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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Anyone notice the Free Study winner......
Pages:  
Showing posts 176 - 200 of 220, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/14/2010 10:07:08 PM · #176
Originally posted by vawendy:

I don't understand how that's not creating something new... there was no linen texture before the editing... how is that not a new "object or feature" -- I'd assume that it would have come under the new feature category.

You could reasonably argue that or consider that the texture is a surface effect not unlike image grain. I'm sure both points would come up during validation, which is why I suggested getting more SC opinions. In that particular example, there's also the potential issue of adding detail to a previously blank area (generally not allowed), however adding a texture that way (to the fabric, for example) should be legal in principle. It's not a "thing" in the same sense that an image flare or ray of sunlight would be.
07/14/2010 10:10:57 PM · #177
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by vawendy:

I don't understand how that's not creating something new... there was no linen texture before the editing... how is that not a new "object or feature" -- I'd assume that it would have come under the new feature category.

You could reasonably argue that or consider that the texture is a surface effect not unlike image grain. I'm sure both points would come up during validation, which is why I suggested getting more SC opinions. In that particular example, there's also the potential issue of adding detail to a previously blank area (generally not allowed), however adding a texture that way (to the fabric, for example) should be legal in principle. It's not a "thing" in the same sense that an image flare or ray of sunlight would be.


I could also gladly argue that noise or grain is theoretically random-- and, indeed, the effect in question is absolutely not random and should be considered image data on that basis alone, not to mention the fact that it's actually an artificial "object" (linen).....

I honestly don't know much of what to say, except that I really do feel that starts to diverge too far from photography.

Message edited by author 2010-07-14 22:13:11.
07/14/2010 10:17:56 PM · #178
Originally posted by coryboehne:

I could also gladly argue that noise or grain is theoretically random-

Gaussian noise or uniform noise? What about a halftone pattern? Is sand or dust not an artificially added thing, too? It's not quite as simple as you might think...
07/14/2010 10:21:10 PM · #179
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by vawendy:

I don't understand how that's not creating something new... there was no linen texture before the editing... how is that not a new "object or feature" -- I'd assume that it would have come under the new feature category.

You could reasonably argue that or consider that the texture is a surface effect not unlike image grain. I'm sure both points would come up during validation, which is why I suggested getting more SC opinions. In that particular example, there's also the potential issue of adding detail to a previously blank area (generally not allowed), however adding a texture that way (to the fabric, for example) should be legal in principle. It's not a "thing" in the same sense that an image flare or ray of sunlight would be.


The way I see it, this is an obvious processing addition that I doubt was added by a filter. ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' vawendy showed these two links earlier in the thread which shows the two different directions of the texture. And the fact that the poor masking has allowed this affect to show over her chest and shoulder on the challenge entry, indicates that it wasn't just adding texture to the linen, but also to her skin.

shot 1 shot 2

With that being said, I agree that this ruling should be clarified and either removed or made a permanent feature in Advanced Editing. I, in the past, have submitted images prior to voting, with a texture overlay...but was told they are not allowed...so this is such a grey area that even the more experienced members don't fully understand. And by clarifying the rule and making a decision on it, would also cut down the workload for SC to have to make an opinion on before voting. SC obviously have their hands full now according to the delay in getting the SC to vote on images....so cutting down the workload would certainly help in that way.
07/14/2010 10:28:43 PM · #180
Originally posted by coryboehne:

I honestly don't know much of what to say, except that I really do feel that starts to diverge too far from photography.


yes, far from photography and into the dangerous realm of digital photography... be very afraid!
07/14/2010 10:57:14 PM · #181
Originally posted by Judi:

I, in the past, have submitted images prior to voting, with a texture overlay...but was told they are not allowed...

Yep, that hasn't changed.

Originally posted by Judi:

SC obviously have their hands full now according to the delay in getting the SC to vote on images....so cutting down the workload would certainly help in that way.

