| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2006 05:54:27 AM · #1 |
The results of the "Pastels" challenge have been recalculated, as the image that was formerly in 3rd place has been disqualified for removing major elements.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 06:03:29 AM · #2 |
:(
Somehow I know that wasn't an easy one. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 07:01:19 AM · #3 |
Is it safe to assume that while it is legal to process the RAW file twice, she ran a-FOWL [sorry, couldn't resist] of the rules when she used it to remove the background completely? ... or was there something else?
David
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 07:08:48 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Is it safe to assume that while it is legal to process the RAW file twice, she ran a-FOWL [sorry, couldn't resist] of the rules when she used it to remove the background completely? |
That would be correct. Unlike the Basic rules, which are tools-based, the Advanced rules are results-based, and removal of the background like that isn't permitted.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 07:10:47 AM · #5 |
Beautiful shot nontheless.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 07:28:17 AM · #6 |
I'm so surprised. And sad. I had used the technique of increasing the shadows to darken the background before, so since I noticed that a site council member processing the RAW file twice, I assumed it was okay.
I accept the decision sadly. Thanks everyone anyway for the encouragement and comments on my picture.
Message edited by author 2006-09-12 17:00:23. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 07:34:54 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Manic:
The results of the "Pastels" challenge have been recalculated, as the image that was formerly in 3rd place has been disqualified for removing major elements. |
Congratulations to  Tuckersmom on her 3rd place Yellow ribbon, and  TUBORG on his top 10 finish. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 07:42:49 AM · #8 |
Another ribbon winner DQ'd. Really a shame. This was my suggestion from Transportation 2 recalc thread, repeated in Soft focus recalculation thread. Isn't it time to do it?
"We have seen a number of "ribbon winners" become DQ'd. This is really unfair to the people who deserve the ribbons in the first place. I suggest that midway through the challenge, the top ten photos at that time become validated. This would give enough time to discard images that don't deserve the ranking and notariety that they are now getting."
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 08:03:32 AM · #9 |
now this is something i dont understand at all!
That would be correct. Unlike the Basic rules, which are tools-based, the Advanced rules are results-based, and removal of the background like that isn't permitted.
- what does that mean?? someone please enlighten me.
the flamingo was such a tight crop anyway how on earth could she have
removed a major element???
something is wrong. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 08:08:49 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by goodman:
the flamingo was such a tight crop anyway how on earth could she have
removed a major element???
something is wrong. |
When it's the entire background that was removed, that's pretty major I'd say.
To clarify your quote, it means that where in basic rules, it's the process that gets you DQed (dodge/burn for example) in advanced rules, it's HOW you apply the process that gets you DQed. You can use Dodge/burn (for example) but not to erase a 3 year olds face.
The process that SandyP used may have been legal, but not to remove an entire background.
Hope this clears that up a bit. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 08:27:18 AM · #11 |
I guess seeing the original might make a difference. If the background was nice and blurred and indistinct, I'd say this is kinda petty and nit-picky. If the background is distinct and relatively focused, I could see this as valid.
Something seems a bit awry, however, when the same "result" is OK for Sandy's Accidental Letters (basic rules) challenge ribbon winner because she didn't use the wrong tools, but the "result" isn't OK for an advanced challenge entry. I always thought the advanced rules were supposed to allow for more freedom to achieve better, but still photographic, results using all (or at least more) of the tools at hand. Seems like this judgement may have thrown out the spirit of the advanced rules for technicalities.
Message edited by author 2006-09-12 08:27:54. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 08:28:14 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Another ribbon winner DQ'd. Really a shame. This was my suggestion from Transportation 2 recalc thread, repeated in Soft focus recalculation thread. Isn't it time to do it?
"We have seen a number of "ribbon winners" become DQ'd. This is really unfair to the people who deserve the ribbons in the first place. I suggest that midway through the challenge, the top ten photos at that time become validated. This would give enough time to discard images that don't deserve the ranking and notariety that they are now getting." |
I suggested something similar a couple of years ago (iirc). The idea was that after a day or two, with a hundred or so votes, there is not much change happening to individual scores. Sure there are some, but not much. Extending that to the challenge as a whole, and there is not much changing of position after roughly a hundred votes.
What I suggested was starting 24 hrs after the voting started, start sending automated requests for validation. This would be done one request a day, for the currently top placed entry that has not already had a validation request made. If the current top five have had requests made already, no request needs sent that day. By the end of the week, it is likely the ribbon winners at least (and possibly the top five) will already be well into the validation process.
But, I acknowledge for this to be worth doing, it would need automation that requires coding. Further, it assumes the DQ requests are clumped up at the end of the challenge. The ribboning images receive a great deal of scrutiny during the challenges, the possiblity of a validation request being triggered early are fairly good if there is anything out of the ordinary visible.
