| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/30/2008 06:32:37 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Mick:
The original image looks amateurish, and the other was drawn in Photoshop. The original is a photo, and the other is digital art. |
It's definitely amateurish. I am an amateur studio photog. No amount of setup would have allowed me that large a solid white background without a large paper backdrop. Those are the domain of professionals. There would always have been detail coming from the sheet no matter how hard I ironed it (so I didn't sweat it). Personally I'm plenty comfortable with allowing people to blast backgrounds to obscurity because it levels the playing field somewhat. We know DPC loves a solid background. Let's let more people attain them if that's what they are after. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:34:19 PM · #27 |
Once again, this entry was submitted under the older version of the Advanced rules, and would probably not be legal under the current wording of the rules.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:34:26 PM · #28 |
I do get a little kick out of the low voters because it wasn't a crime. What is to say that counter isn't in a restaurant or shop? If the boy or girl took the cookie and ate it without paying, wouldn't a crime have been committed?
(Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Gotta fight the narrow thinkers.) |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:35:25 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
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. :-/ |
As long as you're inferring you can infer what you want. Dr A pushed the rules, or so he says, and I go along with his defence of his so doing. I also think that occasional discussions like this thread, with the hoped-for effect of establishing precedent, are a good thing. I'll carry on mocking though. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:35:29 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Once again, this entry was submitted under the older version of the Advanced rules, and would probably not be legal under the current wording of the rules. |
I went back and checked before submitting and it looked like the line about cloning was exactly the same from the old and new rules. Can you point out the differences to me?
New Rules:
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.
use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture(s).
Old Rules:
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.
use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn’t already exist in your original capture.
Message edited by author 2008-06-30 18:38:49. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:40:57 PM · #31 |
Sort of off topic...kinda.
I'd never gone through the validation process, and was lucky enough to have to do so with my success image. Obviously I had to send in my original, but I had no idea how detailed I had to get with editing steps. For example, can I just say I converted from raw in photoshop, or do I need to list each adjustment that I made in raw before finally opening it. If so, do I have to say bumped up contrast to 75%, etc?
I absolutely knew I hadn't done anything to get DQ'd, but I was still VERY nervous all week! lol Was happy when I finally got the notification that I was validated. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:42:39 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
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. :-/ |
As long as you're inferring you can infer what you want. Dr A pushed the rules, or so he says, and I go along with his defence of his so doing. I also think that occasional discussions like this thread, with the hoped-for effect of establishing precedent, are a good thing. I'll carry on mocking though. |
Re: the low vote - I got a lot of flakk about my entry not being a crime, despite it saying 'abducted' in the title. (Didn't look much like an abduction, I'll grant). So I ran through the crop looking for crimes and found that about half of them were. I was a bit lost for criteria, really. Still am. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:43:25 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do get a little kick out of the low voters because it wasn't a crime. What is to say that counter isn't in a restaurant or shop? If the boy or girl took the cookie and ate it without paying, wouldn't a crime have been committed?
(Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Gotta fight the narrow thinkers.) |
I think you should be a little nicer.
I took up for your alterations of your picture...but if you want to be a jerk.
'What is to say that counter isn't in a restaurant or shop?'
---I have never been to a restaurant or shop...that has a completely spotless white and brightly lit wall. Even if by some off-hand chance..you were in a restaurant with all white walls.....they would never be that spotless. Your editing style shows that this was done in (or trying to be like) a studio shot manner. Therefore...why would any viewer, even us narrow minded ones, think this was a restaurant or a shop? There are no indications of it being either.
Instead..you came up with a cute idea. Even though it would never be classified as a real-life crime...or crime scene. Shoe-horned it in...and then call the people who called you out..'narrow minded'
Message edited by author 2008-06-30 18:45:45. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:43:57 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I went back and checked before submitting and it looked like the line about cloning was exactly the same from the old and new rules. Can you point out the differences to me? |
As per the Overview section:
You may not create new features during post-processing or obscure significant parts of your original capture(s).
This was added to clarify how the SC interprets the spot editing clauses, which in themselves hadn't changed that much between revisions.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:45:23 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by idnic:
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). |
Yes, I do consider the shadows, both in the sign and in the background, to be major elements of this photo. I would describe the original photo as an amateurish attempt to create a cute image. The edited version I would simply describe as a cute image. There’s a whole world of difference between the two.
