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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> May Free Study DQ
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 61, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/11/2007 08:57:36 PM · #26
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
.... I would be surprised if JJ left the site after 300+ entries because of one DQ. hell it is obvious that he could get as many ribbons as he wants but instead he submits what he likes.


I would hope he doesn't. One DQ is not reason to quit the site. I think it is fantastic that he "submits what he likes", I don't think he's the only one. But submitting what you like doesn't mean you can disregard the editing rules here. If the rules are wrong, or hurtful to the site, we have to work at changing them first.

I don't think JJ submitted that image with the intent of breaking the rules, I really doubt that - but I don't know JJ, so I don't really know. It is the right edit for the image to get a high score at DPC. It is well done (although my personal preference is for not completely flat backgrounds, I find them boring).

As Artyste mentioned above, what's sad is that JJ felt he had to edit that image this way because of DPC. Again, I don't know JJ, maybe he would have edited it that way regardless of DPC, but it is sad to think that maybe he edited it this way because of DPC.

Message edited by author 2007-06-11 21:00:28.
 06/11/2007 08:59:25 PM · #27
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by ursula:
....... SC argued quite a bit about this DQ. It was by no means unanimous. But as SC we can't just do as we wish, we are bound by the rules........ we really had no other choice.


?....rule, or opinion?

Dang, you guys have a tough, thankless job.


Rule. And prior decisions. Opinions is where we vary, where we can say what we think should be right.
 06/11/2007 09:01:44 PM · #28
"It was by no means unanimous"
rule?
 06/11/2007 09:02:16 PM · #29
I'm mostly curious as to why there wasn't a "Challenge Recalculation" thread as there usually is for a DQ that involved a ribbon change. Along with a "kudos" to the new ribbon winner...
 06/11/2007 09:03:09 PM · #30
Originally posted by David Ey:
"It was by no means unanimous"
rule?


it is a subjective rule. as with all things subjective, opinions will vary.
 06/11/2007 09:04:48 PM · #31
Originally posted by David Ey:
"It was by no means unanimous"
rule?


No, the decision to DQ.
I [think I] see where you're getting with this, and I don't want to get myself into a mess with words :)

The decision to DQ was not unanimous, because the opinions based on the rule varied. In the end we were bound by the rule and by prior decisions.

Message edited by author 2007-06-11 21:06:33.
 06/11/2007 09:05:42 PM · #32
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
.... I would be surprised if JJ left the site after 300+ entries because of one DQ. hell it is obvious that he could get as many ribbons as he wants but instead he submits what he likes.


I would hope he doesn't. One DQ is not reason to quit the site. I think it is fantastic that he "submits what he likes", I don't think he's the only one. But submitting what you like doesn't mean you can disregard the editing rules here. If the rules are wrong, or hurtful to the site, we have to work at changing them first.

I don't think JJ submitted that image with the intent of breaking the rules, I really doubt that - but I don't know JJ, so I don't really know. It is the right edit for the image to get a high score at DPC. It is well done (although my personal preference is for not completely flat backgrounds, I find them boring).

As Artyste mentioned above, what's sad is that JJ felt he had to edit that image this way because of DPC. Again, I don't know JJ, maybe he would have edited it that way regardless of DPC, but it is sad to think that maybe he edited it this way because of DPC.


I agree. Many others could have gotten higer scores on some of thier shots by doing the same thing but they didn't because it is against the rules. sandyp was DQd for the same thing a while ago.
 06/11/2007 09:07:44 PM · #33
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I'm mostly curious as to why there wasn't a "Challenge Recalculation" thread as there usually is for a DQ that involved a ribbon change. Along with a "kudos" to the new ribbon winner...


Because we forgot :)

Oy!!!!
 06/11/2007 09:09:20 PM · #34
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I'm mostly curious as to why there wasn't a "Challenge Recalculation" thread as there usually is for a DQ that involved a ribbon change. Along with a "kudos" to the new ribbon winner...


