| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2006 03:01:50 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
What was the major element created/added? |
Squares of varying color. Now I know these "squares of color" were present in the original, but they weren't the size of golf balls - making them that big created a major element IMO - golf-ball-size-squares of color. |
No, those squares were not present in the original -- they were created by the reduction in size.
David
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:03:48 AM · #52 |
| The DQ here is very poorly explained (politely speaking) and I think it doesn’t make any sense. I like the picture. I didn’t vote on Abstract II. I would give it 7 or 8 since I like the pleasing pattern of the colors and it fit the topic perfectly, - very artistic in my opinion. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:06:37 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
 Then I guess this is legal too, since the end result is an abstract image. I followed all editing rules. |
If you didn't break any rules why wouldn't it be legal ?? |
That was meant to be satirical: using your logic, it is "legal."
That fact is I blurred the image out of obscurity using gaussian blur. While gaussian blur is indeed legal, I created/removed a major element. So in this case it is of course illegal. And that's exactly what spazmo did - created a major element. |
How did he create a major element? HE only worked with what was there. I think you've been fed misinfo abou tthe whole major element thing. |
First of all, the very reason given for the DQ was creation/removal of a major element (as obviously no cloning or dodging/burning was done).
Second of all, making the pixels the size of golf-balls is what created the major element. These "pixels" now occupy 1/24 of the entire image instead of the 1/273280 of the image they would have occupied had he submitted a 100% crop 640x427. I'm not giving you an official SC statement here, just using common sense, so take it with a grain of salt if you must.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:06:53 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
and I supose Andy Warhohl's stuff isn't art? |
I like this thread.
I'm still wondering the exact reason why my photo got DQ'd from blue. I responded to the DQ message asking during the challenge, and haven't heard back. I know it's heavily processed and not much to look at, but it's unclear what was done that caused it to be DQ'd, especially considering this thread which provided several examples of changing color in photos that weren't DQ'd although no SC said anything in the thread.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 03:07:59. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:07:46 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
What was the major element created/added? |
Squares of varying color. Now I know these "squares of color" were present in the original, but they weren't the size of golf balls - making them that big created a major element IMO - golf-ball-size-squares of color. |
No, those squares were not present in the original -- they were created by the reduction in size.
David
|
You're right. My bad.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:12:14 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
What was the major element created/added? |
Squares of varying color. Now I know these "squares of color" were present in the original, but they weren't the size of golf balls - making them that big created a major element IMO - golf-ball-size-squares of color. |
No, those squares were not present in the original -- they were created by the reduction in size.
David
|
You're right. My bad. |
But those pixels do not constitute a major element. They only occupy the edges of the object themselves. If making them softer via interpolation/blurring is introducing a major element than what is USM? Is it not doing the opposite?
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 03:18:10. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:12:27 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
and I supose Andy Warhohl's stuff isn't art? |
This isn't about what is and isn't considered art. It's about why his image was DQ'ed - and I'm just connecting the dots.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:16:42 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Then I guess this is legal too, since the end result is an abstract image. I followed all editing rules. |
If you didn't break any rules why wouldn't it be legal ?? |
That was meant to be satirical: using your logic, it is "legal."
That fact is I blurred the image out of obscurity using gaussian blur. While gaussian blur is indeed legal, I created/removed a major element. So in this case it is of course illegal. And that's exactly what spazmo did - created a major element. |
What was the major element created/added? |
Squares of varying color. Now I know these "squares of color" were present in the original, but they weren't the size of golf balls - making them that big created a major element IMO - golf-ball-size-squares of color. |
But what's the basis for saying it's too big? What's too big or too small? Why is a fly's head that fits the entire frame not considered too big but if I went smaller it would be. There was no predefined line in the sand to DQ base on what you are saying here. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:17:10 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
What was the major element created/added? |
Squares of varying color. Now I know these "squares of color" were present in the original, but they weren't the size of golf balls - making them that big created a major element IMO - golf-ball-size-squares of color. |
No, those squares were not present in the original -- they were created by the reduction in size.
David
|
You're right. My bad. |
But those pixels do not constitute a major element. They only occupy the edges of the object themselves. If making them softer via interpolation
is introducing a major element than what is USM? Is it not doing the opposite? |
Ahhh I'm so done.
The fact is, the reason given for the DQ was major elements. Apparently SC was thinking along the same lines.
