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

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Photo DQ'd - We all can learn something!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 50, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/25/2005 09:51:17 PM · #1
Well - It's offical - My photo has been DQ'd. I must say it was not intensional in anyway to go beyond the editing rules as I believed I didn't. This was the reason for it. The added "Star burst" created a major element which is outside of the editing rules.

I was just trying to create a photo that was "Advertiseable" and it needed a little Zing IMO I would love to know if there was an acceptable amount of this that would not make it a major element? And also to get feedback from the General Population here on DPC! I appreciate all comments - good or bad and I hope we all can learn from this:

Latest Version before any Starburst work:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/28464/thumb/170676.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/28464/thumb/170676.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Please feel free to play with either version to come up with what you feel is acceptable! I think we all would be interested!' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/28464/thumb/170687.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/28464/thumb/170687.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2005-04-25 21:53:50.
04/25/2005 09:56:28 PM · #2
I think it looks great with the star burst....obviously too great!
04/25/2005 09:56:38 PM · #3
Too bad. I liked it.
' . substr('//www.kpriest.com/dpchallenge/starburst_th.jpg', strrpos('//www.kpriest.com/dpchallenge/starburst_th.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
04/25/2005 09:58:51 PM · #4
Yeah I didn't see anything wrong with a lens flare. Not naming anyone but I do believe their are others as well.
04/25/2005 09:59:00 PM · #5
aaaawwww that's a shame..... I liked that photo.
If you had used a much smaller starburst, do you think THAT would have been ok?
04/25/2005 09:59:57 PM · #6
You can possibly get some starburst effect by using a very low aperture and controlling the light falling on the ring.
I tried this for my tacks entry and it seems to work though it won't be as good as you can get with photoshop.
04/25/2005 10:01:22 PM · #7
Originally posted by Beetle:

aaaawwww that's a shame..... I liked that photo.
If you had used a much smaller starburst, do you think THAT would have been ok?


That is the big questions we are all trying to find out! Can't wait to get the opinions!
04/25/2005 10:01:26 PM · #8
Originally posted by Beetle:

aaaawwww that's a shame..... I liked that photo.
If you had used a much smaller starburst, do you think THAT would have been ok?

I don't think it would be legal to add even a small starburst. you are still adding an element which didn't exist and its always going to be a point of attraction so can be argued as a major element.
04/25/2005 10:03:47 PM · #9
That's a shame.
It was one I voted highly and think I reflected that in my comments on it.
04/25/2005 10:04:17 PM · #10
You can always use these
filters
04/25/2005 10:04:29 PM · #11
FWIW, unless it was extremely small, the starburst is an attention-getter, and as such is crying out to be considered a major element. It's creating image data that did not exist, which grates against the spirit of the editing rules.
There are relatively easy ways to do this in camera, and that of course is always perfectly legal.
This example is a good learning tool; a tip of the hat to David for posting and sharing the learning experience.
04/25/2005 10:12:07 PM · #12
Originally posted by gaurawa:

You can possibly get some starburst effect by using a very low aperture and controlling the light falling on the ring.
I tried this for my tacks entry and it seems to work though it won't be as good as you can get with photoshop.


I used a f32 for this shot with my 100-400mm L IS lens with 2 extension tubes - It eliminated the color separation I was getting with my other lenses around the edges. The Photo has minimal crop from the original off the camera.
04/25/2005 10:14:01 PM · #13
A starburst can be done in camera either by positioning yourself so it happens naturally or by using a 4 point star filter.
04/25/2005 10:17:14 PM · #14
I never can understand why people think it's a "shame" when a photo that violates the rules is found out and DQ'ed. I think it would be more accurate to call it a triumph of justice. If there is any shame to it, it should fall on the photographer who entered it.
04/25/2005 10:19:26 PM · #15
Originally posted by coolhar:

I never can understand why people think it's a "shame" when a photo that violates the rules is found out and DQ'ed. I think it would be more accurate to call it a triumph of justice. If there is any shame to it, it should fall on the photographer who entered it.

Hooray for justice! :) A shame you got caught. :(

ps - I don't think he was intentionally trying to cheat - just a misjudgement.
04/25/2005 10:20:08 PM · #16
Originally posted by coolhar:

I never can understand why people think it's a "shame" when a photo that violates the rules is found out and DQ'ed. I think it would be more accurate to call it a triumph of justice. If there is any shame to it, it should fall on the photographer who entered it.


<soapbox>
Well, there is certainly no shame in making an honest mistake, graciously admitting such, and then posting the error for all to learn from. Falls more under "behavior to emulate", IMO. We all learn from our mistakes, and none of us are perfect.
</soapbox>
04/25/2005 10:20:22 PM · #17
Originally posted by ebertdj:

Originally posted by gaurawa:

You can possibly get some starburst effect by using a very low aperture and controlling the light falling on the ring.
I tried this for my tacks entry and it seems to work though it won't be as good as you can get with photoshop.