David
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 08:36:58 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by goodman:
now this is something i dont understand at all!
That would be correct. Unlike the Basic rules, which are tools-based, the Advanced rules are results-based, and removal of the background like that isn't permitted.
- what does that mean?? someone please enlighten me.
the flamingo was such a tight crop anyway how on earth could she have
removed a major element???
something is wrong. |
It would be helpful to see the original. I'm guessing that in the original the background had some identifiable details in it - so removing them broke the "major elements" rule |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 08:56:49 AM · #14 |
The rule may very well have been applied fairly, but once again I am left wondering how these rules relate to the real world of digital photography. Reading Sandy's photo description, it sounds like she figured out a great technique to isolate the subject of a portrait, which she learned from another member of the site. She advanced her knowledge of photography and gave us an opportunity to listen in and advance our own. Sounds to me like exactly what this site should be about.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 09:00:52 AM · #15 |
I guess I'm confused when this blue ribbon winner passed muster:
when the final effect is the same.
I am, once again, confused.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 09:02:39 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
I guess I'm confused when this blue ribbon winner passed muster:
when the final effect is the same.
I am, once again, confused. |
How can you say that without seeing SandyP's original? |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 09:09:53 AM · #17 |
It's a tough call sometimes and I sympathize with the Site Council.
As I have stated before and to quote myself:
I wonder which will happen first:
1) The DPC rule book crosses the 500 page mark.
2) The site council become full-time employees and number into the hundreds.
3) No members will be allowed to enter a challenge without legal representation.
4) The ribbons get replaced by a $1,000 prize & justify the new rule book & employee costs. (memberships now $100/mo)
5) All editing will be done using only Irfanview.
6) Drew & Langdon pull the plug and say screw it. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 09:25:01 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
I guess I'm confused when this blue ribbon winner passed muster:
when the final effect is the same.
I am, once again, confused. |
Yep - I am curious - there have been quite a few shots where someone has obviously removed the background. I would like to see sandy's original but I daresay there wasn't a whole lot more detail to be removed than there is in that leading lines entry. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 09:25:24 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by alfresco:
I guess I'm confused when this blue ribbon winner passed muster:
when the final effect is the same.
I am, once again, confused. |
I could say the same thing about a couple of ribbon winners but they were brought up months ago in a similar thread and I KNOW if I bring them up again I will get bashed.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 09:35:00 AM · #20 |
I have been here a member for 2 1/2 years and honestly can say I am more confused about the rules now than when I first started.
This is another reason I feel the top 5 photo's in a challenge should be required to place the original in the description area.
Example:
Why is it you can remove freckles (that is a major element) on the face of a model with tools and cant remove the background of another picture? Not talking about erase, I know that you can't do.
Message edited by author 2006-09-12 09:36:43. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 09:40:00 AM · #21 |
Just for Future reference.
Please verify this for me. I was about to use the technique used by sCalvert and SandyP, as someone had once mentioned it to me before.
In "The Journeyman" (muur88), he seemed to have used curves to tone down the trees to black. Is that okay or should he have toned them down until they were barely visible?
In "Whispers of Gold" (SandyP), the error wasn't in exposing the .raw image twice, but in erasing/masking the background, instead of using one of the many other blending methods?
So toning down backgrounds to almost non-existance, is okay, as long as they aren't totaly-blocked out.
BTW, I accept the rule of the council judges, and understand that any human perfection is only the process of clarification and refinement for the future. We all live in and for the future, the past has already ended. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 10:05:01 AM · #22 |
This is a perfect thread to post Sandyp's original. We can all see the background and learn what will get you a DQ.
If you look at my Lizardus texturus you will see right below the mouth they have a green leaf that I wish I could have cloned out or lowered tones or selective color to get rid of it. I tried, but in the end the leaf is there. Some can see it and some can not.
I'd like to see an unedited flamigo. Sandy?
Message edited by author 2006-09-12 10:05:50. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 10:10:47 AM · #23 |
Muur adjusted the entire image with Curves (not just the trees). The result of the curves adjustment alone was very nearly what you see in the entry and would have been legal even in Basic Editing. The only background of any signifigance removed was a small piece of sky in the top left corner. The rest was already essentially black given that exposure.
Sandy's beautiful entry had a stone wall background that was selectively removed from the flamingo. While combining differently-processed versions of the same RAW file is legal in Advanced Editing (I've used it to expand dynamic range), selectively removing the background in this manner is no different than simply painting it black or deleting it. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 10:15:40 AM · #24 |
| Ahhh the old "stone wall removal ploy". |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 10:30:03 AM · #25 |
Thanks scalvert for the reply.
So toning down partial backgrounds, in an adjustment layer, with the background selected, to almost non-existance, is okay, as long as they aren't totaly-blocked out?
|
|
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 08:49:50 AM EDT.
