that time shows obvious violations. It's starting to feel like there is favortism involved around here. Guess it's who you know.
 04/19/2009 06:29:13 PM · #34
Originally posted by delin:
But reading the rules that were in effect at that time shows obvious violations. It's starting to feel like there is favortism involved around here. Guess it's who you know.


Seriously mate you could do with stepping away from the keyboard for a short while those sort of accusations will not do you any favours at all IMO

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 18:29:38.
 04/19/2009 06:37:34 PM · #35
Originally posted by delin:
But reading the rules that were in effect at that time shows obvious violations. It's starting to feel like there is favortism involved around here. Guess it's who you know.


That's completely unfair. The moonbulb image was dissected *at length* at the time of its creation, and SC, collectively, is on record as to why it was legal then, and actually still is now. And the clover-leaf image doesn't introduce ANY "new elements" whatsoever via its processing, so it's not relevant in any way, shape or form (apparently) to your own particular DQ. Accusing SC of favoritism is no help to you at all.

R.
 04/19/2009 06:53:34 PM · #36
Originally posted by scalvert:
Did you guys even bother looking at the version posted on that entry without the cross-hatching filter applied?


Yes, I did.
 04/19/2009 06:56:07 PM · #37
Originally posted by delin:
But reading the rules that were in effect at that time shows obvious violations. It's starting to feel like there is favortism involved around here. Guess it's who you know.


Wrong. Scalvert has said on numerous occasions that his own shot would not likely stand up to the rules as they're currently written.
 04/19/2009 07:43:32 PM · #38
Originally posted by delin:
As an innocent bystander, that seems unfair. That picture was dated 2005--it sounds like rules have evolved quite a bit since then.

But reading the rules that were in effect at that time shows obvious violations. It's starting to feel like there is favortism involved around here. Guess it's who you know.


I do not think this is a matter of favoritism or wrong doing at all, but rather a lack of clarity on the NEW interpretation of the rules. I never intended to argue that the clover picture should have not been legal then but asked whether it would be legal now.

In the case of the clover picture, I respectfully disagree with Bear_Music, it appears that several new elements were created by the application of the filter such as 'pencil strokes' accross the stems of clovers # 2 and 3 (from right to left) and the heavy 'pencil lines' on the leaf at 11 o'clock of clover #1. It does not matter whether these were created by desaturation or any other processing technique. This does not translate into wrong doing as it is clear that the rules were what they were then. What needs to be clear is whether or not an identical entry, processed in the identical way would still be legal now, and if so, what would be the rationale? . Scalvert suggested that the effect was subtle, indeed it was, but that could not be an element of judgement for future entries because the concept of subtle is too subjective. In the case of the clovers for example, the subtle effect was enough to make it look as if the last few clovers were in fact drawn by pencil strokes.

There is absolutely nothing personal in my comments.

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 19:44:21.
 04/19/2009 07:44:09 PM · #39
"That's completely unfair. The moonbulb image was dissected *at length* at the time of its creation, and SC, collectively, is on record as to why it was legal then, and actually still is now"

"Wrong. Scalvert has said on numerous occasions that his own shot would not likely stand up to the rules as they're currently written."

So which is it?
 04/19/2009 07:51:30 PM · #40
Originally posted by delin:
So which is it?


Frankly, an argument could be made either way, and I'm not about to start a whole new argument about a whole different rule again. Are you nearly done with the kicking and screaming...? :)

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 19:51:49.
 04/19/2009 08:00:45 PM · #41
Originally posted by delin:
"That's completely unfair. The moonbulb image was dissected *at length* at the time of its creation, and SC, collectively, is on record as to why it was legal then, and actually still is now"

"Wrong. Scalvert has said on numerous occasions that his own shot would not likely stand up to the rules as they're currently written."

So which is it?


Apparently, I have forgotten (or missed) that Shannon's opined that the image would *now* not be acceptable, but that's neither here nor there because it was legal under the then-current ruleset.

R
 04/19/2009 08:05:18 PM · #42
Originally posted by delin:
But reading the rules that were in effect at that time shows obvious violations.

At the time, the only restriction on artwork was that something in the photo had to be real. The hand and bulb base were real, and everything else was global color adjustments and sharpening. It was validated unanimously, and I was not a member of the Site Council back then.

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 20:05:56.
 04/19/2009 08:06:58 PM · #43
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by delin:
So which is it?


