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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> DQ Shot original and submitted for discussion.
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 114, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/02/2005 08:36:56 AM · #51
Originally posted by cloudsme:

There was a similar disqualification recently. I can't remember exactly who it was but she was very upset. She used levels to remove a couch in the background. Maybe the pink challenge. Can anyone find that thread?

Surprisingly enough, a quick search for "couch" turned that one up ; )
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=172232&highlight=couch

In that thread I found this:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

I started a thread this week about lob sided borders to build up an image backgound. General consensus is its ok to 'add' an element this way but hey, the SC may change its mind.

but when I went to the referenced thread I couldn't find said consensus.

I did consider doing the same thing with my light on white entry, but after considering the spirit of the rules, I decided it was too dodgy and reshot.
I would have been adding a border where there was no photo originally and so not removing any elements at all, but the border would have been huge on one side and would have blended with the background.

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 08:37:33.
04/02/2005 09:50:29 AM · #52
Ron,

The difference between your border and others, including Brad's, is that the others are clear borders distinct from the image itself. In your photograph, it is not clear to a reasonable viewer that a border was added.

Simply put, if you can't see the border, it isn't a border. It is part of the post-processed image itself, and in this case was deemed a "major element" and subject to DQ.

-Terry
04/02/2005 10:16:47 AM · #53
I completely agree with the DQ. The border was so dominant that it could not be considered a border anymore, but was a major part of the picture.
04/02/2005 10:41:24 AM · #54
I totally agree with the SC. There are two rule violations here...

In argrimur's original, you could look at the original and say, "It's a pair of swans on a more-or-less white background." The submitted entry is the same. There is some texture to the water of course, but it's reasonably subtle, so lightening some of it isn't a big stretch. In your original, there were two tombstones and patches of grass and leaves that formed major compositional elements. That is NOT what you submitted. Arngrimur took out some some texture, but you took out a lot of THINGS that were not minor.

The second problem is the "border." Arngrimur may have cropped out some other objects, but that part of his photo remains cropped (I assume). The area of your photo that had another tombstone in it is still there, but the tombstone (a major element) is gone. What tools you used to accomplish its disappearance is irrelevant. Even if that tombstone hadn't been there, the "border" itself (as Terry noted) probably would have been a problem. I don't see a border- I see an extension of the image background, no different than if you had added a textured, blue border to extend a textured, blue background. Calling it a border doesn't make it so.

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 10:44:24.
04/02/2005 10:51:10 AM · #55
Well, I was going to refrain from discussing my feelings, but I'm giving in...

Technically speaking, if you cropped the image and added a HUGE white border that mixed with the white snow, I don't see anything wrong with that. You cropped your image, chose what to include, then added a huge border.

On the other hand, no matter what method you did use to get there, you definately did remove a major element of the photograph (ie. THE WHOLE BACKGROUND).

Either way, if he cropped, then added the white border, technically, he followed the rules. Personally, I think the photo is well below par so I wouldn't get too worked up about it, but that's my take anyway.
04/02/2005 10:56:00 AM · #56
As an aside... there are 14 members of the SC, and I'm sure their opinions aren't always unanimous (though they probably were in this case). In cases where they don't all agree, there is likely some discussion back and forth among them that might cause a few to change their opinions. Since there are an even number of SC members, a tie vote must result in some intense debate. The point is that each DQ is considered carefully among a reasonably large group of people with diverse opinions and backgrounds. Once a decision has been made, it's not likely to change unless they didn't have all the facts to begin with (if there is any doubt, I'm sure they'd ask). This is all speculation on my part, but I'm sure someone will point out any errors my logic.
04/02/2005 11:00:39 AM · #57
Originally posted by deapee:

...if he cropped, then added the white border, technically, he followed the rules.


I disagree. In this case, the "border" was not intended to simply frame the photo. It was used to significantly modify the image itself, with a smaller subject that better fits the rule of thirds within a new, larger composition. Furthermore, if you showed this image to someone and asked if it had a border, what do you think their response would be (aside from the thin black rule added by the server)?