Hopefully the new rules will clears things like this up. I wonder if upsampling is even allowed for submissions?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:19:04 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by yanko:
There was no predefined line in the sand to DQ base on what you are saying here. |
That very problem is why so many people are being DQ'ed for creation/removal of major elements. It's impossible for SC to draw a definitive line, so it's done on a case by case basis.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:19:11 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
and I supose Andy Warhohl's stuff isn't art? |
This isn't about what is and isn't considered art. It's about why his image was DQ'ed - and I'm just connecting the dots. |
You said the image wasn't even a photo anymore...I was making my point.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:19:52 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by yanko:
What was the major element created/added? |
Squares of varying color. Now I know these "squares of color" were present in the original, but they weren't the size of golf balls - making them that big created a major element IMO - golf-ball-size-squares of color. |
No, those squares were not present in the original -- they were created by the reduction in size.
David
|
You're right. My bad. |
But those pixels do not constitute a major element. They only occupy the edges of the object themselves. If making them softer via interpolation
is introducing a major element than what is USM? Is it not doing the opposite? |
Ahhh I'm so done.
The fact is, the reason given for the DQ was major elements. Apparently SC was thinking along the same lines. |
You're probably right on that. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:20:44 AM · #63 |
Ok, the part of that rule that it was DQ on was this "However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
Before anyone starts attacking me for saying this, I just want to state that I did not vote on this particular image.
My best explaination of why the image was DQed for violating this rule was because you used an editing tool (crop) and distorted (moved) the major elements (m&m's) of the photo.
It can be argued either way, I'm sure. You are more than welcome to submit an appeal of your DQ to the Site council for re review if you so wish. Just submit a ticket with your argument to the SC for review.
Maybe another SC can explain it a bit better than I did...but at 3:30am, most are in zzzzz land, so might have to wait till morning.
And now I'm off to zzzzz land too. Sorry if I didn't give you the answer you were looking for, sometimes I'm not real good at explaining things very well. Maybe when the other wake up they can elaborate on this a bit. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:24:39 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
No, those squares were not present in the original -- |
But they were - he didn't create the squares, they were already there, they just needed someone with vision to see them:))
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:26:44 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
and I supose Andy Warhohl's stuff isn't art? |
This isn't about what is and isn't considered art. It's about why his image was DQ'ed - and I'm just connecting the dots. |
You said the image wasn't even a photo anymore...I was making my point. |
Well, that's a matter of personal opinion. Personally, I don't consider "Composition in Red, Blue, and Yellow" a painting even though it was done in oils:
An abstract image, sure, but not a painting to me.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:28:26 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by HBunch:
Ok, the part of that rule that it was DQ on was this "However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted."
Before anyone starts attacking me for saying this, I just want to state that I did not vote on this particular image.
My best explaination of why the image was DQed for violating this rule was because you used an editing tool (crop) and distorted (moved) the major elements (m&m's) of the photo.
It can be argued either way, I'm sure. You are more than welcome to submit an appeal of your DQ to the Site council for re review if you so wish. Just submit a ticket with your argument to the SC for review.
Maybe another SC can explain it a bit better than I did...but at 3:30am, most are in zzzzz land, so might have to wait till morning.
And now I'm off to zzzzz land too. Sorry if I didn't give you the answer you were looking for, sometimes I'm not real good at explaining things very well. Maybe when the other wake up they can elaborate on this a bit. |
I think someone stayed up too late. :P
he doesn't mention cropping at all.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... As you can see from the notes, all I did was rotate, resize twice, tweak hue and sat, save for web and submit. ... |
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 03:52:09 AM · #67 |
Look, I realize that in Spaz's case he resized the original image twice, without cropping at all, but consider the following image:
Now, I have opened that image up in photoshop and I have zoomed all the way into the sun portion and I have cropped out a 6x4 pixel section. I have then taken the section and blown it up to DPC size. I can do that, right? I can crop all I want, and then resize to a maximum of 640 pixels for DPC display, right? So here it is:
Now, is anyone gonna tell me with a straight face that this breaks any rules? And if this doesn't break the rules, then why on God's Green Earth does spaz's approach do so? I mean, all the elements are THERE; you can SEE them! They are just highly abstracted by the (legal) process he used.
What about this one; I did it spaz's way, but to a less extreme degree. I took a 640-pixel original, shrank it to 100 pixels, then expanded it to 640 again so it is highly-pixelated but still shows the basics of the scene. Is THIS legal? If not, why on earth not?
