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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> DQ'ed question
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 192, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/19/2007 01:32:07 AM · #126
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by idnic:

k, I'm gonna be devil's advocate & disagree with both Robert & Gordon. Once you do the curves adjustment on the original above (which was obviously done to bring the creamy color to white), there is practically nothing left of the bg. The curves adjustment is not illegal and the remaining blackish specs are not even recognizable afterward... so certainly not a distracting element. In my humble opinion, of course.


That's be true if those rules had anything to do with the method used to make the change - but they don't. It is about the results, not the mechanism used to achieve the results.


Well no its about the mechanism also, don't forget that Photomatix and the others are not allowed now either but you can use curves to get almost the same result.
 12/19/2007 07:28:01 AM · #127
srdanz, DrAchoo, surfdabbler, smardaz, Guys I want you 4 to know that I am not worried about the DQ anymore. I am not after anyone for the reason of me being DQ'd, please understand this. I was told my SC that the BG that I removed was too prominent and the other was not so I want to know where that line is drawn. I know that the rules we can remove minor features and that is what I did, but SC thought differently. I want to know where that line really stands and because SC is the ones deciding only they can pin point that line since they drew it with my image.

Thank you for you're input.
12/19/2007 11:22:20 AM · #128
Trying to pinpoint that line is like trying to keep your hands on a greased fish.

One problem is that not all SC vote on each DQ, just a majority. You may get the "liberal" bunch one time and get the "conservative" bunch the next. I was in your shoes once wanting to clearly deliniate where that cutoff was, but now I realize it is not going to happen. I'm sorta zen with it now.
 12/19/2007 11:46:03 AM · #129
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Trying to pinpoint that line is like trying to keep your hands on a greased fish.

One problem is that not all SC vote on each DQ, just a majority. You may get the "liberal" bunch one time and get the "conservative" bunch the next. I was in your shoes once wanting to clearly deliniate where that cutoff was, but now I realize it is not going to happen. I'm sorta zen with it now.


And see I have a problem with that. If people didn't stand up in America we would still have slaves or people sitting on the back of the bus. We would live in a world that didn't stand for anything and meant nothing. Do you know how many people told MLKJ to stand down? Just because others failed and changing rules doesn't mean that it won't happen now. Only thing is I can't do it ALONE so those that are with me stand up and let your voice be heard, those that want the rule to stay the same and agree with whatever they want too just because they are bored and wanted to post something in a thread then sit back and watch as the rest of us have something real to say.

Let it be known that I am not just trying to do this for me, I'm doing it to make a better site. I'm do this for all of us.

UNITED WE STAND - TOGETHER WE FALL. WHO'S WITH ME?
12/19/2007 11:48:18 AM · #130
I'm all for ya man. SC is well aware of how I feel though. Somehow a few still consider me a friend. ;)
 12/19/2007 11:59:57 AM · #131
Well I look at you like a friend
 12/19/2007 12:02:15 PM · #132
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
... those that want the rule to stay the same and agree with whatever they want too just because they are bored and wanted to post something in a thread then sit back and watch as the rest of us have something real to say.

I'm not bored, and I have something "real" to say...I think the rules as written now are fine and do not see a need to revisit them AGAIN (they were just worked over substantially earlier this year).

Just because YOU don't agree with them, doesn't mean that EVERYONE wants or desires a change to the current ruleset.

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
... I'm doing it to make a better site. I'm do this for all of us.

Please don't assume that you're speaking for "all of us". Thanks.
 12/19/2007 12:11:47 PM · #133
Feel the love.
 12/19/2007 12:20:04 PM · #134
Thanks for you're input barry
 12/19/2007 12:28:38 PM · #135
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Thanks for you're input barry

It's cool. I can understand your frustration (I think). I've not been in your shoes personally, but then again I don't push the envelope that far when it comes to pushing post-processing to the boundaries of the ruleset. Call me cautious, but rarely do I remove anything from a composition (via cloning, curves/levels, etc...), and if I do I tread lightly. Could be why I've only had a few challenge entries rise to the top, but hey, it works for me.