It's not the workload. Decisions are overdue on quite a few images right now, and most of those are straightforward. We're just not getting to them for whatever individual reasons (vacation, work, family issues, etc.).
07/14/2010 11:20:31 PM · #182
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I could also gladly argue that noise or grain is theoretically random-

Gaussian noise or uniform noise? What about a halftone pattern? Is sand or dust not an artificially added thing, too? It's not quite as simple as you might think...


...and I've been told in the past that adding grain is fine (pun!) as long as it does not become a feature. Better to create the grain with high ISO.
07/14/2010 11:28:24 PM · #183
So summer is the time to cheat...!

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Judi:

I, in the past, have submitted images prior to voting, with a texture overlay...but was told they are not allowed...

Yep, that hasn't changed.

Originally posted by Judi:

SC obviously have their hands full now according to the delay in getting the SC to vote on images....so cutting down the workload would certainly help in that way.

It's not the workload. Decisions are overdue on quite a few images right now, and most of those are straightforward. We're just not getting to them for whatever individual reasons (vacation, work, family issues, etc.).
07/15/2010 12:21:49 AM · #184
Originally posted by bspurgeon:

...and I've been told in the past that adding grain is fine (pun!) as long as it does not become a feature.

Seems like we're (collectively) confusing two separate matters here. Adding a texture overlay is always illegal because your entry must be created from a single exposure/scene. A texturizer or brushstroke filter is allowed in principle because filters are legal in advanced. However, any legal tool is also subject to the other rules on creating features, removing major elements and so on. That's a separate issue beyond the scope of my simple answer regarding the legality of the filter, and I would strongly advise getting additional SC opinions on specific images via the ticket system. The Liquify filter is also technically legal, but it's easy to go overboard with it and risk DQ. Such filters should be used sparingly. A light filter to enhance existing texture on a surface isn't likely to cause problems, but using it so prominently that the filter itself commands attention in the entry is asking for trouble.
07/15/2010 12:23:59 AM · #185
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

...and I've been told in the past that adding grain is fine (pun!) as long as it does not become a feature.

Seems like we're (collectively) confusing two separate matters here. Adding a texture overlay is always illegal because your entry must be created from a single exposure/scene. A texturizer or brushstroke filter is allowed in principle because filters are legal in advanced. However, any legal tool is also subject to the other rules on creating features, removing major elements and so on. That's a separate issue beyond the scope of my simple answer regarding the legality of the filter, and I would strongly advise getting additional SC opinions on specific images via the ticket system. The Liquify filter is also technically legal, but it's easy to go overboard with it and risk DQ. Such filters should be used sparingly. A light filter to enhance existing texture on a surface isn't likely to cause problems, but using it so prominently that the filter itself commands attention in the entry is asking for trouble.


Can I ask whether the texture on the entry in question is a photoshop filter or a separate texture image?
07/15/2010 12:35:11 AM · #186
I finally received my validation.

I assume the other folks that finished in the top 5 did as well.

Congrats to the 3 official ribbon winners and I am as thrilled as I can be to be 4th place in a Free Study with such strong entries. Frankly, I was surprised I made the top 5.

07/15/2010 12:39:44 AM · #187
Originally posted by scarbrd:

I finally received my validation.

I assume the other folks that finished in the top 5 did as well.

Congrats to the 3 official ribbon winners and I am as thrilled as I can be to be 4th place in a Free Study with such strong entries. Frankly, I was surprised I made the top 5.


Although you got your validation doesn't necessarily mean the others have as well. Last week I got 5th place and received my validation a couple of days before 4th place getter.
07/15/2010 12:53:16 AM · #188
Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I finally received my validation.

I assume the other folks that finished in the top 5 did as well.

Congrats to the 3 official ribbon winners and I am as thrilled as I can be to be 4th place in a Free Study with such strong entries. Frankly, I was surprised I made the top 5.


Although you got your validation doesn't necessarily mean the others have as well. Last week I got 5th place and received my validation a couple of days before 4th place getter.


