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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Voting results on validations
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 87, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/30/2008 01:23:36 PM · #1
I'd like to see a final tally of votes on the little email blurb saying your shot was validated. That way we can see how close to the line we are getting with the rules. Recently my Crime Scene shot took a full week to validate and I don't know if that means it just took that long to gather enough votes for a majority or whether I won a long fought 6-5 battle.

I have not been DQ'd in nearly 200 challenges and I would consider myself an expert of the rules, but I will say I even feel interpretations are murky at times. I felt I was clearly within past rulings, but don't know why it took so long to validate.
06/30/2008 01:44:47 PM · #2
Yeah. That would be fun.

My Single Line shot was validated really quickly (within a few hours, I think) and some take many days. I wonder, too.
06/30/2008 01:48:08 PM · #3
Just to help people in the future. This was validated:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/875/120/689079.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/875/120/689079.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40000-44999/40718/120/691795.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40000-44999/40718/120/691795.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2008-06-30 13:49:07.
06/30/2008 01:54:32 PM · #4
That sign you removed in the front prompted a major element discussion, but the end vote was a healthy majority. Fair enough?
06/30/2008 01:58:39 PM · #5
Originally posted by scalvert:

That sign you removed in the front prompted a major element discussion, but the end vote was a healthy majority. Fair enough?


Lol, Laine wanted that sign up front that said "cookies" and being daddy I couldn't let her down. I figured it was too blown out to even read so wouldn't play in a typical description. Knowing just this much though is very helpful. I would have thought it was the BG that prompted the discussion and hadn't really even bothered thinking about the sign. The more info we have the better we can use it for future shots. I don't expect a paragraph on every validation you guys do, but just reporting the vote would be helpful and, I'd think, fairly easy.
06/30/2008 02:03:00 PM · #6
Aww, heck, Jason - if I recall, you removed a car once. What's a sign here and there? :-)
06/30/2008 02:07:24 PM · #7
If I were a SC member I wouldn't want to see validation become a side challenge to see just how far you can push it. I can see that happening if "stats" are posted with a validation result.
06/30/2008 02:16:39 PM · #8
Originally posted by aliqui:

If I were a SC member I wouldn't want to see validation become a side challenge to see just how far you can push it. I can see that happening if "stats" are posted with a validation result.


Pushing it is the natural part of any creative process. Knowing where the line actually is (or a closer approximation) is helpful for not going over. Right now it's harder in my opinion. I'm not looking to get DQ'd. I'm not even looking to push things to the very edge. I AM looking for knowledge about what tools are available to me with regards to the challenge.
06/30/2008 02:23:42 PM · #9
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I AM looking for knowledge about what tools are available to me with regards to the challenge.

They're listed in the rules. ;-P

I understand your point, but making the vote public could also stir up controversy and confusion- not just on close calls, but in cases where an "obvious" DQ or validation gets a few opposing votes. I have no strong feelings either way, though.

Message edited by author 2008-06-30 14:24:16.
06/30/2008 02:53:22 PM · #10
I agree with you, Jason. I've only had one validation request and was quite flustered by it! I typed all my steps out along with my original photo and then the screen timed out on me...yikes! No big deal though...I just retyped it (well, a shorter version).

I'm grateful because my photo was validated within a few days, and I remember getting the email on my Blackberry while I was sitting on the train and just entering a tunnel. I had to go through THREE tunnels before I could read it. Patience is not one of my virtues...ugh! The validation process is a bit of a mystery to me, but I'm not really skilled enough in CS2 to get into too much trouble. But, more information about the process and the conclusive vote result would have been interesting to know and the education would have been helpful.

Here is my photo: ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/792/120/627057.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/792/120/627057.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

After that experience, I have submitted my originals on occasion because I'm such a paranoid person anyways and I never know when those MIB will arrive...;-)
06/30/2008 04:14:33 PM · #11
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just to help people in the future. This was validated:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/875/120/689079.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/875/120/689079.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40000-44999/40718/120/691795.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40000-44999/40718/120/691795.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Wow, you removed the entire background and the sign, drew in the shadows, and still got away with it? It looks to me like the real crime here was the photo being validated. :)

This is nothing against you Jason. You’re just pushing the boundaries. But maybe we need to validate the validaters.


06/30/2008 04:45:33 PM · #12
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just to help people in the future. This was validated:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/875/120/689079.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/875/120/689079.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40000-44999/40718/120/691795.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40000-44999/40718/120/691795.jpg', '/') + 1) . '


Holy Crap!
This sets a precedence for how far we can go in Photoshop now.
Complete removal of backgrounds and adding in stuff that was never there.
Extreme editing yes, Advanced editing no way.

