| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2006 06:40:24 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by Leok:
... 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. |
Challenge description:
Challenge: Abstract II
Rules: Advanced Editing
Details: Abstracts are about lines, shapes and colors. If it is recognizable as an object - it is not an abstract.
We were not supposed to be able to recognise the subject. And the pixels that form 100% of the image were not created; they were merely revealed.
This DQ is indefensible under the old (or, more laughably, current) rules, and also under any conceivable new version. The DQ is absurd. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:15:07 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
You removed the entire photograph from the photograph (except for a 6x4 pixel block). I would call the entire photograph a major element... Yes it's a cool concept. Yes it was brave to attempt it in the challenge. Yes it got a DQ... |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:21:34 AM · #78 |
You resized upward by a factor of 100. In doing so, you duplicated major elements 24 pixels from the original photograph) 10,000 times each.
My vote to DQ was based not on removal of major elements but on duplication.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:24:12 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by keegbow:
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot. |
You removed the entire photograph from the photograph (except for a 6x4 pixel block). I would call the entire photograph a major element... Yes it's a cool concept. Yes it was brave to attempt it in the challenge. Yes it got a DQ... |
TooCool hit the nail on the head. :)
The problem is, you did so much editing, we have truly no way of being able to tell if the picture is of a screen shot that you took a picture of, or 3 m&ms, or of god knows what. :)
Hey! And what happened to "being all good" with the decision if you got DQ'd? :)
As a reminder- the more you guys keep hammering us with these "Why was this DQ'd thread" type discussions, the less time we have to work on the rules revision that you are all waiting on.
Help us out here. We are pedaling as fast as our little feet can. :)
Clara |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:29:35 AM · #80 |
I keep seeing in this discussion that he used no tools or techniques that were illegal. It's not in the tools or the techniques it's in the final version. I used no illegal tools in this shot either...
but it was dq.... |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:30:32 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by blemt:
....
As a reminder- the more you guys keep hammering us with these "Why was this DQ'd thread" type discussions, the less time we have to work on the rules revision that you are all waiting on.
Help us out here. We are pedaling as fast as our little feet can. :)
Clara |
I think we all have the right to ask the question and discuss this in a thread. Is that not what these forums are for?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:31:27 AM · #82 |
| you discriminate against us 24-pixel sensor camera owners. you will hear from my lawyer pronto if i am not allowed to enter my shotz big size.... |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:34:44 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by bpickard:
you discriminate against us 24-pixel sensor camera owners. you will hear from my lawyer pronto if i am not allowed to enter my shotz big size.... |
Go ahead. And when asked for validation you can send in your 24 pixel original with exif and get validated! I think your exif would take up more data than the image though... :-P |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:36:26 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
I think we all have the right to ask the question and discuss this in a thread. Is that not what these forums are for? |
Sure you do!
We encourage discussion, and debate.
However, while I'm here reading this thread I am not working on the rules revision. :) I can't do both at the same time. So if I'm to be available for this discussion then I have to put my work on the revision on the back burner.
I'm not asking you to stop discussing anything. I'm making sure you are aware that these discussions are not speeding up the rules revision. :)
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:43:44 AM · #85 |
I would be interested to know how you created the final 24 pixel shot. I have tried enlarging your original and can't get anything near what you have LOL so it looks like you didnt use that technique. What technique did you use? Thanks so much.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:02:00 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
You resized upward by a factor of 100. In doing so, you duplicated major elements 24 pixels from the original photograph) 10,000 times each.
My vote to DQ was based not on removal of major elements but on duplication.
~Terry |
So if someone upsizes by even 1% you will be obliged to DQ that as well?
No? What about 10%? 25%?
Originally posted by blemt:
... The problem is, you did so much editing ... |
So it's not what you do after all, nor even how you do it, but how much of it you do?
It's clear to all of us that you SC folks are busting your chops trying to resolve this rules issue, but if the two value judgements you've expressed above are going to be incorporated into the new rules I think you are making a rod for your own backs. Please don't saddle yourself with rules where your every decision must be a matter of opinion and debate. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:09:32 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
You resized upward by a factor of 100. In doing so, you duplicated major elements 24 pixels from the original photograph) 10,000 times each.
My vote to DQ was based not on removal of major elements but on duplication.
~Terry |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
So if Spaz's image was done the way Bear has demonstrated it would have been legal ?