I used a f32 for this shot with my 100-400mm L IS lens with 2 extension tubes - It eliminated the color separation I was getting with my other lenses around the edges. The Photo has minimal crop from the original off the camera.

After your aperture setting, you will have to look at the light falling on the ring. From your camera position, you should see bright point-like source reflected from the subject which can then be rendered as a star with low aperture. As cpanaioti said, this might require some effort in positioning yourself at the correct spot for a given position of the light source.
04/25/2005 10:20:25 PM · #18
Originally posted by coolhar:

I never can understand why people think it's a "shame" when a photo that violates the rules is found out and DQ'ed. I think it would be more accurate to call it a triumph of justice. If there is any shame to it, it should fall on the photographer who entered it.

I think it's a different case when the DQ is due to a unintentional crossing of a subjective line, where there's know way for the photographer to know for sure that the photo will be judged illegal. I think that's a really different situation than the person who knowingly violates a fixed rule, like compositing photos, spot-editing in Basic or submitting an old photo.

Message edited by author 2005-04-25 22:20:53.
04/25/2005 10:21:38 PM · #19
What a shame I thought it was a good image and I think I gave you an 8 or 9 I didnt even think it had been added it looked so natural
04/25/2005 10:23:14 PM · #20
Originally posted by kirbic:



<soapbox>
Well, there is certainly no shame in making an honest mistake, graciously admitting such, and then posting the error for all to learn from. Falls more under "behavior to emulate", IMO. We all learn from our mistakes, and none of us are perfect.
</soapbox>


Agreed. I've been communicating with David about his DQ and he's been nothing short of a stand-up guy through the whole process. I see no reason for any kind of shame.
04/25/2005 10:26:48 PM · #21
Originally posted by mk:

Agreed. I've been communicating with David about his DQ and he's been nothing short of a stand-up guy through the whole process. I see no reason for any kind of shame.


C'mon coolhar, let's grab the torches and burn his village! ;-)

Seriously - cut the guy some slack - it was clearly an honest mistake in judgement and like everyone involved has said, he has been forthright.
04/25/2005 10:36:53 PM · #22
I really appreciate David's openess in sharing his experience. I see this as a valuable learning experience for everyone on the site.
04/25/2005 10:37:18 PM · #23
Originally posted by kpriest:

Originally posted by mk:

Agreed. I've been communicating with David about his DQ and he's been nothing short of a stand-up guy through the whole process. I see no reason for any kind of shame.


C'mon coolhar, let's grab the torches and burn his village! ;-)

Seriously - cut the guy some slack - it was clearly an honest mistake in judgement and like everyone involved has said, he has been forthright.


.........Shall I bring the tar and feathers and join in the festivities Ken... sounds like a good time could be had by all. :O)

Seriously, I have nothing but admiration for anyone who, having made an honest mistake, stands before his/her peers and acknowledges his faux pas, and informs the general population of the type of things to be avoided.... Kudos to you ebertdj
04/25/2005 10:42:46 PM · #24
Originally posted by coolhar:

I never can understand why people think it's a "shame" when a photo that violates the rules is found out and DQ'ed. I think it would be more accurate to call it a triumph of justice. If there is any shame to it, it should fall on the photographer who entered it.

My shame comment was directed at my assumption that it was done in-camera, as I thought is was a nice submission based on it being a legal effect.
Someone making a mistake is an oops with a lesson learned DQ.
Someone cheating is a no-excuses shame on you and deserves a DQ.
04/25/2005 10:53:35 PM · #25
Originally posted by kpriest:

Seriously - cut the guy some slack - it was clearly an honest mistake in judgement and like everyone involved has said, he has been forthright.

If you think I was saying "Shame on ebertdj" - please read my post again. I agree whole heartedly with the sentiments of kirbic, GeneralE, and mk. What I don't like is to see people saying it was a shame it got QD'ed. I don't think it is a shame when an illegal entry is DQ'ed. I think it should be cause for celebration, and for kudos to our SC. It really makes no difference if the illegal entry was one that was popular, or one that was heading for the brownie. And if you think about, you should not be surprised that an entry which took advantage of editing techniques that other entries were denied by the rules looks good by comparison. It ought to.

Please read my post again before you climb all over my back. In fact, read the whole thread again, and carefully. Then take another guess about who posted a stupid remark.

Message edited by author 2005-04-25 23:00:12.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/19/2022 12:42:57 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 © 2001-2022 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: 01/19/2022 12:42:57 AM EST.