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 11:02:36.
04/02/2005 11:06:51 AM · #58
I think there should be 15 site council members. I am now accepting nominations.
04/02/2005 11:12:58 AM · #59
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by deapee:

...if he cropped, then added the white border, technically, he followed the rules.


I disagree. In this case, the "border" was not intended to simply frame the photo. It was used to significantly modify the image itself, with a smaller subject that better fits the rule of thirds within a new, larger composition. Furthermore, if you showed this image to someone and asked if it had a border, what do you think their response would be?


I agree... a border is used to enhance/frame a photo, not add to or modify the image itself. If you took the border away then the photograph is significantly changed... which should not be the case. Borders should not make the photograph.

I think SC make the right decision.
04/02/2005 12:38:35 PM · #60
Originally posted by strangeghost:

I completely agree with the DQ. The border was so dominant that it could not be considered a border anymore, but was a major part of the picture.


I saw the other thread last night and checked in this morning to see the results. Seeing your before and after, and knowing how you got there, solidifies the DQ in my opinion. With respect, you keep saying that you didn't break any rule "IMHO" - what you're failing to understand is that "your humble opinion" is wrong. The governing body makes a decision on whether rules were broken. In your case they ruled that they were. Therefore, accept that your interpretation of the rules were wrong, and move on.
04/02/2005 02:40:51 PM · #61
Originally posted by scalvert:

As an aside... there are 14 members of the SC, and I'm sure their opinions aren't always unanimous (though they probably were in this case). In cases where they don't all agree, there is likely some discussion back and forth among them that might cause a few to change their opinions. Since there are an even number of SC members, a tie vote must result in some intense debate. The point is that each DQ is considered carefully among a reasonably large group of people with diverse opinions and backgrounds. Once a decision has been made, it's not likely to change unless they didn't have all the facts to begin with (if there is any doubt, I'm sure they'd ask). This is all speculation on my part, but I'm sure someone will point out any errors my logic.


You are correct sir! the SC occassionally have spirited debates on all kinds of issues. It helps each side understand the other better which, in turn, makes the final decisions more solid. So I don't think it is a bad thing. Believe me, we do not like to DQ photos but we need to uphold the rules. People get hurt by it sometimes and that is unfortunate. Hopefully they will understand our efforts and learn from it.

Another thing. What anyone thinks about a photo, personally, should have nothing to do with it. The process should apply to every photo just as fairly.

As for the border issue. We are obviously allowing quite a bit here. I think about the only solid rule we have is that borders should have straight edges so they can't tightly surround a picture element. I, personally, think that all borders should be visible so that they function like a border and not an extension of the photo. We may re-address this issue sometime as it is being stretched further then we had intended.

Maybe we could all try a little harder to focus on the spirit of the rules. But hey, that's just me.

T

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 14:41:37.
04/02/2005 03:16:22 PM · #62
Originally posted by timj351:

Maybe we could all try a little harder to focus on the spirit of the rules. But hey, that's just me.

T


I couldn't agree more, and one way to help this process along would be to have a new "first paragraph" in the rules that attempted to define the "spirit" of the competition. That is, something along the lines of "It is the intention of this site to encourage (or promote) (insert description), and regardless of the "legality" of specific tools in the editing rules they should not be used in such a way as to insert description..."

Obviously the key here would be the "descriptions", which would have to be specific enough to be meaningful but flexible enough to allow creativity. Then there could be a link to examples of images in the past that had used "legal" tools to achieve effects that were deemed "not within the spirit of the rules".

Robt.
04/02/2005 03:33:17 PM · #63
I think the textured water on the original swan photo is a major element. It encompasses the whole photo. I do not think that the photo submitted is a legal photo for the challenge. However, it doesn't matter what I think. I'm not on the site council.

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 15:36:01.
04/02/2005 03:39:41 PM · #64
Originally posted by Marjo:

I think the textured water on the original swan photo is a major element. It encompasses the whole photo. I do not think that the photo submitted is a legal photo for the challenge. However, it doesn't matter what I think. I'm not on the site council.


