| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2002 02:14:45 PM · #1 |
...I swear there was an image I voted on and commented on last week that isn't on the results page - a colour, studio type shot of an old camera.
Am I going mad or did I just have too many JD's that night? |
|
|
|
08/12/2002 02:20:07 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by lamedos:
...I swear there was an image I voted on and commented on last week that isn't on the results page - a colour, studio type shot of an old camera.
Am I going mad or did I just have too many JD's that night?
A photo matching that description was disqualified last week. There were a couple of requests for disqualification based on illegal spot-editing and the photographer could not produce an unaltered original.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
08/12/2002 02:21:15 PM · #3 |
maybe it was disqualified or something...that happens sometimes, i don't see why if it was a picture of a camera???? Maybe that photographer didnt take the pic during the week of the challenge?
|
|
|
|
08/12/2002 02:29:24 PM · #4 |
Aha. That would explain it. Do images get DQ'd very often? I can't imagine why people would want to cheat/not keep originals.
For a minute there I thought I was going to have to reduce my beer & bourbon intake :-) |
|
|
|
08/12/2002 02:37:28 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by shutterfly:
maybe it was disqualified or something...that happens sometimes, i don't see why if it was a picture of a camera???? Maybe that photographer didnt take the pic during the week of the challenge?
I think in that case a lot of editing had been done to tidy up the
background of the shot, which unfortunatly is not allowed by the current
rules so it had to be disqualified to be fair. |
|
|
|
08/12/2002 02:38:20 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by lamedos:
Aha. That would explain it. Do images get DQ'd very often? I can't imagine why people would want to cheat/not keep originals.
For a minute there I thought I was going to have to reduce my beer & bourbon intake :-)
I think there have been about 3-5 per week on average. In most cases the person was simply unaware of the rules.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
08/12/2002 02:42:35 PM · #7 |
| Blimey - I had no idea it was that frequent. |
|
|
|
08/12/2002 02:46:10 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by lamedos:
Blimey - I had no idea it was that frequent.
You notice it most when you log on immediately after the new pics are up. 10pm here...refresh refresh <dpchallenge temporarily down for maintenance,DRAT> refresh refresh...........
;-)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2002 03:05:52 PM · #9 |
there are other reasons for which a photo may be removed. generally, if it gets enough complaints, its gone. thats been my perspective.
as an example of what might be removed, a submission of mine was disqualified. it can be found HERE.
another was a dead cow. i didnt really think it needed to be removed. apparently im not god of this universe. |
|
|
|
08/12/2002 03:12:00 PM · #10 |
There are usually one or two each week disqualified simply because the photo did not upload properly and no one can see it. On at least one of these types of disqualifications the photographer got the photo to the admins. and it was put back into competition.
Very few photos get disqualified and unless it is a clear violation, we discuss it and vote on it first. |
|
|
|
08/12/2002 03:17:22 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GordonMcGregor:
I think in that case a lot of editing had been done to tidy up the
background of the shot, which unfortunatly is not allowed by the current
rules so it had to be disqualified to be fair.
I don't want to leave this with no response. After a lot of experimentation by some people, we couldn't actually decide whether or not anything was edited out of the background. The photographer also gave a detailed description of what processing he had done. It was simply the fact that he couldn't provide the original that led to the decision going against him. Without that we just can't know either way.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2002 03:22:32 PM · #12 |
I don't think EQUALIZE should ever be used again to determine that a photo may have been illegally modified. I played with that concept and found several other photos from past challenges that exhibited the same phenomenon. Further investigation with the curves in photoshop showed absolutely no evidence of improper edits to those photos...
|
|
|
|
08/12/2002 04:09:19 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I don't think EQUALIZE should ever be used again to determine that a photo may have been illegally modified. I played with that concept and found several other photos from past challenges that exhibited the same phenomenon. Further investigation with the curves in photoshop showed absolutely no evidence of improper edits to those photos...
John, I was able to get some results out of curves that I considered questionable. They were not, in my mind, conclusive enough to make me vote for the DQ, but I certainly wanted to see if I could duplicate them starting from the original photograph.
Ultimately, the only way to prove or disprove the validity of a photograph is to look at the original; that's why a whole paragraph of the rules is dedicated to that point. The key sentence to me is, "If you are unable to produce your original photo under these circumstances, your photograph will be disqualified." It seems to me that once we ask for the original, our hands are tied by the use of the word "will" in that sentence.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
08/12/2002 04:16:19 PM · #14 |
| Just a side note.... wow there are alot of moderators on this thread |
|
|
|
08/12/2002 05:04:58 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Ronin:
Just a side note.... wow there are alot of moderators on this thread
Heheheh... That's because they let us all out on Mondays.
-Terry
|
|
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: 04/18/2024 09:03:01 PM EDT.
