| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/26/2021 01:12:08 PM · #1 |
The results of the Extended Free Study 2021-04 ' challenge have been recalculated due to the disqualification of the former 2nd place image. The entrant used a 2nd image to replace the sky with, but did not provide the original image of the sky for validation.
Under the Extended editing rules it states "You may: combine multiple photographs to produce your entry. All additional photographs must be taken by you after the challenge is announced with a digital camera that records EXIF data."
Congratulations to the upgraded ribbon winner and new HM entry. |
|
|
|
05/26/2021 02:16:42 PM · #2 |
The above statement is untrue.
The photographer provided a photograph of the owl and the explanation that the sky was created in Photoshop
and therefore could not be provided. The photographer acknowledged that it was most likely a DQ and apologized
for not checking the rules. Because "proof" is so time sensitive the photographer submitted proof on May 22nd
hours after it had been awarded. The photographer also announced to the community that she had screwed up by
using a replacement sky and the photo was likely a DQ.
Four days later, the photographer is again asked for "proof" and four days later the photo is disqualified.
Let's not pretend that this time sensitive machine is not asleep at the switch. |
|
|
|
05/26/2021 04:17:20 PM · #3 |
This last statement is not entirely accurate.
The photographer did not say "the sky was created in Photoshop" (which is not legal). The photographers description was a bit less clear, saying "I used a replacement sky in PS". We thought it was possible that the photographer might have replaced the existing sky with the sky from another image the photographer shot during the challenge period (which would be legal in Extended editing). So, before disqualifying the image we sent a message requesting the photographer send a second image if used. Yes, ideally this request would have gone out earlier.
Sorry if we appear to you to be "asleep at the switch". We move cautiously when DQs are involved. Sometimes communications are slowed as try to get some consensus among a disparate group of folks volunteering their time. We appreciate your patience with us when delays occur. |
|
|
|
05/26/2021 04:42:36 PM · #4 |
Sorry Mark
Saying" I used a replacement sky in Photoshop and this is a DQ" does not seem confusing or ambiguous to me.
My beef is blaming the photographer for not supplying a second image when the photographer clearly stated that the
image was created in Photoshop and therefore a DQ. I appreciate your sensitivity for disqualifying images but four days
later is too after the fact.
Jane |
|
|
|
05/26/2021 04:58:05 PM · #5 |
Jane, the SC was just doing "due diligence." They wanted to be sure you knew that if the sky was photographed by you during the challenge timeframe the sky replacement would be entirely legal. They were going the extra mile to help you and to try and avoid DQ-ing the image.
Also, FWIW, the SC was *not* "asleep at the switch." It normally does take several days to complete review of images. That's just the process. SC are all volunteers with limited time. |
|
|
|
05/26/2021 05:43:41 PM · #6 |
Fritz, I do understand they are volunteers and overworked and under appreciated. I get that.
I was simply trying to help them. Hey guys, I screwed up. This is a Photoshopped replacement sky. This is a DQ.
I posted that on the photograph. Over and out.
Four days later I get a request for proof, again and an official DQ because I failed to submit a second photograph.
"The entrant used a 2nd image to replace the sky with, but did not provide the original image of the sky for validation."
This bugs me. It is not what happened. Really, end of story. |
|
|
|
05/26/2021 05:47:41 PM · #7 |
Jane,
I do see that you commented on 5/22 that the sky was created in Ps. The SC just wanted to be sure it was not a replacement in Ps using an image. Again, they were trying to help. |
|
|
|
05/26/2021 05:48:45 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by MeMex2:
Sorry Mark
Saying" I used a replacement sky in Photoshop and this is a DQ" does not seem confusing or ambiguous to me. |
To me, this merely means that you were using Photoshop to edit/combine images.
Less ambiguous might be "replacement sky from Photoshop" (implies using a stock image) or "replacement sky created in Photoshop" (suggests using a filter) ...
FWIW I've had a DQ where I DID use one of my own sky photos as a component -- fortunately none of my DQs involve ribbons ...
Remember that not meeting some DPC rule doesn't negate that it was a fine image and appreciated by the masses. :-) |
|
|
|
05/26/2021 06:26:26 PM · #9 |
This is what is posted on the photograph:
N/A
Disqualification Details
The photographer used a 2nd image to replace the sky and failed to provide a valid original of the new sky image within a timely manner. Under the Extended editing rules it states "You may: combine multiple photographs to produce your entry. All additional photographs must be taken by you after the challenge is announced with a digital camera that records EXIF data."
It should read: Photographer notified SC that she did not follow the AE rules and that her photograph is disqualified. She did so in a timely manor.
Not this pap four days later.