Had the texutre been removed by cloning it would NOT be legal, however, the 'texture' was 'removed' by simiply adjusting levels, which is done on like 1/2 the images in every challenge. (probably exaggerating a bit, but levels/contrast are very popular adjustments)
04/02/2005 03:43:54 PM · #65
I must disagree with Heather on one point... the method is irrelevant. either the removed item is a major element or it is not. In the case of the swan shot, it was determined not to be a major element, by a majority vote.
That said, if something can be completely removed using curves/levels, it is very likely not a major element.


Message edited by author 2005-04-02 15:47:57.
04/02/2005 03:50:16 PM · #66
Originally posted by SDW65:

This is very interesting. I just copied the original and was able to arrive at the same high key using levels alone without any cloning...


Above is something that got lost in the shuffle of the discussion for which I would like clarification.

I am also able to duplicate the offending DQed image without resorting to cloning or adding a border with just a few levels adjustments.

My question: Under those conditions would this image still be DQed or would it be legal?
04/02/2005 03:55:59 PM · #67
Originally posted by bear_music:


I couldn't agree more, and one way to help this process along would be to have a new "first paragraph" in the rules that attempted to define the "spirit" of the competition. That is, something along the lines of "It is the intention of this site to encourage (or promote) (insert description), and regardless of the "legality" of specific tools in the editing rules they should not be used in such a way as to insert description..."

Obviously the key here would be the "descriptions", which would have to be specific enough to be meaningful but flexible enough to allow creativity. Then there could be a link to examples of images in the past that had used "legal" tools to achieve effects that were deemed "not within the spirit of the rules".

Robt.


We could probably always do a little more to try to make the rules clearer but having just re-read the rules again it looks pretty clear to me already. It suggests erroring on the side of caution if you are uncertain or first asking an SC member about your photo before submitting. Even the editing tools are specifically addressed and explains how they can and cannot be used. As for displaying examples. Maybe, but that could still be difficult because even among the SC there are disagreements as to where specific lines should be drawn. That's why we vote to determine our decisions. There can appear to be some inconsistencies in DQ'd photos from time to time but it is still the best process we have and members agree to this when they register and submit photos. I like to think that there are still an infinite amount of photos to be taken while staying safely within the rules. If you choose to play it close to the edge you need to be willing to accept a DQ from time to time.

T
04/02/2005 04:01:33 PM · #68
Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by seriocomic:

After seeing your before and after photos, I completely agree with the SC to DQ this entry.

If you had merely cropped out the top part (without any snow) and left it cropped and not cloned out the other patches without snow then I doubt it would have been DQ.

It was a 'Basic Editing' challenge. I don't think cloning is allowed in Basic Editing challenges. I am not even sure that this much cloning and removal/replacement would even have been allowed by the Advanced Editing rules.


You might want to get your facts straight.. "Cemetery" is indeed a member (advanced editing) challenge. Cloning is allowed.


Of course, here I am, focusing on the things that don't matter. Anyways, I was confused by serio's comment at first as well.. But I believe what he meant was that the Light on White challenge was a Basic Editing challenge in which cloning definitely could not have been used (although maybe I'm misinterpreting it just so that it makes sense to me!)

And as an aside, I don't think TC's issue here is that he's upset about being DQed because of where he was hoping to place - he's stated that several times and it's a moot point to bring it up as consolation. I see where the gray line may be here, and have to admit that I agree with the SC's decision.

Of course, I still greatly respect TC and his photography, and this is in no way changes that - misunderstandings are certainly going to occur when you get large groups of people together. You've handled the situation in a mature manner (and that is more than I can say for many other DQ posts), which I could understand may be hard to do for some of us if we were DQed and still felt that we had fallen within the ruleset. I hope that everyone's posts here have helped clear up where our understanding of the rules is slightly different and why.

- Brian
04/02/2005 04:41:40 PM · #69
Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by SDW65:

This is very interesting. I just copied the original and was able to arrive at the same high key using levels alone without any cloning...


