| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2007 01:23:20 PM · #76 |
If I were voting on this issue, which I wasn't and likely never will be in a position to, I'd have voted to DQ them both. But that's me.
The folks voting weren't me. They are people with their own interpretations, preconceptions, and biases. And they volunteer their time to judge whisper-thin margins of interpretation over and over again, knowing that whichever way it goes someone will be upset. And if they didn't do it the whole site wouldn't work.
Rather than attacking the SC for mot making the decision you would have, I think we should thank them for being willing to make decisions the best they can, so the rest of us can enjoy the site. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 01:25:59 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Rather than attacking the SC for mot making the decision you would have, I think we should thank them for being willing to make decisions the best they can, so the rest of us can enjoy the site. |
Why do you think asking questions about SC decisions, and disagreeing with them, constitutes an "attack"? I think it's a valuable part of the process here. It gives SC some insight into how the members view the rules interpretations in these gray areas, and it gives some useful guidance as well for avoiding DQ in the future if it helps us appreciate the underlying rationale of SC decisions.
R.
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 13:27:09.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 01:28:57 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
Rather than attacking the SC for mot making the decision you would have, I think we should thank them for being willing to make decisions the best they can, so the rest of us can enjoy the site. |
Why do you think asking questions about SC decisions, and disagreeing with them, constitutes an "attack"? I think it's a valuable part of the process here. It gives SC some insight into how the members view the rules interpretations in these gray areas, and it gives some useful guidance as well for avoiding DQ in the future if it helps us appreciate the underlying rationale of SC decisions.
R. |
amen. transparency=good. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 01:33:54 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Why do you think asking questions about SC decisions, and disagreeing with them, constitutes an "attack"? I think it's a valuable part of the process here. It gives SC some insight into how the members view the rules interpretations in these gray areas, and it gives some useful guidance as well for avoiding DQ in the future if it helps us appreciate the underlying rationale of SC decisions.
R. |
Agreed. I think it's totally reasonable to ask them to justify the interpretation as it went down. But to go on and on arguing the same thing I think is a bit unreasonable... It was a judgment call, reasonable people (myself included) can disagree, but ultimately a decision was made, as it had to be, and carping about it won't change that.
There will always be disagreement about judgment calls like these, and I think it's totally reasonable to express disappointment or disagreement. But I think that was done 3 pages ago, and there's also a place to say "I disagree with your decision but I appreciate your willingness to make one." |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 01:50:21 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by electrolost:
this is why I do not enter challenges anymore.......... |
Good thing basketball players that foul out of a game, or coaches ejected for arguing a call, don't give up so easily. :-P Usually see them right back in the mix when the next game comes around. |
or they find a diffrent court to play on... |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 01:54:24 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by electrolost:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by electrolost:
this is why I do not enter challenges anymore.......... |
Good thing basketball players that foul out of a game, or coaches ejected for arguing a call, don't give up so easily. :-P Usually see them right back in the mix when the next game comes around. |
or they find a diffrent court to play on... |
touch'e! :) Well, eventually they'll come back to home court again (hopefully).
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 02:03:58 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by electrolost:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by electrolost:
this is why I do not enter challenges anymore.......... |
Good thing basketball players that foul out of a game, or coaches ejected for arguing a call, don't give up so easily. :-P Usually see them right back in the mix when the next game comes around. |
or they find a diffrent court to play on... |
touch'e! :) Well, eventually they'll come back to home court again (hopefully). |
Eye am not leaving just sitting in the bleachers..... |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 02:41:22 PM · #83 |
Hey, I didn't mean to cause a stink... I just wanted to show off my car :-p
-danny |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 02:47:17 PM · #84 |
your continued participation in challenges is encouraged ... you're an asset to the site, regardless of this particular thread
and i want your car
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Hey, I didn't mean to cause a stink... I just wanted to show off my car :-p
-danny |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 02:52:42 PM · #85 |
I actually had my image sent in just to be sure. I wanted to black out the edges around the car in the top right, but it was disallowed as you're not allowed to remove entire backgrounds, etc.:
Here was the response from SC (which made sense):
Hi Noel,
Consensus is that the edit will definitely be OK if you make sure that the background shapes are still barely discernible (not completely removed). If they are completely suppressed, it may be marginal.
Regards,
kirbic
----- Original Message (DPC:11430) -----
Hi SC :)
Quick question on my automobile ad, I've did some serious darkening/vignetting around the edges of my automobile ad (submitted) and was wondering if vs. th original it's still fine? I am assume so but I don't need a DQ ! :)
Original: //img81.imageshack.us/img81/4131/img4744owh9.jpg
Thank you for your time!
Cheers
Noel
That car that got 6th should obviously get DQ'd, even in the aftermath. Cheers |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 10:33:16 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
When cropped to the same image area, Crabappl's entry had no prominent features in the background. Yours had a large black wall that was even more prominent than the doors, and was considered more than removing a minor distraction. |
So making a background entirely white is different than simply making a background entirely black. How does making a background black affect the viewers description of the photo differently than making a background white??? A white wall and some wood paneling can't be a larger distraction than a hand rail, cement and some ramps like in crabappl3's photo.