Yes, touching up photos is an important aspect of photography. However, removing half of a photo and drawing in other elements is not what I would consider “touching up” a photo. As for the rest of your statement, strictly speaking, any time you draw pixels in an image you no longer have a purely digital photograph. What you have is a combination of a digital photograph and a drawing. IOW, you have created digital art.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:45:34 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Jaker:
Sort of off topic...kinda.
I'd never gone through the validation process, and was lucky enough to have to do so with my success image. Obviously I had to send in my original, but I had no idea how detailed I had to get with editing steps. For example, can I just say I converted from raw in photoshop, or do I need to list each adjustment that I made in raw before finally opening it. If so, do I have to say bumped up contrast to 75%, etc?
I absolutely knew I hadn't done anything to get DQ'd, but I was still VERY nervous all week! lol Was happy when I finally got the notification that I was validated. |
I edit so many images each week there is no way I can remember exact steps to any single image. When I know I haven't done anything funky, my description usually reads something like "didn't do much, only cloned (here) and (here), used blah blah filter. SC knows enough about image editing to "get" most normal steps.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:46:32 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by egamble:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do get a little kick out of the low voters because it wasn't a crime. What is to say that counter isn't in a restaurant or shop? If the boy or girl took the cookie and ate it without paying, wouldn't a crime have been committed?
(Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Gotta fight the narrow thinkers.) |
I think you should be a little nicer.
I took up for your alterations of your picture...but if you want to be a jerk.
'What is to say that counter isn't in a restaurant or shop?'
---I have never been to a restaurant or shop...that has a completely spotless white and brightly lit wall. Even if by some off-hand chance..you were in a restaurant with all white walls.....they would never be that spotless. Your editing style shows that this was done in (or trying to be like) a studio shot manner. Therefore...why would any viewer, even us narrow minded ones, think this was a restaurant or a shop? There are no indications of it being either. |
I've never seen a kitchen like that either. ;) I might have been a little flippant with "narrow thinker". I certainly don't mean overall, just those those get really narrow in their definitions of what qualifies in a challenge. I need to fight it because I am not looking to be on a site that has 50 images of the most obvious thing because people are worried about DNMC.
Now I've highjacked my own thread. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:48:38 PM · #38 |
I just try to keep my comments respectful. And being called narrow-minded gets me a little steamed. Sorry
Message edited by author 2008-06-30 18:49:08. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:48:50 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Manic:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I went back and checked before submitting and it looked like the line about cloning was exactly the same from the old and new rules. Can you point out the differences to me? |
As per the Overview section:
You may not create new features during post-processing or obscure significant parts of your original capture(s).
This was added to clarify how the SC interprets the spot editing clauses, which in themselves hadn't changed that much between revisions. |
Thanks Manic. I had not noticed that. If I had, I might have thought harder about entering this. I really thought the car shot was my saving grace. Looks like I made it anyway. Back to the very original point, it would be nice to know "hey Achoo, you barely passed validation by one vote" because then I know to back off in the future. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:50:28 PM · #40 |
btw...couldn't you have gotten the white background by messing with curves and brightness? without cloning anything?
I will give it a go and see...if that is the case..there shouldn't be a problem at all with the background changes. IMO.
The background can be given the same effect with layers and adjusting curves..etc.
I don't think it is a violation.
Message edited by author 2008-06-30 18:55:37. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:52:44 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I need to fight it because I am not looking to be on a site that has 50 images of the most obvious thing because people are worried about DNMC.
|
this statement made the whole thread worth following! |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:56:13 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by dsterner:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I need to fight it because I am not looking to be on a site that has 50 images of the most obvious thing because people are worried about DNMC.
|
this statement made the whole thread worth following! |
Then what is the point of challenges?
If people just do random things..and then shoe-horn them into challenges..and win. Doesn't it make the whole process moot?
IMO, it makes me a better photographer to find things that match the challenge...or come up with ideas that match the challenge. Not to make my photo match the challenge..by a clever title or a twist of common logic.
Of course...there are some challenges (green)-(success)..etc.. that are alot more vague than CRIME SCENES and I give alot of leniency to those.