Good luck in your pursuit of a clearer understanding/definition of the "line". :-)
 12/19/2007 12:46:12 PM · #136
Hey Dirt_Diver I left you a comment on your photo like what barry said I understand your frustration...that sucks about your DQ...... I realy dont know what to say about the rules but your DQ was unfair to me.

Again like what barry said if I do enter any challenges I try not to mess with the image at all cause I am never sure whats allowed or not... and I dont want to go crazy in photoshop maybe that why in the few challenges I entered I dont do well. But I have seen so many photos here that I know the camera can not produce or may pushing the limits but they are fine

Message edited by author 2007-12-19 12:49:09.
 12/19/2007 01:56:59 PM · #137
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
... those that want the rule to stay the same and agree with whatever they want too just because they are bored and wanted to post something in a thread then sit back and watch as the rest of us have something real to say.

I'm not bored, and I have something "real" to say...I think the rules as written now are fine and do not see a need to revisit them AGAIN (they were just worked over substantially earlier this year).

Just because YOU don't agree with them, doesn't mean that EVERYONE wants or desires a change to the current ruleset.

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
... I'm doing it to make a better site. I'm do this for all of us.

Please don't assume that you're speaking for "all of us". Thanks.


I'm not as smart as some folks...I would love to get a better definition of that line (Maybe with picture examples). However, if not then I'll be submitting my pictures for validation every time.
 12/19/2007 05:05:54 PM · #138
Originally posted by heavyj:


I'm not as smart as some folks...I would love to get a better definition of that line (Maybe with picture examples). However, if not then I'll be submitting my pictures for validation every time.


See and that's what I am trying to stop. There is no reason why we should have to PREsubmit to each advanced editing challenge when we want to push the image to the edge. Like I said together we can beat this and come up with a solution.

Listen guys, I want those that don't want to change the rules to understand 1 very important thing. I'm not CHANGING the rules. I am only editing them so others can understand where exactly the line is on editing pictures. Some people don't like to edit alot, where as some do. Those some do people are me. I love to edit the living crap out of a photo and come up with some sweet ass results.

I'm not fixing what's not broke, I'm mearly patching a crack in the rules. The final outcome of the rule is going to be the same, I'm only out to have it REWORDED so we don't have to presubmit to see if what we did is ok.
 12/19/2007 06:31:46 PM · #139
Controversy draws attention and users. It also creates unnessary tention.
But, Hey, Welcome to the real world. This is not just an emulation or game. The virtual ribbons are selling for big bucks on eBay (just-humor :-).

Yes, Dr Achoo, Bear Music, and others all have great things to say.
I once asked them to add one word, that made total Logical-sense. I'll check to see if it happened, yet.

A "Part time" Community College teacher once told me the world is Not fair. Oh, yeah, humans aren't perfect like computers, either.

On the other hand I HAVE seen some significant improvements in the "Rules" since I've been here
12/19/2007 07:50:52 PM · #140
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I'm not CHANGING the rules. I am only editing them so others can understand where exactly the line is on editing pictures.

There IS no line. The Major Elements rule has always been a subjective call to determine if something "major" was removed. Unfortunately, there's no objective measurement of importance that will work for every photo, and we look forward to validating these gray area entries like root canal.

Mark_u_U explained this decision a different way in the other thread- if Danny had cloned out just the little black windows and faint dock on the left, the vast majority would be fine with that. The only significant object in the background was a car... which is still there. Everything else was basically empty space with a few minor distractions. If you cloned out the black wall and floor in your entry, most people probably WOULD cry foul because of their visual prominence, so those are "major elements," and even though you left part of the floor on the left, it's a DQ.



We did try to clarify this rule in the current version by splitting it up to explain the sorts of things you CAN clone out: generally minor distractions. The dock and windows were minor distractions (on an otherwise-blank background) while the floor and wall were not.

