Followed the rules and still disqualified !!

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

02/02/2006 11:35:38 AM · #51

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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.

Motion-Pan is under the "Basic" rule-set.
That is the beauty of the basic rules. They must have a greater degree of photographic integrity.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 11:40:18.

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

02/02/2006 11:35:43 AM · #52

Originally posted by dleach:

How about for "advanced editing" that there are no rules?

worth1000.com is for that.

dsa157

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/02/2006 11:41:24 AM · #53

I have to agree with thise who feel this was unjustly disqualified.

I wonder if an appeal process could be created where a DQ'd photo could be opened to the membership for voting with some number of "yes" votes required to reinstate it. Sort of like kicking a Presidential veto back to Congress where it has the possibility of being overridden?

Dave

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/02/2006 11:44:16 AM · #54

Originally posted by dsa157:

I wonder if an appeal process could be created where a DQ'd photo could be opened to the membership for voting with some number of "yes" votes required to reinstate it.

This shot was DQ'd during the voting, so either anonymity would be completely lost, or he would only have received some of the votes that others got.

Cyndane

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

02/02/2006 11:51:26 AM · #55

Originally posted by dleach:

How about for "advanced editing" that there are no rules?

Then it would become a contest to see who was the best digital artist, and the photography wouldn't matter. My thought, anyway.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

02/02/2006 12:00:15 PM · #56

Originally posted by dleach:

How about for "advanced editing" that there are no rules?

Of course there are rules, but the rules are voted on in cases like Samanwars where the rules are vague. The problem is that they allow the tool, but it�s the degree to which the tool is used that pushes the vote to one side or the other. (Not an easy task).

That�s why it�s really cool that we can discuss this type of decision openly here in the forums. I think the SC all try very hard to be fair is these situations.

I remember this shot also stirred up some debate on the use of tools and at the time, they voted it legal. (I was glad to see, but concerned about the direction of the photographic integrity of this site).

Now maybe some of the SC are siding more towards the �photographic integrity� today and trying to keep this a �photography� contest to a greater degree than before.
This discussion is all good in my opinion. It would be such a shame if some of this great work were not available here for us to see.

It just open�s up the need once again for a third class of rules to allow the creative people to express their work without killing the photographers here.

pcody

Canon PowerShot G6

02/02/2006 12:01:17 PM · #57

I vote for the 75% rule.
But other than that, how about DPCourt? If a picture is so close that one vote will say dq or no dq, let the picture remain in the challenge. After the challenge, the photographer can choose one sc member that was for a dq and one that was against it. These two sc would start a thread and introduce the case. Then they would defend their position with evidence like previous photos that were either validated or not.
We would all be spectators and not be allowed to voice our opinions until both sides had finished presenting their case.
Then a vote could be set up on the front page for the membership. Could be fun if everyone respected the rules.

melismatica

Minolta DiMAGE F200

02/02/2006 12:01:56 PM · #58

I'm with the folks that think this was an unfair DQ. I think of the three images, Joey Lawrence's looks by far the most altered and most like digital art. This DQ seems like a rather arbitrary application of the rule to me. The biggest change I see in samanwar's entry is the color shift of the background. The blurring doesn't seem that much more extreme then I've seen in tons of entries in the past. It is certainly recognizable as trees to me, even from the thumbnail image. I say either DQ them all or let them all pass.
I have no real personal stake in this argument since I don't even have a program at the moment that employs filters. Even when I had PS I wasn't much of a post-processor. I just think fair is fair and this is unfair.

02/02/2006 12:04:37 PM · #59

To samanwar: I'm sorry your image was DQ'd, I personally think you fell victim to the subjectiveness of the rules and it should not have been DQ'd based on the precedent set by other images of a similar nature. I personally feel that this is a rare injustice, and you should not take it personally, but continue to participate. FWIW, I really like the image and am adding it to my favorites.

To scalvert: Although I rarely disagree with SC and think that for the most part you guys do a wonderful job, I personally feel the verdict ya'll reached on this particular image is wrong. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the "why" and also for sharing your personal feelings on the subject.