I never knew upsizing was illegal are you guy's making this up as you go ?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:17:19 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Help us out here. We are pedaling as fast as our little feet can. :)
Clara |
Clara, we are trying to help by discussing the various views on the interpretation of the rules. Only by understanding where everyone is coming from can you hope to come up with a new rule set which is acceptable across the community.
Whatever the new rules are they have to be as easy to adjudicate as possible, and if that means reducing not increasing the rules then so be it.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 08:17:38.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:20:10 AM · #89 |
It should not have been DQ'd. There is nothing in the rules about resizing, which is what he did...Not sure what is coming in the re-write, but the photos *need to be* voted on based on the current ruleset...and there's nothing in there that was violated with this particular challenge entry.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:21:57 AM · #90 |
This goes back to what I stated earlier in one of the other threads bitching about DQs.
The rules are unclear.
There is public outcry about the unclear rules.
The Site Council has acknowldeged the outcry, and is working on new rules, in effect stipulating that the rules are unclear.
The Site Council continues to disqualify photos based on the unclear rules.
I really think that the SC should take a step back at this point. Focus on the rules revision. DON'T disqualify photos that aren't CLEAR violations of the rules. Be a little more permissive than you have been receintly, giving the photographer the benefit of the doubt.
After the rules rewrite, I expect these issues will be clear. Then DQ images that don't abide by them. But the only rule used to DQ this is the Major Elements rule. SC, I beg you, be strict in your intrepretation of this rule.
The voters are smarter than we give them credit for. In the case of seagull blur, airplane landing gear blur, or even extreme pixel magnification, we know that some post processing trickery was used to make the shot we see. Allow the voters to penalize or reward that photographer's work. Only apply the major elements rule when the photographer is trying to 'trick' the voter (Dr. Jones' light box, for example).
---A |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:22:36 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by blemt:
TooCool hit the nail on the head. :)
The problem is, you did so much editing, we have truly no way of being able to tell if the picture is of a screen shot that you took a picture of, or 3 m&ms, or of god knows what. :)
Clara |
It was an abstract - why would he bother going to all the trouble of cheating or faking?
I'm confused - was it DQ'd for cropping, duplication or because it couldn't be proved it was the image that came from the original, or all three?
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 08:28:00. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:26:17 AM · #92 |
Just going on the record to agree with this DQ. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:28:24 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by livitup:
This goes back to what I stated earlier in one of the other threads bitching about DQs.
The rules are unclear.
There is public outcry about the unclear rules.
The Site Council has acknowldeged the outcry, and is working on new rules, in effect stipulating that the rules are unclear.
|
See, the problem is that while the rules may be a bit unclear from time to time, there are DQ's happening for photos that apparently don't break the unclear rules, such as the one in question in this thread. Which questionable rule did this particular entry come close to breaking? he resized, then resized again...no rules broken there...whether major elements were affected, or created isn't the question -- clearly you're allowed to resize.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:31:30 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
You resized upward by a factor of 100. In doing so, you duplicated major elements 24 pixels from the original photograph) 10,000 times each.
My vote to DQ was based not on removal of major elements but on duplication.
~Terry |
Are you not allowed to upsize under the current rules ? |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:42:47 AM · #95 |
*doh*
My bad
Must remember not to post when trying to wake up...
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 11:26:37. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:49:59 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by m:
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
 |
Sorry m, I don't think it was the colour change, it was the use of gaussian blur, which you state you used. This was a basic editing challenge where gaussian blur is not allowed. |
I thought you were allowed to use gaussian blur in basic editing... |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:50:26 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Sorry m, I don't think it was the colour change, it was the use of gaussian blur, which you state you used. This was a basic editing challenge where gaussian blur is not allowed. |
Gaussian blur is explicitly allowed in Basic Editing. I think (from memory) it was the posterization that was the grounds for DQ.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:52:01 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by m:
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
|
Sorry m, I don't think it was the colour change, it was the use of gaussian blur, which you state you used. This was a basic editing challenge where gaussian blur is not allowed. |
Sorry you are incorrect - here is a direct copy and paste from the basic rules:
However, no effects filters may be applied to your image, with the exception of Noise and Gaussian Blur, which are allowed.
oops we all jumped together on that one ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 08:54:41.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:53:28 AM · #99 |
bust post...
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 09:33:57. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:57:07 AM · #100 |
me too
Originally posted by nards656:
Just going on the record to agree with this DQ. Sorry. |
|
|
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: 04/24/2024 04:04:46 AM EDT.