Really?

Well, I hope it's all done. This is too nerve racking and it's off the front page anyway.
07/15/2010 12:56:48 AM · #189
Originally posted by Judi:

Can I ask whether the texture on the entry in question is a photoshop filter or a separate texture image?

You can ask, but I probably shouldn't comment on that while it's still in validation voting.
07/15/2010 01:50:47 AM · #190
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Judi:

Can I ask whether the texture on the entry in question is a photoshop filter or a separate texture image?

You can ask, but I probably shouldn't comment on that while it's still in validation voting.


Thanks anyway.
07/15/2010 02:48:26 AM · #191
Guys, guys. Even if we take away the texture overlay from the image in question, it will remain a great image. Without justifying intentional violation of the challenge rules, that is the most straight words I can use to express what I think about this all.

Lets be patient, and tolerant. We seem to be finding reasons to punish a good artist who may not ever want to be on DPC again if it appears to him like a close family that breeds (read ribbons) within and outsiders are detested:-)

ETA: This is a general comment since I came back to the site after almost 30 hrs and still saw this thread alive. Please do not take it personally, anyone?

Message edited by author 2010-07-15 03:06:14.
07/15/2010 02:56:49 AM · #192
Originally posted by Prash:

Guys, guys. Even if we take away the texture overlay from the image in question, it will remain a great image. Without justifying intentional violation of the challenge rules, that is the most straight words I can use to express what I think about this all.

Lets be patient, and tolerant. We seem to be finding reasons to punish a good artist who may not ever want to be on DPC again if it appears to him like a close family that breeds (read ribbons) within and outsiders are detested:-)


I am NOT looking at punishing him. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes. It is a beautiful image....one that I admire....! All I am trying to understand are the rules...trying to make it a little bit clearer not only for myself...but maybe for a couple of others out there. Bottom line is....I don't want to break the rules....so I ask....instead of getting an unnecessary DQ.
07/15/2010 03:05:09 AM · #193
Originally posted by Judi:

Originally posted by Prash:

Guys, guys. Even if we take away the texture overlay from the image in question, it will remain a great image. Without justifying intentional violation of the challenge rules, that is the most straight words I can use to express what I think about this all.

Lets be patient, and tolerant. We seem to be finding reasons to punish a good artist who may not ever want to be on DPC again if it appears to him like a close family that breeds (read ribbons) within and outsiders are detested:-)


I am NOT looking at punishing him. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes. It is a beautiful image....one that I admire....! All I am trying to understand are the rules...trying to make it a little bit clearer not only for myself...but maybe for a couple of others out there. Bottom line is....I don't want to break the rules....so I ask....instead of getting an unnecessary DQ.


Judi: I must clarify. My post was aimed in general at how this thread is still going on. It wasn't aimed at you. I will clarify that in the post.
07/15/2010 03:25:03 AM · #194
Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

I honestly don't know much of what to say, except that I really do feel that starts to diverge too far from photography.


yes, far from photography and into the dangerous realm of digital photography... be very afraid!


Stop scaring me you jerk!

:)

ETA:: My original post was not referring to the OP's image, but rather to the one with the kid and the vase (although I think the OP's is straying into the same territory..)

Message edited by author 2010-07-15 03:27:39.
07/15/2010 06:35:28 AM · #195
Wow - eight pages !!
Is this because he won blue on his first entry ??
07/15/2010 06:52:30 AM · #196
Originally posted by Tajhad:

Wow - eight pages !!
Is this because he won blue on his first entry ??


That's my bet, some people might not like that. I've been watching this thread with interest, and you can clearly tell the difference between the curious for the sake of understanding comments and the spiteful comments.

Just saying.
07/15/2010 06:57:08 AM · #197
Originally posted by Prash:

Guys, guys. Even if we take away the texture overlay from the image in question, it will remain a great image. Without justifying intentional violation of the challenge rules, that is the most straight words I can use to express what I think about this all.