Because we forgot :)

Oy!!!!


It's here. :)
06/11/2007 09:13:31 PM · #35
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
e301, it all comes down to: "If you don't like the rules, the people, or the photos... find somewhere you do."


brilliant move. chase off one of the best photographers on this site. sigh...


Surely you aren't advocating special rules for the elite?

Ray
 06/11/2007 09:21:39 PM · #36
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
e301, it all comes down to: "If you don't like the rules, the people, or the photos... find somewhere you do."

The rules are established and DQs are handed out when they're broken. This is not an "art" site where you can do whatever you want. It's a competitive site, and the rules are there.


Ummmm...not an art site? since when? ok so it has rules, but that by no means removes the fact that photography, with or without rules is art! Don't diminish what i think alot of people are trying to do here, which is finding a creative outlet. everyone has diff. opinions, just cause its not the same as yours doesn't mean we have to chase them away.

"an artist is not a special type of person, every person is a special type of artist" Lee Krasner
 06/11/2007 09:42:12 PM · #37
Originally posted by LuDeLush:
Ummmm...not an art site? since when? ok so it has rules, but that by no means removes the fact that photography, with or without rules is art! Don't diminish what i think alot of people are trying to do here, which is finding a creative outlet. everyone has diff. opinions, just cause its not the same as yours doesn't mean we have to chase them away.

"an artist is not a special type of person, every person is a special type of artist" Lee Krasner


Yes, photography is art. DeviantArt (and many others were there are no rules for what can be done to submissions) is a site where the point is art for art's sake. This site is photography for competition, therefore it is not an "art site".

Typo

Message edited by author 2007-06-11 21:42:46.
 06/11/2007 09:52:41 PM · #38
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
...This site is photography for competition, therefore it is not an "art site".


i received marks for my work in university. was i not creating art then?
 06/11/2007 10:01:38 PM · #39
Originally posted by xianart:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
...This site is photography for competition, therefore it is not an "art site".


i received marks for my work in university. was i not creating art then?


Again, nobody is saying photography isn't art, they're saying this site wasn't created for the display of art, it was created for competition between photographers. "Art Sites" (there are dozens out there) generally are built for sharing and commenting on art - for art's sake. DPC is different from those.
06/11/2007 10:09:48 PM · #40
Removal of anything short of a triple breasted stripper hanging upside down in the background with a candle in her butt would not have changed the typcial viewers impression of this image. Old man and someone who cares about him. That was the shot.
 06/11/2007 10:13:59 PM · #41
06/11/2007 10:14:46 PM · #42
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Removal of anything short of a triple breasted stripper hanging upside down in the background with a candle in her butt would not have changed the typcial viewers impression of this image. Old man and someone who cares about him. That was the shot.


Which begs the question, if it doesn't change anything, why do it? ;)
 06/11/2007 10:16:33 PM · #43
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Removal of anything short of a triple breasted stripper hanging upside down in the background with a candle in her butt would not have changed the typcial viewers impression of this image. Old man and someone who cares about him. That was the shot.


yeah. that was the shot. but was that the image?
i adore jjbequin's vision and the way he expresses it in his images. doesn't mean it passes dpc editing rules, though.
so, is that "bad"?
should all great images fit dpc rules?
should dpc rules provide for all great images?
in my opinion, no.
 06/11/2007 10:18:54 PM · #44
the rules are there. i mean, the SC is not saying this is not an amazing image. emotional, yes. wonderful, God yes. i'm sure they got the tear in their eyes the second they saw it too...and an even bigger tear when they had to DQ it. i thank the SC for this type of consistency in the rules. it does suck for this great photographer. but if someone in the past was DQ'd because of it, it's only fair.

being consistent is what's important here, and i feel the SC is doing a great job at this. think about it...i'm sure there are hundreds of entries that would have been burned like this to delete distracting elements, but they did not do it b/c it was a rules violation. it goes both ways. if this one was allowed, where does it all stop?

