| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2006 10:15:03 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by IceRock:
I think we need to have opportunity to appeal, just a more fairness in that system for all .
ice
|
If you read Scalvert's post, you'll see that the image WAS reconsidered. It did not pass the reconsideration. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:17:14 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by my sig:
you take a picture.
you look at it on your monitor.
you ask, "what do i have to do to this to make this presentable?"
you ask, "what do i have to do to this to make it WOW!!!
you do whatever, then you compare the original to the result.
if they hardly bear a resemblance to each other, you've probably done TOO MUCH |
all this debating and hand-wringing is probably why i don't edit photos that much. i'm just a wimp. i'd rather lose out than push the envelope...
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:18:26 AM · #28 |
It is definitely more prominent in the Fast & Furious, however, in that image it was an alteration/adjustment to the background. I believe that the feeling with the sea gulls was that the background was essentially lost almost entirely.
That's not to say the result wasn't gorgeous. Just that in a very blurry area of the rules it was on the borderline, and this time it fell outside of it.
It couldn't have been easy. At first I was like why? but then I looked again at the background and I can see how 80% of a major element has been lost.
My thoughts, make it a print. It's a cool photo and the effect works well. I think that it simple was too borderline and SC was afraid of slipper slope. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:19:19 AM · #29 |
| I personally would disqualify all all of the three examples given. The look of blur added in PP is just .. too unnatural. I think Falc's the worst. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:22:35 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by jansku:
I personally would disqualify all all of the three examples given. The look of blur added in PP is just .. too unnatural. I think Falc's the worst. |
Thankyou ;-)
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:23:31 AM · #31 |
I am glad he got a fear trial :)
p.s. still we have too keep in mind this is all done for fun :)
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by IceRock:
I think we need to have opportunity to appeal, just a more fairness in that system for all .
ice
|
If you read Scalvert's post, you'll see that the image WAS reconsidered. It did not pass the reconsideration. |
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:26:35 AM · #32 |
Until the rules are clarified, I think a close vote should always fall on the side of the photographer. Unless there is a majority of the sc that thinks it is out of bounds, the picture should stay. The color shift, which is entirely legal, is the reason the background faded out in the perception of this viewer. The blur only added an element of movement.
It's sad to see that the rule cannot, at this point, be applied fairly across the board to all photos. It will continue to cause dissention and arguments until the participants can be assured that it will be applied to each photo the same. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:30:12 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
I'd rather lose out than push the envelope... |
That's a pity, and one of the reasons we're trying to clarify the rules. They should be clear enough for people to edit and enter to the best of their ability without a big risk of DQ. We're getting there... |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:50:31 AM · #34 |
Wow, I am surprised at the decision to DQ Samanwas’s shot here.
This is a radial blur filter. I can blur an image more than this with Neatimage. Would that be legal?
The weeds in the background are still clearly weeds.
Sorry this happens sometimes Samanwar, but thanks for creating the image that will hopefully help to clarify the rules for all of us in future challenges.
(Don’t look at this DQ as a bad thing, look at it as having helped everyone on the site).
It would be cool if a DQ that results in a change/clarification to the rules is noted accordingly in the artists profile. It’s unfortunate to discourage an artist from pushing the rules to their limit without breaking them.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:59:29 AM · #35 |
I'm so surprised! This is the first time that I've ever disagreed with SC, but it does seem that the rules themselves & precedence would call for this image to be allowed. It seems a bit unfair that SC seems to be changing their mind before publishing the clarification, rather than after!
BTW, I love the photograph!
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 10:59:53. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 10:59:52 AM · #36 |
I have a suggestion - see this thread
Sorry to see a simple photo challenge site becoming like the court system, but once you have rules that are open to interpretation to have issues with how they are interpreted.
Unless it is in the rules, it has to be legal. If you want to make it illegeal, then change the rules afterwards. If you are just "tightening up" then you need to have a way for everyone to know this and look it up - a link off the rules page maybe? While I agree ignorance of the rules is no excuse, arbitrarily moving the line without telling anyone is wrong too.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:09:22 AM · #37 |
The DQ is very wrong here. It is definitely within the rules. I have a feeling there was something else going on here. samanwar's photo, as earlier stated, is the exact same as the two other posted examples. Either all DQ'd or none. But I would say none and then change the rules if you must to explicitly say no radial blur. Because if you allow it, but not too much, where is that line drawn.
I went thru a similar experience with my family entry.