While a few people portray the SC as arbitrary dictators firing off lightning bolts on a whim, we're a relatively average cross section of the site, with the same strongly varied opinions and subject to the same rules as anyone else. I applaud efforts to come up with a better system, but until then it is what it is, and the best way to avoid "crossing the line" is to consider carefully whether what you're removing is an imperfection or minor distraction.
 12/19/2007 09:24:03 PM · #141
Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Trying to pinpoint that line is like trying to keep your hands on a greased fish.

One problem is that not all SC vote on each DQ, just a majority. You may get the "liberal" bunch one time and get the "conservative" bunch the next. I was in your shoes once wanting to clearly deliniate where that cutoff was, but now I realize it is not going to happen. I'm sorta zen with it now.


And see I have a problem with that. If people didn't stand up in America we would still have slaves or people sitting on the back of the bus. We would live in a world that didn't stand for anything and meant nothing. Do you know how many people told MLKJ to stand down? Just because others failed and changing rules doesn't mean that it won't happen now. Only thing is I can't do it ALONE so those that are with me stand up and let your voice be heard, those that want the rule to stay the same and agree with whatever they want too just because they are bored and wanted to post something in a thread then sit back and watch as the rest of us have something real to say.

Let it be known that I am not just trying to do this for me, I'm doing it to make a better site. I'm do this for all of us.

UNITED WE STAND - TOGETHER WE FALL. WHO'S WITH ME?


ok before i say anything i want you to know that i got your back on this and i think its always good to think past what were doing, but i hope you made the above statement tongue-in-cheek and are not comparing this to the civil rights movement....thats just a TAD over the top....

12/19/2007 10:15:12 PM · #142


It was just a similarity.
 12/19/2007 11:23:13 PM · #143
Originally posted by scalvert:

While a few people portray the SC as arbitrary dictators firing off lightning bolts on a whim, we're a relatively average cross section of the site, with the same strongly varied opinions and subject to the same rules as anyone else. I applaud efforts to come up with a better system


If I remember right, not all sc vote in every situation. If I'm wrong, correct me. But assuming that is the case, then some fraction of 15 (?) people is not statistically representative of a site with XX thousand members nor an average cross-section in any sense. More to the point, the real issue is the occasional inconsistencies in interpretation of the rules.

The solution to this would be a static group of people charged with interpreting the rules and have them perform this function for some relatively long period of time. Only need 3 people to prevent a tie vote, and a small pool of opinion givers should result in more consistent interpretations in the long run.

Originally posted by scalvert:

and the best way to avoid "crossing the line" is to consider carefully whether what you're removing is an imperfection or minor distraction.


The problem with this suggestion is that it puts the onus on the submitter to carefully consider how a majority of strangers will interpret the rules. Obviously that is unreasonable.

Message edited by author 2007-12-19 23:25:31.
 12/19/2007 11:38:51 PM · #144
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by scalvert:

and the best way to avoid "crossing the line" is to consider carefully whether what you're removing is an imperfection or minor distraction.


The problem with this suggestion is that it puts the onus on the submitter to carefully consider how a majority of strangers will interpret the rules. Obviously that is unreasonable.


Pardon me if the question has been asked previously, but isn't it simpler to have the SC render a decision prior to submission. While it is true that the onus still rests with the submitter, the use of the existing process would most certainly alleviate the problems encountered here.

Ray
 12/19/2007 11:39:26 PM · #145
Originally posted by routerguy666:
some fraction of 15 (?) people is not statistically representative of a site with XX thousand members nor an average cross-section in any sense.

XX thousand members are not all active in a given week either, and these two shots were validated/DQ'd by a margin that's 99% likely to be the final outcome even if all SC had voted (yeah, we've actually run those statistics). A smaller pool of judges is even less representative, particularly if one or two are not around for a given vote.