Good job on your edit Jason, but I wouldn't have hesitated to send this one to the back of the line.

Nuthin' personal.
06/30/2008 04:52:05 PM · #13
What rule(s) do you guys feel Jason crossed? The only one I see that is in question is this one which is highly subjective in it's nature:

You May Not: use ANY editing tool to move, remove or duplicate any element of your photograph that would change a typical viewer’s description of the photograph (aside from color or crop), even if the tool is otherwise legal, and regardless of whether you intended the change when the photograph was taken.

Would anybody have included the small paper and the background in their description of the original? I wouldn't have. I would have just said it's a photo of a boy and a girl peeking at a tray of cookies. Does the edited version change this typical description? Heck, you can invert photos which in my opinion does far more to change the description of the photo then some light cloning work on the tray and a levels adjustment (i.e. brightening the highlights) which seems to be all that was done here.

Message edited by author 2008-06-30 16:54:57.
06/30/2008 04:58:12 PM · #14
The background has not been removed at all ... a quick dodge makes a white background lighter, surely the only (very minor) question is the cloned piece of paper, nothing else has been added or removed
06/30/2008 05:04:14 PM · #15
Originally posted by Brad:

This sets a precedence for how far we can go in Photoshop now.

Nothing has changed. Fabric backdrops like this have been validated many times. We don't allow complete removal of detailed backgrounds (scenes), as opposed to background details (imperfections). Just as we would permit removal of a few twigs or small power lines on a blank sky, the wrinkles are minor imperfections on an otherwise-blank background. The sign is borderline (I had originally voted DQ on that), but I don't see anything added, and the white background is still a white background.

Originally posted by yanko:

Heck, you can invert photos which in my opinion does far more to change the description of the photo...

Inverting is not "move, remove or duplicate," which are the only things governed by that typical description test.
06/30/2008 05:09:11 PM · #16
Ah, ye of short memory. This thread: //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=438810&highlight= shows several "on the edge" validations, including one of my own...

From January 2007:
Originally posted by idnic:

I hesitated to post this because I hate showing unfinished work, my clients never see unprocessed images... but... for the sake of discussion:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15000-19999/15266/120/459001.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/15000-19999/15266/120/459001.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
was the original image used for this:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/617/120/453031.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/617/120/453031.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I typically don't do NEARLY as much editing on my shots, but I really wanted this image to work, so I was willing to do what it took. Obviously, the first thing I did was to crop (the gray box shows where). Then I painstakingly cloned the black backrop into the places where it just wasn't big enough. Next, and also not easy, I cloned the logo off the shirt of the guy on the right. After that, I had a clean image to work with and the rest was just normal editing. The dumb thing is I did a fast & sloppy job the first time and had to do it all over again for the challenge entry.

06/30/2008 05:18:59 PM · #17
Originally posted by idnic:

Ah, ye of short memory. This thread: //www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=438810&highlight= shows several "on the edge" validations, including one of my own...

Please note that that particular image was under the previous Advanced Editing rules, and the wording was tightened up considerably in the current rules.
06/30/2008 05:29:29 PM · #18
Originally posted by Mick:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just to help people in the future. This was validated:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/875/120/689079.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/875/120/689079.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40000-44999/40718/120/691795.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40000-44999/40718/120/691795.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Wow, you removed the entire background and the sign, drew in the shadows, and still got away with it? It looks to me like the real crime here was the photo being validated. :)

This is nothing against you Jason. You’re just pushing the boundaries. But maybe we need to validate the validaters.


Heh. I voted it 2 on account of children taking food from the kitchen of the house where they live is definitely not a crime. Cheating on dpc isn't a crime either.
06/30/2008 05:40:20 PM · #19
My 2 cents might not mean much...but my first thought when seeing the original was questioning the sign.

I didn't even have to switch back to the edited version to notice it....however, I wouldn't see this as a major problem since the photo is about the children and the cookies...not the sign.

I voted this low..because

A.) I didn't consider it a crime.
B.) I didn't consider it a 'crime scene' since most crime scene photos are taken after the fact..and usualy don't involve the perpetrators..(if they are alive)
:/

but..I think it technically..didn't deserve a DQ.

Message edited by author 2008-06-30 17:41:20.
06/30/2008 05:42:40 PM · #20
Originally posted by egamble:

My 2 cents might not mean much...but my first thought when seeing the original was questioning the sign.