Frankly, an argument could be made either way, and I'm not about to start a whole new argument about a whole different rule again. Are you nearly done with the kicking and screaming...? :)


Alan while I understand your frustration, I hope you can also see the frustration of the masses, when rules are neither black nor white, but subjected to the Opinion and interpretation of the SC it makes it even harder. And when one of the SC members also has several which are called into question, but always seem to pass the scrutiny of the SC when others seem to think they will not for obvious(to them) reasons.

I myself have learned there is only one way to avoid getting a DQ is to not push the rules and to stay far away from the gray areas. I also have learned not to squabble with the SC no one ever wins.

Matt
 04/19/2009 08:08:29 PM · #44
Originally posted by MattO:
I also have learned not to squabble with the SC no one ever wins.


Apart from the SC...


04/19/2009 08:08:42 PM · #45
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Originally posted by delin:
So which is it?


Frankly, an argument could be made either way, and I'm not about to start a whole new argument about a whole different rule again. Are you nearly done with the kicking and screaming...? :)


Yeah, I'm getting close. What got me going was this- I get the DQ message from Scalvert. It doesn't seem to me to be that obvious of a violation and could be debated. I look at Scalvert's profile and see winning entries that look way out there rule wise. It doesn't seem fair. My apologies for throwing the favoritism card out there, didn't know it was so weighted and in the heat of the battle I panicked. I do know from personnel experience that when you are in a position of authority you are open to even closer scrutiny.
 04/19/2009 08:20:37 PM · #46
Originally posted by delin:
What got me going was this- I get the DQ message from Scalvert. It doesn't seem to me to be that obvious of a violation and could be debated. I look at Scalvert's profile and see winning entries that look way out there rule wise.

The DQ message didn't come from me– only the explanation after you questioned it. Drawing shapes in a blank sky is a very obvious violation (roughly equivalent to this) and resulted in a unanimous DQ. Some of my old entries might very well be illegal under current rules, but they were OK under the rules at the time.
 04/19/2009 08:35:19 PM · #47
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by delin:
What got me going was this- I get the DQ message from Scalvert. It doesn't seem to me to be that obvious of a violation and could be debated. I look at Scalvert's profile and see winning entries that look way out there rule wise.

The DQ message didn't come from me– only the explanation after you questioned it. Drawing shapes in a blank sky is a very obvious violation (roughly equivalent to this) and resulted in a unanimous DQ. Some of my old entries might very well be illegal under current rules, but they were OK under the rules at the time.


So, would the clover picture be or not be legal under the current rules? This is just a factual question, not an accusation, please do not answer in a defensive manner.

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 20:38:12.
 04/19/2009 08:44:44 PM · #48
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
So, would the clover picture be or not be legal under the current rules?

Sure, why wouldn't it be? Whole objects were desaturated, and the rest of the editing was minor.
 04/19/2009 09:05:49 PM · #49
Originally posted by MattO:
Alan while I understand your frustration, I hope you can also see the frustration of the masses


I wasn't really expressing much frustration... I was basically quoting delin's kicking and screaming remark.

Originally posted by delin:
I do know from personnel experience that when you are in a position of authority you are open to even closer scrutiny.


If you looked into it, you would find that several SC members have DQs under their belts. We're no different than anyone else; if we violate a rule, we get a DQ, and we don't hold back punches against one another. Heck, we don't even like each other all that much! (Just kidding... mostly... :)

Message edited by author 2009-04-19 21:06:14.
 04/19/2009 10:08:45 PM · #50
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by delin:
What got me going was this- I get the DQ message from Scalvert. It doesn't seem to me to be that obvious of a violation and could be debated. I look at Scalvert's profile and see winning entries that look way out there rule wise.

The DQ message didn't come from me– only the explanation after you questioned it. Drawing shapes in a blank sky is a very obvious violation (roughly equivalent to this) and resulted in a unanimous DQ. Some of my old entries might very well be illegal under current rules, but they were OK under the rules at the time.


Dang, I was all calmed down and I saw this. My picture IS NOT roughly equivalent to that. In your example here they drew in something in a different color. Nothing to do with the original. In mine the colors are original and part is B/W. A saturation and desaturation only. My entry was more equivalent to this, which was a mixture of sat and desat, wasn't DQ'd, and got a ribbon-


As far as your old entries, they were obviously controversial as "much debate" was held over their legality. In reading the rules of the time I agree with the dissenters. Come on, using someone else's photo as the main subject? Taking a picture of it on the monitor?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/23/2025 01:09:44 PM

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: 06/23/2025 01:09:44 PM EDT.