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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Announcements >> "Patterns in Nature" Results Recalculated.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 38, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/06/2020 11:46:23 PM · #1
Sadly, we have had to disqualify the former Blue Ribbon image from the "Patterns in Nature" challenge because the photographer misunderstood what was allowed as a "texture" in Standard Editing. To wit: everywhere that was "not ladybug" he eliminated the background, and filled the voids with a wood-surface "texture" image at full opacity, thereby creating a composite image.

It's important to realize that the only legal textures in DPC are texture overlays, and they have to be applied evenly to the entire image although the opacity of the texture ovrlay may be adjusted at will.

Congrats to our newest ribboner. There is no new HM because we had a tie in that area.
01/07/2020 05:04:33 AM · #2
In defense of my entry, I sent my picture in to ask that very question prior to the submission date and I was told “it looked OK”. If there was any question about it I should have been advised before I submitted and I could have made adjustments :(

I would like to request that this entry be reinstated on the grounds that I was misinformed by the judges prior to submission.

Message edited by author 2020-01-07 05:45:13.
01/07/2020 07:07:25 AM · #3
Originally posted by GolferDDS:

In defense of my entry, I sent my picture in to ask that very question prior to the submission date and I was told “it looked OK”. If there was any question about it I should have been advised before I submitted and I could have made adjustments :(

I would like to request that this entry be reinstated on the grounds that I was misinformed by the judges prior to submission.


+ 1
01/07/2020 09:49:41 AM · #4
Lawrence,
When you submitted your question did you include the unedited image for comparison? I can certainly see SC not understanding the edits made if they did not have the original to compare. Not having access to the information that was exchanged, I'd refrain from commenting further.
01/07/2020 09:58:30 AM · #5
Originally posted by kirbic:

Lawrence,
When you submitted your question did you include the unedited image for comparison? I can certainly see SC not understanding the edits made if they did not have the original to compare. Not having access to the information that was exchanged, I'd refrain from commenting further.

Wouldn't that be on SC to ask for it since this is the kind of scenario that causes misunderstandings? Or to at least ask about editing steps? Or would that be considered unfair help?
01/07/2020 10:16:32 AM · #6
Originally posted by GolferDDS:

In defense of my entry, I sent my picture in to ask that very question prior to the submission date and I was told “it looked OK”. If there was any question about it I should have been advised before I submitted and I could have made adjustments :(

Larry, sorry there was a misunderstanding/miscommunication regarding this issue. You did indeed send a ticket with a message asking if it was OK to use the background texture. Your message mentioned including two images -- with and without the "texture". Unfortunately, we received only the final image, and your message included no explanation of what you had done to produce the image -- essentially cut out all of the background of the ladybug shot and replaced it with the bark background. Ideally, your ticket would have provided both images and more details on how you produced the final image. Lacking this additional information we misinterpreted the question. In the future, as SC we should try to ensure we fully understand the situation before offering opinions on such questions. In the future, as users of this site be aware that 1) to qualify as a legal texture it must be applied evenly to the entire image, and 2) presubmitting an image to the SC with a question can generally provide an opinion by one SC member on validity but is no guarantee on the final decision made by the broader SC (sometimes made with more complete information).
01/07/2020 10:27:03 AM · #7
Originally posted by markwiley:

Originally posted by GolferDDS:

In defense of my entry, I sent my picture in to ask that very question prior to the submission date and I was told “it looked OK”. If there was any question about it I should have been advised before I submitted and I could have made adjustments :(

Larry, sorry there was a misunderstanding/miscommunication regarding this issue. You did indeed send a ticket with a message asking if it was OK to use the background texture. Your message mentioned including two images -- with and without the "texture". Unfortunately, we received only the final image, and your message included no explanation of what you had done to produce the image -- essentially cut out all of the background of the ladybug shot and replaced it with the bark background. Ideally, your ticket would have provided both images and more details on how you produced the final image. Lacking this additional information we misinterpreted the question. In the future, as SC we should try to ensure we fully understand the situation before offering opinions on such questions. In the future, as users of this site be aware that 1) to qualify as a legal texture it must be applied evenly to the entire image, and 2) presubmitting an image to the SC with a question can generally provide an opinion by one SC member on validity but is no guarantee on the final decision made by the broader SC (sometimes made with more complete information).