To other SC: Shannon has given his input on the subject, but I personally feel it would be nice to hear from those who felt it was illegal and what separates it from other examples of this technique (Joey's in particular).

Olympus 40-150mm f/3.5-4.5 Zuiko Digital

02/02/2006 12:08:27 PM · #60

Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:

To other SC: Shannon has given his input on the subject, but I personally feel it would be nice to hear from those who felt it was illegal and what separates it from other examples of this technique (Joey's in particular).

Keep in mind Palmetto, the SC has added several new members since Joey's shot and the opinions of the SC may have grown stronger against that type of edit with the new opinions in the voting process.

Ombra_foto

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

02/02/2006 12:09:29 PM · #61

The use of the radial blur in this photo did not destroy any major elements any more than a gaussian blur has done for some other pics.
Joey's pic was a more extreme version of editing. This should have been allowed.
Unfortunately when there is an uneven application of rules, there is the appearance of favoritism, which is the last thing that SC needs.

Message edited by author 2006-02-02 12:09:51.

02/02/2006 12:11:41 PM · #62

Originally posted by Gringo:

Keep in mind Palmetto, the SC has added several new members since Joey's shot and the opinions of the SC may have grown stronger against that type of edit with the new opinions in the voting process.

I understand, I'm just trying to get "both sides" to keep the debate fair and civil. Both parties should have input so that we can better understand the verdict.

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

02/02/2006 12:13:28 PM · #63

Originally posted by Ombra_foto:

...there is the appearance of favoritism, which is the last thing that SC needs.

I was afraid that would get brought up... Hopefully opposing opinions from SC will be voiced so that we can see why they felt this one should be DQ'd while others were not.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

02/02/2006 12:14:22 PM · #64

Shame.
Based on what has been allowed in the past (borderline digital art/extreme editing), this shouldn't have been disqualified.
It's a tough call sometimes and I sympathize with the Site Council.

As I have stated before:

I wonder which will happen first:

1) The DPC rule book crosses the 500 page mark.
2) The site council become full-time employees and number into the hundreds.
3) No members will be allowed to enter a challenge without legal representation.
4) The ribbons get replaced by a $1,000 prize to justify the new rule book & employee costs. (memberships now $100/mo)
5) All editing will be done using only Irfanview.
6) Drew & Langdon pull the plug and say screw it.

Something is bound to break soon. Hang on tight.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/02/2006 12:17:01 PM · #65

samanwar

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/02/2006 12:17:27 PM · #66

My main problem with the DQ is NOT that it was a subjective decision, and is NOT that the rule was not applied across the board, IT IS THAT THE EDITING RULES CLEARLY STATES IT'S LEGAL !!!

Before the challenge, I went back to the rules page, carefully read the rules to determine what I can and cannot do, it said I can use filter in whole or part. I spent 3 hours on that shot, drawing around the birds with the pen to mask it from the background, then I played with the colors and the blur knowing that it's all within the rules only to see my work go to the trash!!!

Yes the image looked different at the end, but where is it in the rules that says you can apply filters but only to a certain extent???

For the 3rd time, here is a copy from the advanced editing rules:
[[Filters: At your discretion, you may apply filters to your photo, in whole or part. (Be aware that extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters.) ]]

Now English is not my first language, but when the rules says that extensively altering the look of the photo is not well received by voters, doesn't this means it's legal? Doesn't it mean use it at your own risk of getting a low score? I just don't get it ..

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

02/02/2006 12:18:01 PM · #67

Originally posted by BradP:

6) Drew & Langdon pull the plug and say screw it.

LOL... sometimes I can't help but wonder if D&L don't get good chuckles over some of the petty bickering that takes place on their "brain child"

Cyndane

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

02/02/2006 12:19:45 PM · #68

I am looking forward to the "revamp" of some of the rules... I'm a new member, so I'm still kind of confused about exactly what is and is not allowed in Advanced Editing. This DQ just makes it a little more confusing. I go with extreme caution and don't do much editing that isn't specifically named in the rules.

