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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> Disqualified
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/01/2006 07:43:31 PM · #1
My picture
//dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=300182
got disqualified for some reason, I was to blame for my slow reaction to the warning....

But I was wandering, were they right?

All I did was pump up the CONTRAST and SHADOWS in the RAW option screen.

Is that allowed in the basic editing challenges...?

BYE!
10/01/2006 07:45:48 PM · #2
my question is, why was it even flagged? lol it finished around 50%...
10/01/2006 07:46:13 PM · #3
Post your original. Let's all have a look.
10/01/2006 07:47:54 PM · #4
Um... that's from February! Your editing had nothing to do with the DQ- it looks like you failed to provide an original for validation when asked.
10/01/2006 07:48:16 PM · #5
You were dq'd for not providing the original. All that means is that you did not get the file to SC in a timely manner.

That reason makes no judgement whatsoever as to the legality of any editing. It doesn't matter what editing steps you took, the DQ is not for an editing related violation.

10/01/2006 07:48:41 PM · #6
Originally posted by bergwalters:

My picture
//dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=300182
got disqualified for some reason, I was to blame for my slow reaction to the warning....

But I was wandering, were they right?

All I did was pump up the CONTRAST and SHADOWS in the RAW option screen.

Is that allowed in the basic editing challenges...?

BYE!


My guess is that all semblance of detail was removed, along with any elements in the foreground.
Care to post your original?
It can only serve to help members here from falling to the same fate should they try it.

Edit to add it wasn't due to editing. Thanks SC for the info.

Message edited by author 2006-10-01 19:49:41.
10/01/2006 07:50:35 PM · #7
You know, a validation request from February...I really hope the dude had more than 48 hours to provide an original. That's gotta be a bit of an unexpected event.
10/01/2006 07:54:30 PM · #8
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's gotta be a bit of an unexpected event.


I believe it was requested (and DQ'd) during the challenge. We allow 48 hours for people to provide an original when asked... it's been 7 months!
10/01/2006 08:03:10 PM · #9
I was just wondering... i havent been asleep for 7 months!!!

the original is here...

10/01/2006 08:05:27 PM · #10
Probably would have been DQ'd knocking the levels down to create the silhouette creates a new element (and removes a few dozen more).
10/01/2006 08:09:03 PM · #11
Why is this coming up now?
10/01/2006 08:15:30 PM · #12
Originally posted by strangeghost:

Probably would have been DQ'd knocking the levels down to create the silhouette creates a new element (and removes a few dozen more).


I doubt it. It was probably requested for suspicion of removing a background, but it doesn't look like anything was added or removed (provided the light areas around the legs can be made black).
10/01/2006 08:17:02 PM · #13
It was for a Basic editing challenge, from what I understand Basic editing is tool based (can do anything with the allowed tools) while Advanced is Element based (can do anything with the elements of the image except move, remove or add them). So the major elements clause (which isn't a part of the Basic rules) wouldn't apply.

I would guess it was flagged for validation because someone didn't recognize the above (if I'm not mistaken about the rules) and was disqualified solely for not providing the original.

David
10/01/2006 08:24:20 PM · #14
Originally posted by David.C:

... So the major elements clause (which isn't a part of the Basic rules) wouldn't apply. ...

Wow!!! Never really noticed that monster loophole before. Had gotten so used to not tinkering with something that would be considered background removal, etc...that I never even thought about it being legal in basic.

When are those rule revisions due out anyway?
10/01/2006 08:25:17 PM · #15
Could it of been dq'ed because of promoting smoking as the title suggest. Title: Sit, smoke and enjoy

4.2 You will not use the DPChallenge.com Service to post content or to design, manufacture, market or sell a Product that (i) infringes the rights of a third party, including, without limitation, copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, rights of privacy and publicity, (ii) is libelous, defamatory or slanderous, (iii) condones, promotes, contains or links to warez, cracks, hacks or similar utilities or programs, (iv) contains explicitly sexual content, (v) does or may denigrate or offend any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group, through use of language, images, stereotypical depiction or otherwise, (vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others, (vii) exploits images or the likeness of minors, (viii) encourages the use of drugs or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.

I don't think at all it is direct at minors but there are minors on the site. Just a guess

Message edited by author 2006-10-01 20:27:16.
10/01/2006 08:35:54 PM · #16
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:

... (viii) ... or the under-age use of alcohol or cigarettes or (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste. ...

I interpret that to mean an image that shows a real under-age person actually drinking or smoking, i.e. - a kid that looks 12 years old smoking a cigarette.

I doubt that was the reason for a DQ request. Most likely it was the removal of major element line of thought - although misguided as pointed out by David. C a moment ago.
10/02/2006 12:21:46 PM · #17
Originally posted by glad2badad:



When are those rule revisions due out anyway?


October 2004 :P
10/02/2006 12:34:31 PM · #18
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by David.C:

... So the major elements clause (which isn't a part of the Basic rules) wouldn't apply. ...

Wow!!! Never really noticed that monster loophole before.


Not much of a loophole since you can't selectively edit in Basic.
10/02/2006 12:57:40 PM · #19
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by David.C:

... So the major elements clause (which isn't a part of the Basic rules) wouldn't apply. ...

Wow!!! Never really noticed that monster loophole before.


Not much of a loophole since you can't selectively edit in Basic.

I understand that, but couldn't you adjust using curves/levels, etc...to effectively wipeout background details? The image that this would work on are few and far between I imagine. Theoretically, what could get a person in trouble on an advanced challenge entry in regards to major element removal could be done to a basic challenge entry without any DQ problems?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 06:45:54 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 06:45:54 AM EDT.