Your point about photographers having to second-guess an SC decision is fair, however you could actually ask for SC opinion rather than guessing.
 12/19/2007 11:47:30 PM · #146
Originally posted by scalvert:
A smaller pool of judges is even less representative, particularly if one or two are not around for a given vote.


Personally I don't see the problem being one of decisions being representative of the infamous 'average viewer'. As I said it's a matter of consistency. While this current flare up may have been a landslide, there have been many cases when you (or others) have posted that it was a 'close vote'. So in a close vote, it comes down to who is around to vote, and that adds even more randomness to the resulting interpretation. The submitter can't even use past decisions as a guide. No explanation behind the historic dq's is available for review.

I'd suggest again just make a 3 person committee with a year term and see how it goes. People go on vacation or are otherwise temporarily unavailable for discussion, then the decisions wait. No big deal, there have been dq's announced long after images have fallen off the front page.

Asking for an opinion beforehand is the same situation with less dire consequences. You get an opinion from the folks who happen to be around to discuss. The opinion is not binding, nor is there a guarantee that the same folks giving the opinion will be the same ones making the final call should things come to that.

Message edited by author 2007-12-19 23:48:37.
 12/19/2007 11:52:05 PM · #147
Originally posted by routerguy666:
...The solution to this would be a static group of people charged with interpreting the rules and have them perform this function for some relatively long period of time. Only need 3 people to prevent a tie vote, and a small pool of opinion givers should result in more consistent interpretations in the long run.

I agree with this - if it can be effectively put in motion. The SC are volunteers, and it may be difficult to have a fixed number of them always available.
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The problem with this suggestion is that it puts the onus on the submitter to carefully consider how a majority of strangers will interpret the rules. Obviously that is unreasonable.


I would like to disagree with you here - the whole challenge concept and shooting for it is a quest to find something that would appeal to strangers. (At least for those that aim for the top placement in the challenge. Those that shoot for themselves are exempt.)

The bottom line being, I see the imperfection of the rules. I agree that as-is, the rule(s) do allow for situations like this one, where someone gets by and others don't - and that you may not understand the difference. But so is every other (attempt at) law on this planet. There are always loopholes, and there will always be people that sneak through those, knowingly or not. We all just have to accept this and move on, hoping that it won't affect us.

I also understand that it goes against DD's quest for justice, but given the f'd up state of the world affairs, I find that if I were to spend time and energy fighting injustice, DPC rules would be near the bottom of the list. I just can't compare the ruleset with civil rights movement, I'm sorry.

DD, don't take this personally. I would really like to see improvements, and I tried to come up with better wording for the rules, but came out with nothing that was less ambiguous. I see that this (and the other) thread is not about _your_ DQ but about the process and the rules. Good luck in trying to make it better.
 12/19/2007 11:53:35 PM · #148
Originally posted by routerguy666:
... I'd suggest again just make a 3 person committee with a year term and see how it goes. ...

No disrespect intended here, but I'd much rather take my chances with 12 to 18 people than just 3 when it comes to validating an image. 3 people isn't enough to be representative of the DPC membership, nor would they have the range of viewpoints when discussing/debating, etc...
 12/19/2007 11:57:12 PM · #149
Originally posted by routerguy666:

More to the point, the real issue is the occasional inconsistencies in interpretation of the rules.


Would you consider the interpretations inconsistent if you agreed with all of the decisions? Or are they just inconsistent to you because you agree with some and don't agree with others?
 12/20/2007 12:08:28 AM · #150
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Pardon me if the question has been asked previously, but isn't it simpler to have the SC render a decision prior to submission.

This wouldn't really work, since people can edit their image after they've submitted it for an opinion -- that's why we can never "pre-validate" a prospective submission, only give an informal opinion. It MIGHT work if submissions were locked-in, but I think that would cause people even more trouble, and prohibit submission of a new (better) picture later in the submission period.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 01:23:13 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: 04/25/2024 01:23:13 AM EDT.