Lets be patient, and tolerant. We seem to be finding reasons to punish a good artist who may not ever want to be on DPC again if it appears to him like a close family that breeds (read ribbons) within and outsiders are detested:-)

This certainly was an eye-opener for me. I learned an important lesson. NEVER AGAIN will I congratulate someone on an amazing feat such as this until it clears validation, and yes, even if it turns out that he made a mistake I would have called attention to this image......I somehow doubt this was a case of intentionally flouting the rules. Legal or not, it is still a superb image and a virtually unheard of feat.

I would be greatly surprised if after this, the gentleman would want to have anything to do with DP Challenge.
07/15/2010 07:01:18 AM · #198
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Prash:

Guys, guys. Even if we take away the texture overlay from the image in question, it will remain a great image. Without justifying intentional violation of the challenge rules, that is the most straight words I can use to express what I think about this all.

Lets be patient, and tolerant. We seem to be finding reasons to punish a good artist who may not ever want to be on DPC again if it appears to him like a close family that breeds (read ribbons) within and outsiders are detested:-)

This certainly was an eye-opener for me. I learned an important lesson. NEVER AGAIN will I congratulate someone on an amazing feat such as this until it clears validation, and yes, even if it turns out that he made a mistake I would have called attention to this image......I somehow doubt this was a case of intentionally flouting the rules. Legal or not, it is still a superb image and a virtually unheard of feat.

I would be greatly surprised if after this, the gentleman would want to have anything to do with DP Challenge.


Don't change your ways because of the reactions of others. If you hadn't opened the thread to congratulate him, someone else would just have likely opened one to condemn him. I applaud you for your intensions, don't change them just because others are cynical and bitter.
07/15/2010 08:07:35 AM · #199
Originally posted by Prash:

Guys, guys. Even if we take away the texture overlay from the image in question, it will remain a great image. Without justifying intentional violation of the challenge rules, that is the most straight words I can use to express what I think about this all.

Lets be patient, and tolerant. We seem to be finding reasons to punish a good artist who may not ever want to be on DPC again if it appears to him like a close family that breeds (read ribbons) within and outsiders are detested:-)

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

This certainly was an eye-opener for me. I learned an important lesson. NEVER AGAIN will I congratulate someone on an amazing feat such as this until it clears validation, and yes, even if it turns out that he made a mistake I would have called attention to this image......I somehow doubt this was a case of intentionally flouting the rules. Legal or not, it is still a superb image and a virtually unheard of feat.

I would be greatly surprised if after this, the gentleman would want to have anything to do with DP Challenge.


Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:

Don't change your ways because of the reactions of others. If you hadn't opened the thread to congratulate him, someone else would just have likely opened one to condemn him. I applaud you for your intensions, don't change them just because others are cynical and bitter.

Oh, don't mistake the intent of my post. I will still open a thread such as this even if the image would turn out to be DQed as the feat in and of itself was incredible, as is the image.

I'd just like to narrow the amount of vitriol and mean-spiritedness such that the question of intent and validation doesn't become something for the negative folks to toss around like a football.
07/15/2010 09:53:41 AM · #200
Still no word on this? (Lens cap on the grill). I do think it should be a DQ. However, as stated in my earlier post, I don't think it was on purpose. While he as been a member since 3/2009 he has not entered or participated in forums.

It seems (from his flickr acct) that he produced a huge fan favorite and decided to slip it in here while not fully understanding or even knowing the rules of the site.

As for if anything is gained or lost by a DQ....he has nothing to lose at this point if it is a DQ. It already served it's time on the front page and is now in the history file. Thousands have seen it already. He loses nothing but a virtual ribbon from one site out of thousands of photography sites on the web.

However, if it is a DQ...IMO the one with the most to complain about (not that he will or should) should be the current 4th place holder. He will be moved to 3rd but will have missed the week on the front page that we all dream of !

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 07:05:17 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/27/2021 07:05:17 PM EST.