Thank you Mark for the clarification I know it is not an easy job and mistakes happen. Will you allow a one time exclusion and reinstate my picture?
01/07/2020 10:46:16 AM · #8
Originally posted by GolferDDS:

Thank you Mark for the clarification I know it is not an easy job and mistakes happen. Will you allow a one time exclusion and reinstate my picture?

For the record, I was the SC that pre-approved the entry and I was in error when I did so. In my initial examination of the image I had thought that the backs of the beetles were also carrying the texture, and I was wrong about that. For this, I apologize to Larry and everyone else.

As for reinstatement, that can't happen. However, we will consider this a "no penalty" DQ and it won't be considered if (gawd forbid) Larry should have another DQ within his next 25 entries.
01/07/2020 11:54:26 AM · #9
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

For the record, I was the SC that pre-approved the entry and I was in error when I did so.

Hmm....

Should the Bear be:

Put in the scuppers with a hosepipe on him?

Flogged at daybreak?

Keelhauled?

I mean, an error?

Can't have that!


01/07/2020 12:41:09 PM · #10
Originally posted by Bear_Music:


As for reinstatement, that can't happen. However, we will consider this a "no penalty" DQ and it won't be considered if (gawd forbid) Larry should have another DQ within his next 25 entries.

You are forgetting about the Unofficial Ribbons Race, Larry might lose his 3rd place before the DQ because of the SC mistake.
01/07/2020 10:25:22 PM · #11
I don’t understand why he can’t be reinstated, if the error was with the site council, a little bit of mercy will go a long way. He’s always been an exemplary model.
01/07/2020 10:34:30 PM · #12
I don’t think anyone has worked as hard as Lawrence to produce very good images. I know I definitely haven’t worked as hard as him, he deserves top three at the least.
01/07/2020 11:52:05 PM · #13
I am all for fairness and I really hear and sympathize with ' . substr('https://www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', strrpos('https://www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21.gif', '/') + 1) . ' GolferDDS's plea.

However, I also think making a considered and deliberate exception would be starting down a very slippery slope. I hope that if this was my image and situation, I would accept the DQ and move on.

I do think that this statement in the rules - you may "use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules" - could and should be revised, amended.

I KNOW we are not allowed to use textures selectively in Standard. I KNOW we are not allowed to erase them from parts of the image and leave them on other parts. I KNOW that the textures cannot effectively add a new feature to an image (like adding clouds to what was a flat sky). BUT I know all this from having read the forum pretty regularly for years. I SHOULD know it from the rules themselves . . . and that is not clear.

01/07/2020 11:53:21 PM · #14
Where is the justice? Larry did everything right, SC made a mistake, why is he the one to suffer?? DPC cannot afford to lose any more of its top players, it is becoming a desert! Please reconsider and reinstate the image.
01/08/2020 12:12:19 AM · #15
And he did lose his well deserved 3rd place in the Unofficial Ribbons race due to this unfair DQ. That's sad :(
01/08/2020 12:14:20 AM · #16
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... the only legal textures in DPC are texture overlays, and they have to be applied evenly to the entire image although the opacity of the texture ovrlay may be adjusted at will.

Can someone show me where this part is in the rules..? I am missing it. Thanks.
01/08/2020 12:21:34 AM · #17
I do NOT appreciate the pressure that is being laid on us in the name of "fairness". It has always been understood that the opinion of one or another SC before the challenge is NOT tantamount to a pass at validation.

Nevertheless, I have taken it upon myself, without consultation with other SC, to validate Larry's image because I feel terrible that I told him it was gonna be OK and then other SC pointed out my mistake. Assuming I don't get any blowback on that front from the rest of SC, the validation will stand. Part of the reason I'm willing to do this is because the "violation" itself is actually such a minor one: had Larry just selected the color pink in the image background and shifted it to a warm color he would almost certainly still have ribboned.

But this should NOT be taken as a precedent, because textures need to be used as... well... TEXTURES and they need to be overlays on the entire image. We hope this is clear to everyone. Now please, please let this be an end of it. None of us are perfect, least of all me.
01/08/2020 12:23:47 AM · #18
Originally posted by skewsme:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... the only legal textures in DPC are texture overlays, and they have to be applied evenly to the entire image although the opacity of the texture overlay may be adjusted at will.