it just makes it that much harder when it's an inspirational and emotive image as this was. tough decision, but bravo SC for being consistent.

constistent, i said it again :D
 06/11/2007 10:24:57 PM · #45
Looks like there's a lot of picking at straws here when we should be looking at the haystack. What difference does it make if this is an art site or not? You can create plenty of art within the rules. Yes, dodging and burning are a common darkroom technique in film photography. So what? Multi-image composites and overlays are also common darkroom fare and we don't allow those either. Yes, you can legally dodge & burn, clone and edit selections in Advanced, but there are limits. If there had been a circus elephant seated on the opposite side of that table in the original, some people would probably still argue that we should be allowed to remove it, but I believe most would agree that burning it out is going too far.

So what can we remove? Little distractions. Things like "incidental power lines, twigs, dust specks, stray hairs, and similar minor imperfections." The original background was a very obvious restaurant scene. The entry is a much more intimate setting, maybe a house or nursing home... we can't really tell. That is a significant change for a typical viewer. Now, I can certainly understand and appreciate the desire to obscure the background. It was visual clutter that took away from the scene, and effective communication usually demands simplicity. The end result is beautiful, no question, but it's not legal. A detailed background is hardly a minor imperfection, and we've been pretty consistent at not allowing their removal. If this shot had been validated, then SandyP, KDO, Cutter, and anybody else with a similar situation would be rightfully outraged that they were DQ'd.

IMO, the argument that a major thing can be mostly obscured with global adjustments and then finished off selectively is just an excuse to do something you shouldn't be doing in the first place. For example, consider that adjusting the color or tone of an existing object is legal in Advanced. Now, using similar logic, could I selectively adjust each part of the wheelchair until they all match, and then claim that it's mostly gone anyway and finish removing it? I don't think so. If a prominent thing is there in your original, then it should be there in your entry, period. It can be darker, lighter, redder, sharper, blurrier, etc., but it should be THERE. On that note, it doesn't matter if an extreme levels adjustment shows that there's still detail hidden in the file. We look at the original context: a restaurant, and we look at the final context: nothing. That's a DQ.
 06/11/2007 10:45:42 PM · #46
like he said in his photog's comments, he had to turn a snap shot into a good photo... that pretty much says "changed the average users description" to me
 06/11/2007 10:50:41 PM · #47
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Removal of anything short of a triple breasted stripper hanging upside down in the background with a candle in her butt would not have changed the typcial viewers impression of this image. Old man and someone who cares about him. That was the shot.


as I said to someone earlier in the thread, "I assume you've seen the original, then?"
 06/11/2007 10:52:35 PM · #48
Good assumption.
 06/12/2007 02:33:18 AM · #49
That's what I feel: a certain neurosis creeps in when I see a great image DQ'd and wonder what the transgression was. Would love to see the original JJ...

But thanks for the expalaination Shannon.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do wish somehow we could see originals that have been DQ'd to get a feel for what is over the line and what isn't. On the other hand it may lead to those long threads of bickering, but whenever I see a DQ for burning or cloning, I always want to see the original so I can gauge my own work against it and see how close to the line I'm running.


Message edited by author 2007-06-12 02:36:04.
 06/12/2007 03:49:51 AM · #50
Originally posted by Elvis_L:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
e301, it all comes down to: "If you don't like the rules, the people, or the photos... find somewhere you do."


brilliant move. chase off one of the best photographers on this site. sigh...


i agree that he is one of the best on the site but many comments like his and some of yours in the past seem like you guys think you are better than the rest of us. It seems (to me) like a few of you want to chase off those that don't live up to your emotional value.


No, don't want to chase off anyone. What I don't want is for the photographers I find interesting to be chased off. Which is happening. And yes, they are finding somewhere else to go.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 12:04:54 PM

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: 04/24/2024 12:04:54 PM EDT.