the photo that got Disqualified.

07/06/2009 02:38:16 AM · #1

from the challenge (never seen on DPC)

Im sorry if I miss lead anyone.. Im going to explain this photo.

I shot this photos for an advert for a shop that sells wigs, hair peices, fake eyelashes and fake eyebrows. It actually the best shop for this sort of stuff in my city.. I adore the eyelashes they have, and its so much fun playing dress ups with the wigs. :)

so this is the series of images we decided to go for..

and this is the before and after of the hairless photos

see you should never beileve everything you see :)

ShutterPug

Canon EOS-6D

07/06/2009 02:48:29 AM · #2

Well you sure did mislead the voters! The rules are very clear about not creating anything in your image. Sad to see this was the case as I really fell for your trickery and thought the person truly was a bald cancer patient. I must say it is this type of stuff that makes many not believe there should be anything BUT minimal editing.
Sorry if I come off harsh. I do appreciate that you admitted what you did.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

07/06/2009 02:57:11 AM · #3

but I guess I see myself as more of an artist, not a photographer.. And I love seeing different mediums play a part to create an image. And I would love to see more expert editing challenges on here. I think its more fun.

BeeCee

Nikon D40

07/06/2009 03:08:26 AM · #4

Originally posted by Digital_Susie:

Im sorry if I miss lead anyone.. Im going to explain this photo.

...snip...

see you should never beileve everything you see :)

You're sorry if you misled, yet your entire purpose with the shot and title was to mislead...

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

07/06/2009 03:15:19 AM · #5

Originally posted by Digital_Susie:

That is all well and good but you chose the wrong forum for your 'art' - Being duped isn't a good feeling and I'm sure you knew the rules, but I certainly give you credit for coming clean.

ShutterPug

Canon EOS-6D

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

07/06/2009 03:32:14 AM · #6

This is your second DQ since May - both times you violated rules. Perhaps you should read the rules thoroughly before submitting to the challenges as anything less undermines the site rules and your regards to them

KarenNfld

07/06/2009 08:20:01 AM · #7

Wow. I was feeling bad for "taking" your ribbon from you. Now I see I had nothing to worry about. This wasn't simply a minor mistake, you obviously didn't read the rules before submitting.

Please read the rules and submit more photos, I am sure your photos are just as good as your digital art.

VitaminB

Nikon D800

07/06/2009 08:32:33 AM · #8

While I agree about the disqualification, as it did break rules, I dont think there is anything wrong with being 'duped'. When I looked at the photo, I never though she was a cancer survivor, despite the lack of hair and the title. Chemotherapy does a lot more that just cause hair loss. Not only that, isnt the point of many photos to 'dupe' people. A good photograph is going to be effective in convincing people of a different truth. The fact that many were convinced that she was a cancer patient is a testament to the photographers skills.

Regarding this being her second DQ in two months, lets keep in mind that the first DQ was her first entry. Personally I think we have to be more flexible with a new member because they may not be aware of how strictly DPC is in adhering to and enforcing the rules around here.

Lets also recognize that

Digital_Susie posted the original here for everyone to judge, when she could have passively ignored it. The responses that have been posted here seem like they are on the offensive. Lets not chase good photographers from this site.

MAK

Leica CL

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

07/06/2009 08:39:36 AM · #9

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Totally agree with this

TomsPhotos

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 14mm f2.8D ED

07/06/2009 08:56:21 AM · #10

whats the reasoning behind the dq though if she actually took the picture and didnt edit out the hair?

PGerst

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

07/06/2009 08:57:52 AM · #11

I agree with that. Personally, I don't feel I was 'duped'. The title and the image fit. Whether the person had cancer or not is beside the point. Had this been a photo post asking for sympathy, that would be a different story.

It was a good photo, and would have been ok under expert rules...and thats where the fine line between digital photography and digital art photography has been debated over many many postings. :)

Originally posted by VitaminB:

While I agree about the disqualification, as it did break rules, I dont think there is anything wrong with being 'duped'.