Can someone show me where this part is in the rules..? I am missing it. Thanks.

It's always been understood, and often discussed, but it DOES need to be better fleshed-out when we post up the new iteration of the site and start looking at freshening the rules. This is one area that's not well-defined.
01/08/2020 12:49:46 AM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I do NOT appreciate the pressure that is being laid on us in the name of "fairness". It has always been understood that the opinion of one or another SC before the challenge is NOT tantamount to a pass at validation.

Nevertheless, I have taken it upon myself, without consultation with other SC, to validate Larry's image because I feel terrible that I told him it was gonna be OK and then other SC pointed out my mistake. Assuming I don't get any blowback on that front from the rest of SC, the validation will stand. Part of the reason I'm willing to do this is because the "violation" itself is actually such a minor one: had Larry just selected the color pink in the image background and shifted it to a warm color he would almost certainly still have ribboned.

But this should NOT be taken as a precedent, because textures need to be used as... well... TEXTURES and they need to be overlays on the entire image. We hope this is clear to everyone. Now please, please let this be an end of it. None of us are perfect, least of all me.


I am very sorry about the problem that this issue has caused. I in no way would want to cause any discontent on DPC or against Bear or the site council. Although I had disagreed with the decision to DQ my entry I had told Bear that I would not discuss this publicly and I wished to move on. I truly appreciate his reconsideration and reversing his decision. I know he has a thankless job and this has caused him unnecessary aggravation.

I also wish to apologize to Mefni. We were battling it out for third place in the overall point race. He emailed me to express his concerns about the DQ. He is a great sport and outstanding photographer. I wish we could share third place as I know what he must have been going through.

Finally, thanks to everyone who contacted me to offer their support. What a great group of people we have here!
01/08/2020 02:12:56 AM · #20
Whoa!!!

Amen to that.

Excellent news!
01/08/2020 06:01:57 AM · #21
Ok, I know I've been absent for awhile, but the word got out that a DQ reversal precedent was being established, so I am back to plead my case for my entry from July 2014. How 'bout it? My life hasn't been the same since that pink band of shame was laid across my portfolio. I couldn't get a job, the wife and I split up and I've been living in a van down by the river. :P
01/08/2020 06:11:39 AM · #22
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Ok, I know I've been absent for awhile, but the word got out that a DQ reversal precedent was being established, so I am back to plead my case for my entry from July 2014. How 'bout it? My life hasn't been the same since that pink band of shame was laid across my portfolio. I couldn't get a job, the wife and I split up and I've been living in a van down by the river. :P


Lol, I was only just thinking about you just today, wondering where you were, thanks for the laugh..
01/08/2020 07:42:57 AM · #23
Originally posted by marnet:

Where is the justice? Larry did everything right, SC made a mistake ...

I don't think that's exactly right ... apparently Bear's "opinion" was based on incomplete/inaccurate information:
Originally posted by markwiley:


Larry, sorry there was a misunderstanding/miscommunication regarding this issue. You did indeed send a ticket with a message asking if it was OK to use the background texture. Your message mentioned including two images -- with and without the "texture". Unfortunately, we received only the final image, and your message included no explanation of what you had done to produce the image -- essentially cut out all of the background of the ladybug shot and replaced it with the bark background. Ideally, your ticket would have provided both images and more details on how you produced the final image. Lacking this additional information we misinterpreted the question...
01/08/2020 08:15:04 AM · #24
Just seeing this, but good news all around, plus it brought Art back, woohoo!
01/08/2020 11:24:52 AM · #25
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Ok, I know I've been absent for awhile, but the word got out that a DQ reversal precedent was being established, so I am back to plead my case for my entry from July 2014. How 'bout it? My life hasn't been the same since that pink band of shame was laid across my portfolio. I couldn't get a job, the wife and I split up and I've been living in a van down by the river. :P


so, it was you I saw in that van down by the river....

Art's van
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/29/2020 04:01:56 AM

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 © 2001-2020 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: 10/29/2020 04:01:56 AM EDT.