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 03:52:44.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 04:04:40 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Now, is anyone gonna tell me with a straight face that this breaks any rules? |
...nope, I couldn't do it with a straight face. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 05:06:10 AM · #69 |
I really don't believe that we have yet another SC decision which is so blatantly an interpretation of an unworkable rule.
The rule about major elements is now so contentious that the SC needs to be very very careful about how they apply this until we have a new rule set.
In my view there are no new elements added or removed from this image. If you printed out the original and used a magnifying glass then you would have seen more or less the same image as submitted. Its LEGAL in my view.
This DQ should be appealed immediately.
SC- please try to stop kicking yourselves in the butt this is killing DPC, week after week.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 05:22:40 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Falc:
I really don't believe that we have yet another SC decision which is so blatantly an interpretation of an unworkable rule.
The rule about major elements is now so contentious that the SC needs to be very very careful about how they apply this until we have a new rule set.
In my view there are no new elements added or removed from this image. If you printed out the original and used a magnifying glass then you would have seen more or less the same image as submitted. Its LEGAL in my view.
This DQ should be appealed immediately.
SC- please try to stop kicking yourselves in the butt this is killing DPC, week after week. |
Is there an appeal process ? I have never seen an image reinstated. All I have seen is individual SC members say "' I didn't vote for a DQ" or "it happened before I was a member of SC" just to justify their own positions.
Hence why I posted this earlier.
Come on SC speak with a united front and restore some faith in a failing system. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:12:45 AM · #71 |
as a newbie to the constant DQ discussions heres my 2 cents....
As far as I can see, the adding of movement blur where no blur previously existed is creating amajor element, but I cannot for the life of me see how this current picture is DQable, the user blatantly used totally legal methods to create the image. The issue appears to be whether the square pixels "existed" before the post processing, of course they did, all images are made of these things, and the user just manipulated the image to make them more obvious. Using these same rules, if I were to save an image as a jpg at its lowest setting, resulting in a large amount of compression artefacts (jaggies), would these be counted as a major element?
My concern is that SC are doing themselves a disservice by DQing this image, its going to make even more people doubt the integrity of what I believe to be a bunch of very talented dedicated unpaid DPCers. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:16:23 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Falc:
I really don't believe that we have yet another SC decision which is so blatantly an interpretation of an unworkable rule.
The rule about major elements is now so contentious that the SC needs to be very very careful about how they apply this until we have a new rule set.
In my view there are no new elements added or removed from this image. If you printed out the original and used a magnifying glass then you would have seen more or less the same image as submitted. Its LEGAL in my view.
This DQ should be appealed immediately.
SC- please try to stop kicking yourselves in the butt this is killing DPC, week after week. |
C'mon who are we kidding here? The downsize REMOVED a major element, in that the photo was no longer recognisable as 3 M&Ms. The upsize then CREATED LARGE SQUARES that were not in the original image.
Don't believe me? Try this simple test:
Find 10 friends who are not madly into photography, show them the image and ask them what its a photo of... if any one of them says 3 M&Ms I'll eat my hat. Clearly a major element was removed.
If you don't have 10 non photographer friends ask 10 strangers instead :-) |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:21:21 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by Leok:
Find 10 friends who are not madly into photography, show them the image and ask them what its a photo of... if any one of them says 3 M&Ms I'll eat my hat. Clearly a major element was removed.
|
Some element is always removed when you crop. You can ask about any cropped image to 10 photographers and ask them what was the full image, they would not be able to tell. But is this a reason for DQ', if this is the reason why not the cropped images are DQ'd.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:29:44 AM · #74 |
This is much more than cropping - in simple cropping the cropped area is unchanged from the original. In this example the large squares are nothing like the original photo because they were CREATED by the resizing...
If he had left the image tiny after downsizing and it would have been pushing the boundaries... and would have scored awfully low because of its small size. The upsize however created long straight lines not present in the original and this is the killer. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:36:53 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by Leok:
C'mon who are we kidding here? The downsize REMOVED a major element, in that the photo was no longer recognisable as 3 M&Ms
|
That was the point, it was the ABSTRACT challenge! From the challenge itself: Abstracts are about lines, shapes and colors. If it is recognizable as an object - it is not an abstract.
And the squares were there!
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 06:39:16. |
|
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: 04/16/2024 04:51:11 PM EDT.