Now that I've been here a while, I agree with my DQ but think crabappl3's photo is just as DQ'able. Come on people!
I guess I just put myself into the cellar with the scrooges and grumps too! oh well...
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 22:36:32. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 10:39:57 PM · #87 |
I think SC got it wrong this time. Both should be DQ'd or both should be validated...
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 10:51:44 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by JustinM:
So making a background entirely white is different than simply making a background entirely black. How does making a background black affect the viewers description of the photo differently than making a background white??? |
It's not any different. A bold wood panel across most of your original is nowhere near the minor distraction of some small black spots and a rail along the edge. Retouching a "dead" lightbulb to appear lit is generally begging for trouble, too. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 10:52:54 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Why do you think asking questions about SC decisions, and disagreeing with them, constitutes an "attack"? I think it's a valuable part of the process here. It gives SC some insight into how the members view the rules interpretations in these gray areas, and it gives some useful guidance as well for avoiding DQ in the future if it helps us appreciate the underlying rationale of SC decisions.
R. |
I agree with you on all counts, Robert: I think they both should've been DQ'd, I think even more strongly that they should've been treated the same either way, and I think that discussing doesn't constitute an attack. I also understand it's a vote among individuals, and small differences can tip the balance.
So you didn't do anything close to attacking anyone.
However, there have been posts in this thread by others claiming that who you know matters and that people who support the SC are somehow sucking up to get on the SC. Both of those most definitely are attacks.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 10:57:01 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Noel_ZH:
I actually had my image sent in just to be sure. I wanted to black out the edges around the car in the top right, but it was disallowed as you're not allowed to remove entire backgrounds, etc.:
|
I've come to the conclusion that if you want to push the line, best do it without the preauthorization. I think it's naturally much easier to say "no go" on a shot before it's entered.
I'll go on record to say I see no difference between the two car shots. Personally, I would have guessed a DQ for both.
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 22:57:41. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 10:59:58 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've come to the conclusion that if you want to push the line, best do it without the preauthorization. I think it's naturally much easier to say "no go" on a shot before it's entered.
I'll go on record to say I see no difference between the two car shots. Personally, I would have guessed a DQ for both. |
Shhhhh everyone be quite the Dr. is IN |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 11:10:32 PM · #92 |
| my post sounded negative and I regret that, I'd like to go of the record. I am JustinM and I approve this message. lol this will be a good one 3 years into the archives |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 11:38:49 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll go on record to say I see no difference between the two car shots. Personally, I would have guessed a DQ for both. |
I agree with the Doc. My one and only dq was for this image:
I burned out the out of focus background of which some is still evidently there. By the time I shifted levels and contrast 90% of it was black. A little more burning gave it a vignette that worked. I never in my wildest dreams thought it would be dqed. It came 5th. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 09:45:25 AM · #94 |
| bump as this was important to me... |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:06:45 AM · #95 |
The parts that are really confusing me are:
YOU MAY:
"apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process."
"include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."
so I guess my question would have been would this composition below I made from 2 shots been DQ'd?
This was my original intent for my entry but chickened out at the last min as I wasn't sure how to interpret the rules...
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:11:10 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by dknourek:
...
so I guess my question would have been would this composition below I made from 2 shots been DQ'd?
... |
For sure. Composites aren't allowed, even in camera features ala what the Nikon camera can do, applying a few exposures into one. And no text may be added. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:38:39 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Techo:
Originally posted by dknourek:
...
so I guess my question would have been would this composition below I made from 2 shots been DQ'd?
... |
For sure. Composites aren't allowed, even in camera features ala what the Nikon camera can do, applying a few exposures into one. And no text may be added. |
Well why is the following line in the "You May" part? ;)
"include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph."
-dave
|
|
|
|
12/18/2007 10:52:35 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by dknourek:
Well why is the following line in the "You May" part? ;)
"include existing images or artwork as part of your composition as long as the entry does not appear to consist entirely of a pre-existing photograph in order to circumvent date or editing rules or fool the voters into thinking you actually captured the original photograph." |
It's included to set limits on artwork in your composition when you take the shot (you can't just take a picture of a picture). |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:14:31 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by dknourek:
"include existing images or artwork as part of your composition
-dave |
As I understand it, you are allowed to include existing artwork in a picture you take (i.e. the existing artwork is actually in front of the camera and you are taking a picture of it and other things). You cannot simply digitally combine two pictures on your computer. |
|
|
|
12/18/2007 11:49:09 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
As I understand it, you are allowed to include existing artwork in a picture you take (i.e. the existing artwork is actually in front of the camera and you are taking a picture of it and other things). You cannot simply digitally combine two pictures on your computer. |
You can take a picture of a picture AS LONG AS it does not consists entirely of that picture. The idea behind this is to make sure that the voters don't believe that you're entry is someone else’s work. For Example, (and yes this was validated) This was my entry for the Selective Desaturation II: challenge during DPL1.
Entry - 
Original - 
Message edited by author 2007-12-18 11:59:35. |
|
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: 04/18/2024 11:26:34 PM EDT.