I argued I simply selective adjusted the levels and that is very simple. That was all done to make the background (which was a blurry distant store window) go dark. But they would not listen to reason. I accepted, no big deal. But then I see goodman's ribbon winner:
And she did the same thing from what I can tell of her outtakes and "inspiration" posts. My point is I believe samanwar's example and my example are two distinct scenarios where the same post-editing has occured, but the same judgement hasn't been passed. So the real question is: Is it the rules, or is it the judgement? I am simply stating all of this to make DPC better and more honest.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:10:50 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by front_element:
Why not ban 'distortion' filters entirely from 'Advanced Editing' and create another catergory to allow filters that 'distort' the original pixels? |
If I use a fisheye lens to get an ultra wide shot, and I correct the distortion with software so the distortion is no longer detectable. Should I be DQ'd for having made an image that has less "visible" distortion than the original? |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:14:46 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
If I use a fisheye lens to get an ultra wide shot, and I correct the distortion with software so the distortion is no longer detectable. Should I be DQ'd for having made an image that has less "visible" distortion than the original? |
The general rule of thumb is that such corrections are not legal in basic, but are legal in advanced, provided the photographic integrity is maintained (ie the image is corrected, rather than distorted to create a new effect).
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:16:01 AM · #40 |
I was considering entering this for Free Study. Man am I glad I did'nt. I applied it to the whole photograph except for a selection in the center.
Is this legal?
Any filter changes pixel formation. Using unsharpenmask to an extreme can dramatically change a photograph, so is there a limit to how much a filter can be used?
I should start considering submiting to SC before actually submitting to make sure its valid. Thought. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:18:18 AM · #41 |
I feel for the site council on this one but have to agree that it is a surprising DQ. Seems given the other two entries that it would only be fair to vote this one the same. It's to bad for samanwar the rule wasn't clarified the first time this was in question.
The beauty of this site is that it is a learning site. Sometimes the lessons are not just for the photographers here. The SC council has taken it's lumps on this one and I'm sure they will work hard to prevent things like this in the future.
samanwar, none of this changes the fact that it a very cool image. Hope you'll stick around. :-)
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 11:40:40. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:21:45 AM · #42 |
I'm with Sher. I don't understand or support the inconsistency in the application of the rules... even though I'm a big fan of the SC normally and supportive of most everything they do.
We seem to see a lot of threads these days where people share numerous examples of cases where one image has been DQd for changes made but another with similar changes has not been DQd. In a few cases it's clearly a case of the degree of changes made but in the examples shown in this thread it seems the DQd images are equally or sometimes less changed by the process in question than those which were passed!
I trust the individual members of the SC and do not for one moment think they are showing favouritism but I do think that their decisions are hugely inconsistent and hence rather unfair.
Perhaps the SC voting process should be amended such that an image requires that 75% of voting SC members vote for a DQ in order that one be implemented?
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 11:22:17.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:23:20 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by Gringo:
If I use a fisheye lens to get an ultra wide shot, and I correct the distortion with software so the distortion is no longer detectable. Should I be DQ'd for having made an image that has less "visible" distortion than the original? |
The general rule of thumb is that such corrections are not legal in basic, but are legal in advanced, provided the photographic integrity is maintained (ie the image is corrected, rather than distorted to create a new effect). |
But Samanwas image was simply corrected to meet his vision of what it should be. His image is under the advanced rule set as well. He did exactly the same as "correcting" a fisheye distortion, only he moved the correction in the opposite direction of what is typical. He shouldn't be DQ here.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:24:51 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by skiprow:
I'd rather lose out than push the envelope... |
That's a pity, and one of the reasons we're trying to clarify the rules. They should be clear enough for people to edit and enter to the best of their ability without a big risk of DQ. We're getting there... |
I do believe sclavert has said that they are workig on it, SC is only human, they do what they can,
lets just hold off for a little while and see what happens,
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:28:07 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Gringo:
This is a radial blur filter. I can blur an image more than this with Neatimage. Would that be legal? |
Not necessarily-
"...using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
Moving pixels or applying a blur was not in question- only what happened to objects in the original by doing so. Even legal tools can be used in an illegal manner. In Cutter's background example, a background with signs was removed, but the background in Goodman's didn't have much detail to begin with. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:28:29 AM · #46 |
Count me among the people who would lump all three pictures together, either in or out.
I don't think it will be this quick, but it would be very nice to have the restated rules before the end of motion pan. This very technique could be used big time in that challenge and my guess is we are going to have multiple DQ's in that one...hdogg4u's outtake above is a perfect example.
EDIT: Actually I take that back. A closer look at hdogg4u's shot makes me think it was done in camera with a zoom effect. So what do I know?
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 11:29:46. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:32:18 AM · #47 |
Sorry to see this BS happen to you too!
The SC has been making strange descicions lately and lets just hope that they will get better on their cases becouse they are really going awol in the strangest DQ's.
I say BOOOO! Again... bad descicion! |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:33:18 AM · #48 |
| How about for "advanced editing" that there are no rules? |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:33:21 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...but the background in Goodman's didn't have much detail to begin with. |
Couldn't that also be said about The Fast and The Furious? |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 11:34:44 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...but the background in Goodman's didn't have much detail to begin with. |
Couldn't that also be said about The Fast and The Furious? |
Sure. I thought it should be legal, but that's just one opinion.
Message edited by author 2006-02-02 11:35:40. |
|
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: 04/23/2024 06:25:29 PM EDT.