I didn't even have to switch back to the edited version to notice it....however, I wouldn't see this as a major problem since the photo is about the children and the cookies...not the sign.

I voted this low..because

A.) I didn't consider it a crime.
B.) I didn't consider it a 'crime scene' since most crime scene photos are taken after the fact..and usualy don't involve the perpetrators..(if they are alive)
:/

but..I think it technically..didn't deserve a DQ.


The only thing that pisses me off..is I didn't realize any cloning had taken place..it is blaringly obvious now... :)
06/30/2008 05:58:47 PM · #21
Originally posted by raish:

Cheating on dpc isn't a crime either.


Am I to infer that you think the Doc actually cheated? Go ahead and hate on the image if you want but accusing the Doc of cheating is just sour grapes and has no basis in reality. Me thinks you could use a re-read of the rules and what has been stated by the SC in this thread. :-/

Message edited by author 2008-06-30 18:00:45.
06/30/2008 06:03:16 PM · #22
Originally posted by scalvert:


Nothing has changed. Fabric backdrops like this have been validated many times. We don't allow complete removal of detailed backgrounds (scenes), as opposed to background details (imperfections). Just as we would permit removal of a few twigs or small power lines on a blank sky, the wrinkles are minor imperfections on an otherwise-blank background. The sign is borderline (I had originally voted DQ on that), but I don't see anything added, and the white background is still a white background.

The background, occupying at least 50% of the shot had a lot of detail in my opinion, but is fine - those that take time to steam/iron backdrops will just have less post-processing to do. As far as adding? Hmmm - a shadow was hand-painted in where the sigh used to be, but I guess that's just a bit of cloning. Should have painted in birds instead... (extreme tongue-in-cheek there)

ETA:
I do fully support the majority SC decision here, no sour grapes at all.
It's great we can see the examples of what can and cannot be done.

Message edited by author 2008-06-30 18:13:29.
06/30/2008 06:13:18 PM · #23
I felt confident I would eventually pass validation. I was aware of the exact picture ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/21_F.gif', '/') + 1) . ' idnic posted as a previous precedent along with this one which I thought goes even further than mine:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/782/120/620908.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/782/120/620908.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/4493/120/623217.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/0-4999/4493/120/623217.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Given those previous shots, I felt relatively safe. The only reason I didn't feel completely safe is I realize it isn't always the same SC voting on a shot. Personally I feel that lack of consistency in who votes is one of the weakest areas of current DPC structure. If I changed anything, I'd ask to change that. That being said, I still think SC does a pretty decent job.

I did clone in the shadow where the sign was, but you have to clone in something or it doesn't really make sense to clone now does it? Frankly I wasn't worried about the sign. It did not take up much canvas real estate and was not readable. I'd put it in the category of idnic's background white stuff.

Message edited by author 2008-06-30 18:13:54.
06/30/2008 06:13:23 PM · #24
Originally posted by scalvert:

Nothing has changed. Fabric backdrops like this have been validated many times. We don't allow complete removal of detailed backgrounds (scenes), as opposed to background details (imperfections). Just as we would permit removal of a few twigs or small power lines on a blank sky, the wrinkles are minor imperfections on an otherwise-blank background. The sign is borderline (I had originally voted DQ on that), but I don't see anything added, and the white background is still a white background.

Nothing was added? What about everything (shadows and part of the table) that replaced the sign? The pixels used to cover up the sign had to come from somewhere. The "white background" in the original is a lot more gray than white, and the wrinkles, folds, and shadows make it a detailed part of the original image. Since the background makes up more than half the image, I'd call that a major element.

Put it this way, there's nothing in the edited version that couldn't be done with a little more care in the setup. The original image looks amateurish, and the other was drawn in Photoshop. The original is a photo, and the other is digital art.


06/30/2008 06:21:08 PM · #25
Mick, do you consider that shadow a "major element" in the description of that image? If the above is your definition of digital art, then I'm afraid you have no idea how much digital art you compete against in every single challenge. Any time you clone your "create" something. Say I cloned hairs off of a model's face, I created clear skin where hair had been. Does that make it digital art, no, just a cleaned up, finished image. Attention to detail SHOULD be taken before an image is captured, it should also be taken after in post-processing. Since the beginning of photography, photographers have altered their images for drama, composition, color, and many other reasons.... an improved photo is not automatically digital art (imho).

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 01/16/2021 12:16:59 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 © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 01/16/2021 12:16:59 AM EST.