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

07/06/2009 09:00:57 AM · #12

It takes some time to learn how things work here at DPC. She got the DQ and she "fessed" up with an explanation of what was done. I like her images, and she did make many of us think about how fortunate we are to not have to deal with cancer. To not read the rules before submitting an image, then get a DQ is not the end of the world.
Hugs Susie, and thanks for the explanation of your side of what happened. We usually don't ever know exactly what was done to get a DQ.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/06/2009 09:03:52 AM · #13

Originally posted by TomsPhotos:

whats the reasoning behind the dq though if she actually took the picture and didnt edit out the hair?

she edited out the skullcap, blended the forehead etc. clear rules violation. however usually i am the first in line when it comes to witch burning, but agree it would be nice if susie stuck around as her studio work is great, just read the rules!

DJWoodward

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/06/2009 09:05:07 AM · #14

Originally posted by VitaminB:

I, for one, wasn't convinced. In support of what you've already noted, few who has seen the effects chemotherapy would have been convinced. To be clear, I have no problem with the protrayal. I just didn't beleive it. Its a little difficult to defend the blantant disregard for the editing rules though.

DJWoodward

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

07/06/2009 09:10:07 AM · #15

Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:

She did make many of us think about how fortunate we are to not have to deal with cancer.

For some that are dealing with it she made us wish that it was only that simple

No disrespect to Susie intended. She's very talented and I hope we continue to see more of her work.

eta - spelling

Message edited by author 2009-07-06 09:10:42.

kandykarml

Nikon D80

07/06/2009 09:29:23 AM · #16

LOL... see the original to THIS ONE... Not even close to the same image.. total props to the photog for managing to do ALL THIS under legal editing.. But come on.. if we want to call something digital art it's hardly the image in question from Susie..

I understand she touched on a subject that's painful, but people are allowed to make us believe with their photography.. That's the wonderful, magical part of it.. Just like this photo from

yanko

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

07/06/2009 10:38:17 AM · #17

Wow, Susie! You're really good at your work. Those are really amazingly realistic. Congrats to you for attaining such a high level of expertise in editing.

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G

07/06/2009 11:55:46 AM · #18

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Not only that, isn't the point of many photos to 'dupe' people. A good photograph is going to be effective in convincing people of a different truth.

Agreed - I'm not saying I actually thought this woman had cancer, but I did actually think this photograph was achieved through traditional means of make up or whatever, and I based my vote on that. The good kind of 'duping' is when an artist uses their skill to create a certain vision to take you to a different place, the bad kind is when they do so with means you did not expect or were outside the scope of the art.

Believe it or not,truthfulness, in a certain respect, is an important feature of photography, otherwise you would just see digitally rendered art in National Geographic and galleries would be filled with images made by people who never left the glow of their computer screens.

07/06/2009 11:57:10 AM · #19

well thanks everyone thats really nice.. I did a specail submission for the micheal jackson one and spent like 5 hours on it, with the makeup which I do all my self and photoshop soooo I really hope they dont pull that one because of this. because apprently Ive been suspended for a week, which is fine with me, because I hate shoes anyway, because my feet a to small I can never find any nice ones to fit.. and flowers, well its winter here so I got nothing specail for that. just dont want my MJ submission to disapear..

07/06/2009 11:59:20 AM · #20

Originally posted by AP:

Originally posted by VitaminB:
Not only that, isn't the point of many photos to 'dupe' people. A good photograph is going to be effective in convincing people of a different truth.

Agreed - I'm not saying I actually thought this woman had cancer, but I did actually think this photograph was achieved through traditional means of make up or whatever, and I based my vote on that. The good kind of 'duping' is when an artist uses their skill to create a certain vision to take you to a different place, the bad kind is when they do so with means you did not expect or were outside the scope of the art.

Believe it or not,truthfulness, in a certain respect, is an important feature of photography, otherwise you would just see digitally rendered art in National Geographic and galleries would be filled with images made by people who never left the glow of their computer screens.

i so agree with you there, its like how they photoshop underwear out from women to make it look like they dont wear panties.. I would never do anything like that.. hahaha

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III