Message edited by author 2008-06-30 18:58:46. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 06:58:30 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by egamble:
Originally posted by dsterner:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I need to fight it because I am not looking to be on a site that has 50 images of the most obvious thing because people are worried about DNMC.
|
this statement made the whole thread worth following! |
Then what is the point of challenges?
If people just do random things..and then shoe-horn them into challenges..and win. Doesn't it make the whole process moot? |
You have a valid point and the answer is a tension between the two. We want a site that allows for creativity but isn't so loosy-goosy that every challenge is won by a pretty sunset.
Don't worry, that tension has been going on for as long as I've been here. There will always be people on both sides. I've been on your side before and then drifted over to this side as time went on... |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 07:00:21 PM · #44 |
Oh. I am not firmly on one side. I have already seen a few challenges where meeting the challenge is totally subjective. Like the GREEN or SUCESS challenges...
I just get involved (irritated) when I believe the description sets us in a definite direction for what the challenge is looking for.
Message edited by author 2008-06-30 19:00:36. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 07:12:25 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's definitely amateurish. I am an amateur studio photog. No amount of setup would have allowed me that large a solid white background without a large paper backdrop. Those are the domain of professionals. |
I’m also an amateur and I have several rolls of seamless paper. It actually costs a lot less than good quality cotton sheets. I guess nobody told me it was only for pros. :)
Anyway, you could have made a plain white background by stretching out the sheet and hitting it with some light. Pretty much the same thing you would have to do with paper.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally I'm plenty comfortable with allowing people to blast backgrounds to obscurity because it levels the playing field somewhat. We know DPC loves a solid background. Let's let more people attain them if that's what they are after. |
I have no problem with that, if that’s what the rules allow. The only reason I posted in this thread is because you pointed out that you pushed the boundaries and your image looked to me to have gone well past those boundaries. IOW, you asked for it, so nya nya nya! :)
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 07:21:23 PM · #46 |
Has this been asked before? I guess every question has been asked before on DPC. Is the Site Council aware of the names (meaning names of the photographer ETA) of a challenge entry? I must assume that SC is when the image is sent in for validation. How does this work? How is the integrity of SC's votes ensured?
Message edited by author 2008-06-30 19:21:56. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 07:47:23 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've never seen a kitchen like that either. ;) I might have been a little flippant with "narrow thinker". I certainly don't mean overall, just those those get really narrow in their definitions of what qualifies in a challenge. I need to fight it because I am not looking to be on a site that has 50 images of the most obvious thing because people are worried about DNMC.
Now I've highjacked my own thread. |
I guess we are in the same boat...I just got called out for 'shoe-horning' in the Green Challenge. In fact...it is getting ripped to shreds..for being shoe-horned.
:/
I def thought my idea would have fallen within the boundaries...guess not.
Message edited by author 2008-06-30 22:05:50. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 07:54:20 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
Has this been asked before? I guess every question has been asked before on DPC. Is the Site Council aware of the names (meaning names of the photographer ETA) of a challenge entry? I must assume that SC is when the image is sent in for validation. How does this work? How is the integrity of SC's votes ensured? |
Yes, I believe they do know whose image they are validating because they need to ask questions of the photog if necessary for clarification. Our SC do everything they can to VALIDATE an image, not to DQ it.
|
|
|
|
06/30/2008 08:22:55 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
How is the integrity of SC's votes ensured? |
Most SC members, past and present, have had at least one of their own entries DQ'd (generally for mistakes or a corrupted original), and some of the most belligerent now-banned members have had their shots validated. If it mattered whose entry it was, that wouldn't be the case. Our responsibility is to the site, and it serves no purpose to cast biased votes. |
|
|
|
06/30/2008 08:29:12 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pineapple:
How is the integrity of SC's votes ensured? |
Most SC members, past and present, have had at least one of their own entries DQ'd (generally for mistakes or a corrupted original), and some of the most belligerent now-banned members have had their shots validated. If it mattered whose entry it was, that wouldn't be the case. Our responsibility is to the site, and it serves no purpose to cast biased votes. |
Of course if the SC wanted to be biased towards me and allow me expert editing all the time I am sure everyone would be happy, really! Trust me! A year of photoshopped cats riding photoshopped hamsters, a new filter method every week! It would be awesome! *cough*
|
|