That's it..I am really over it |
|
|
|
05/27/2021 03:07:55 AM · #10 |
| if there was a misunderstanding and creating a sky with ps is allowed I think it is possible to return the photo to second place in the standings, or not? |
|
|
|
05/27/2021 12:10:57 PM · #11 |
I'm having a hard time understanding this DQ.
Jane said she used a feature in PhotoShop to create the sky in and Extended Editing challenge.
The Extended Rules say: You may use any feature of image processing software to manipulate/enhance the images in your submission.
That's what she did, right? She used the new Sky Replacement feature of the Photoshop software to enhance the image in her submission.
She didn't use a second image... so she did not fail to submit it. I don't understand... and I want to.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2021 01:13:03 PM · #12 |
| my understanding is that the new Sky Replacement feature in Photoshop uses a database of actual sky photos to blend in. So while it is a feature in Photoshop, using it is equivalent of using a stock photo together with you own. What if in the next iteration Photoshop comes up with a new "Background Replacement" feature where you can put your model in front of the Eiffel tower, Niagara falls or anything else you desire? |
|
|
|
05/27/2021 01:32:19 PM · #13 |
Using stock photos is not allowed at any time in DPC challenges. The sky images stored in Photoshop and other apps constitute a library of stock photos for inserting into bland skies. You need to shoot your own sky, legally, and insert it.
But that's not Jane's issue here. What's actually happening is a miscommunication and it doesn't affect the disqualification of the image. Jane herself told us the image needed to be DQd but the way she worded her statement left open in our minds that she might actually have used a "legal" image for the sky and that she might have been told that this wasn't allowed in Extended editing, which of course it would have been. Since it wasn't clear to us that she had, in fact, used a stock image, and because we wanted to be as fair as possible, we sent a second request for the proof image on the sky.
Regarding the disqualification message, that is boilerplate that's stored in our admin module, and it is actually correct: the image was DQd because the photographer was unable to provide a valid original. The reason we use THAT wording in our boilerplate is because we don't want to actually accuse photographers of breaking the rules ("so-and-so was DQd because s/he used an illegal image") since many times "failure to provide a valid original" is simply a case of missing files.
Jane appears to be unhappy because this wasn't done in a more timely manner, and because we didn't acknowledge that the issue was self-reported. As to the first issue, that was a fairly normal timespan for us. Regarding the second issue, we apologize for not making it clear that Jane self-reported the infraction at the outset. |
|
|
|
05/27/2021 02:41:31 PM · #14 |
Thanks Robert, well formulated. I was actually responding to  Lydia's previous comment. |
|
|
|
05/27/2021 04:56:56 PM · #15 |
That's a good summary Robert although I honestly thought I made it clear that by using PS sky replacement, there was no
sky to submit. It's the DQ and the corporate speak that made me want to scream, as I did. blah, blah, blah.
I have gotten carried away with 'sky replacements'. I used the same one behind a bald eagle and although I thought the light matched perfectly
something was off. Jake pointed out that I had a photograph of a 400mm eagle and a 30mm sky. I tried to correct it by blurring it out behind the
owl, but it still looks off.
Sorry to have dissed our treasured, hardworking, volunteer SC
Jane
|
|
|
|
05/27/2021 05:00:09 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Using stock photos is not allowed at any time in DPC challenges. The sky images stored in Photoshop and other apps constitute a library of stock photos for inserting into bland skies. You need to shoot your own sky, legally, and insert it.
But that's not Jane's issue here. What's actually happening is a miscommunication and it doesn't affect the disqualification of the image. Jane herself told us the image needed to be DQd but the way she worded her statement left open in our minds that she might actually have used a "legal" image for the sky and that she might have been told that this wasn't allowed in Extended editing, which of course it would have been. Since it wasn't clear to us that she had, in fact, used a stock image, and because we wanted to be as fair as possible, we sent a second request for the proof image on the sky.
Regarding the disqualification message, that is boilerplate that's stored in our admin module, and it is actually correct: the image was DQd because the photographer was unable to provide a valid original. The reason we use THAT wording in our boilerplate is because we don't want to actually accuse photographers of breaking the rules ("so-and-so was DQd because s/he used an illegal image") since many times "failure to provide a valid original" is simply a case of missing files.
Jane appears to be unhappy because this wasn't done in a more timely manner, and because we didn't acknowledge that the issue was self-reported. As to the first issue, that was a fairly normal timespan for us. Regarding the second issue, we apologize for not making it clear that Jane self-reported the infraction at the outset. |
Ahhh.... I understand now.
I didn't realize that PS stored stock images. I've never even seen the Sky Replacement feature.
I see why it's a DQ now.
Thanks, Bear.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 11:03:07 AM EDT.