Above is something that got lost in the shuffle of the discussion for which I would like clarification.

I am also able to duplicate the offending DQed image without resorting to cloning or adding a border with just a few levels adjustments.

My question: Under those conditions would this image still be DQed or would it be legal?


I would like to see the above mentioned question answered....only because I'm still new and what I think may be right isn't necessarily so.....and I refer back to these for clarification.
Thanks!!

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 16:42:26.
04/02/2005 05:07:09 PM · #70
I also played with the image and tried levels and curves to see if I cold get the same results that way and I couldn't. You would have to selectively isolate the grave stone in order to do this. Any global editing with either the levels or curves to make the entire background white severely messes up the values in the grave stone as well. The values in the surrounding leaves and the grave stone are too similar and you can't alter the leaves without also atering the grave stone. Technically you can use levels or curves to obliterate the background but it sure won't look like TC's final image. Also you can't use a global change and effect some leaves while leaving other identically colored leaves uneffected.

T

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 17:10:42.
04/02/2005 05:15:54 PM · #71
Originally posted by colyla:

I am also able to duplicate the offending DQed image without resorting to cloning or adding a border with just a few levels adjustments.


In addition to what Tim said, note that the submitted photo has a smaller subject in a larger background. That's not possible without adding a lot of pixels that didn't exist in the original.
04/02/2005 06:02:35 PM · #72
Originally posted by timj351:

I also played with the image and tried levels and curves to see if I cold get the same results that way and I couldn't. You would have to selectively isolate the grave stone in order to do this...

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by colyla:

I am also able to duplicate the offending DQed image without resorting to cloning or adding a border with just a few levels adjustments.


In addition to what Tim said, note that the submitted photo has a smaller subject in a larger background. That's not possible without adding a lot of pixels that didn't exist in the original.


Both points well taken, but neither answers the question...

My question: Under those conditions would this image still be DQed or would it be legal?

Message edited by author 2005-04-02 18:03:02.
04/02/2005 06:31:15 PM · #73
You are free to adjust levels and curves to your heart's content even in an attempt to completely overexpose or underexpose details out of existence. Many photographers do this either with their initial capture or in their photo editor. The thing is that it only works well with some images. TC's photo needed additional spot editing to completely remove the leaves and ground from the background. Those areas had significant detail and values that make them impossible to remove through global editing methods while keeping the desired parts of the image unaffected.

T
04/02/2005 07:07:14 PM · #74
Originally posted by timj351:

You are free to adjust levels and curves to your heart's content even in an attempt to completely overexpose or underexpose details out of existence. Many photographers do this either with their initial capture or in their photo editor. The thing is that it only works well with some images. TC's photo needed additional spot editing to completely remove the leaves and ground from the background. Those areas had significant detail and values that make them impossible to remove through global editing methods while keeping the desired parts of the image unaffected.


Thanks Tim.

I was wondering if the removal of the objects was the issue or the removal of the objects via cloning was the issue. You are saying removal via cloning is the issue.

TooCool could have achieved his effect without cloning and would not have been DQed, but because he used cloning and the objects that were cloned were deemed to be a "major element" then he was DQed.

Since it is an advanced challenge applying adjustment levels against a selection was never an issue. Obviously you have to do that.

Scalvert is correct that I did not match the scale of the tombstone, but I only had what ToolCool posted. The posted image was an odd size so might not have included the full scale of the original, so I might have been able match or be closer with a full and larger original. But then, that really wasn't the real issue anyway.

Think I'll just keep that little technique in reserve for future reference for advanced editing. :)
04/02/2005 08:15:15 PM · #75
ok...so why can i submit this...

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15811/thumb/162533.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15811/thumb/162533.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

or this...

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15811/thumb/162536.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15811/thumb/162536.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

but not this...

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15811/thumb/162537.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15811/thumb/162537.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

makes no sense, and that is apparently what he did, right?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/22/2020 12:39:10 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 © 2001-2020 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: 01/22/2020 12:39:10 PM EST.