The nice thing about threads like this is that it helps flesh out what is legal and what is not... and where the line is. :)

Imagineer

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

02/02/2006 12:20:55 PM · #69

I say ban motion blur and effects filters...

Why have 'em in a photography challenge contest?

AlexSaberi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/02/2006 12:23:48 PM · #70

Originally posted by Imagineer:

I say ban motion blur and effects filters...

Why have 'em in a photography challenge contest?

I agree. Lets stick to photography not digital art.

hyperfocal

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

02/02/2006 12:25:29 PM · #71

I feel its all a matter of personal perspective. I personally would lean towards DQing many, many more images than what is the norm here. Neat image, Gaussian blur (or almost any blur), and the such can create beautiful imagery, but IMO its digital art not so much photography. But that opinion comes from MY perspective. I�ve spent the last 20 odd years shooting mostly chromes so I value in-camera technique more than post-production (also that I have partial colorblindness which limits my post production skills).

But there are no absolutes with photography, there is no right or wrong. That is why the SC should (and is) made up of many differing backgrounds. I trust that when they vote to DQ or not DQ an image the majority has spoken, and I personally support their decision.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/02/2006 12:26:43 PM · #72

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dsa157:
I wonder if an appeal process could be created where a DQ'd photo could be opened to the membership for voting with some number of "yes" votes required to reinstate it.

This shot was DQ'd during the voting, so either anonymity would be completely lost, or he would only have received some of the votes that others got.

Shannon, why is the shot removed from the voting stage when it is DQ'd. In some situations the photo could be reinstated. I can understand shutting off the statistics, but I don't see any reason to not let the shot run the entire length of the voting process and DQ it after the challenge ends. Is this something to consider, or an easy thing to implement?

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/02/2006 12:29:04 PM · #73

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by sher9204:
i don't usually disagree with the SC's decision to DQ but this time, i do. it just seems that this particular rule is too arbitrarily enforced.

I didn't agree with this one either, and I'm not usually in the minority. Some SC thought the background (a major element) was obscured by the blur, which you can't do with any tool, but I thought it was pretty blurry to begin with. We try our best, but we're only human. :-(

Changing technology and the photographer's ability to use it will require constant refinements of thinking and revision of rules... at least at DPC where the concepts of "image integrity" and "cheating" collide.

Obviously, in this case the question is what is to much use of a certain filter. How much is to much? Why should we even be asking the question?

Here is another technological wrinkle... Photoshop CS and CS2 both have new abilities to be concerned about. Among them are:

1-Shadow/highlight
2-Photo Filter
3-Exposure

None of these are filters. Should they always be allowed in advanced rules? Or should they be allowed but just not "too much" as is the case with the radial blur filter usage in this case and how will we know?

Then you have new filter options:

1-Vanishing Point
2-Smart blur
3-Smart sharpen
4-Surface blur

I'm sure I've missed others. Should these be allowed or not? If so how does that differ from the allowed filters like NeatImage which you can do anything you want with for both basic and advanced challenges? Doesn't that seem capricious and arbitrary?

With technological advancement these discussions will go on forever.

Why do we have these discussions? Should DPC even be getting down to the level of making decisions about DQing an image based on the amount of usage of a filter? Should we DQ images based on a simple value judgement as to what constitutes a "major element"?

The site will be forced to come to grips with fundamental answers to these questions some day because they will continue to crop up as technology changes.

Geeze, people, come on... how much does it matter? It is not as though there is money involved.

Look at the original and the submitted images that generated this discussion. How different are they? Do you really think the final score of that image would differ significantly based on the use of the radial filter? Look at the images.

It is time to get real. The fundamental values of this site are predicated on the abilities of film-based photography.

Film is dead. Long live digital!

Canon EOS-20D

02/02/2006 12:29:19 PM · #74

Originally posted by Gringo:

The downside to this is how would you feel if, at the end of a challenge, you find out that another photo got 35 comments to your 2, when that photo was illegally edited and yours wasn't?