| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2010 08:10:10 PM · #1 |
| The results of the 'Chalk' challenge have been recalculated, due to the disqualification of the former 1st place image for illegal editing (specifically, editing the color of the flowers in such a way that it added a new feature, very similar to this previously disqualified entry). Everyone else gets bumped up a notch! |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 09:17:42 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 09:37:07 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 09:43:44 PM · #4 |
awww... what a shame! I remember that other DQ, it took quite awhile for me to understand the concept when it came about, however.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2010 10:20:02 PM · #5 |
At the risk of starting a long drawn out argument....
What was the specific difference between the DQ and this:
...for my own understanding. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 10:22:17 PM · #6 |
This appears to be an unfair DQ to me. The petal outlines already exist in the picture, they were not created. It is a TOTALLY different scenario than the example posted by alanfred
It has always been deemed legal to change colors of existing objects or sections of an object, or to selectively desaturate them as long as they are clearly outlined as parts of that object and already exist, and as long as the entire section is included to avoid creating non-existing shapes. This is an example , it was discussed at length at the time and it was the SC concensus that it was legal, and, it was validated. Further, this beautiful picture by Roz  featured 2 colors added to the abdomen (by her own description)and was also validated.
What non existing shape did Enzo create? |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 10:29:13 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
This appears to be an unfair DQ to me. The petal outlines already exist in the picture, they were not created. It is a TOTALLY different scenario than the example posted by alanfred
It has always been deemed legal to change colors of existing objects or sections of an object, or to selectively desaturate them as long as they are clearly outlined as parts of that object and already exist, and as long as the entire section is included to avoid creating non-existing shapes. This is an example , it was discussed at length at the time and it was the SC concensus that it was legal, and, it was validated. Further, this beautiful picture by Roz featured 2 colors added to the abdomen (by her own description)and was also validated.
What non existing shape did Enzo create? |
When looking at it, he stopped in the middle of the petal horizontally. Yes, there was a vertical outline on the petal, but I don't think there's a horizontal outline where the paint stopped. That's my guess. Would be be legal, then, if he colored that whole petal?
|
|
|
|
10/25/2010 10:29:53 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
It has always been deemed legal to change colors of existing objects or sections of an object, or to selectively desaturate them as long as they are clearly outlined as parts of that object and already exist, and as long as the entire section is included to avoid creating non-existing shapes.... What non existing shape did Enzo create? |
Look at the petal being "colored." |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 10:30:15 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
At the risk of starting a long drawn out argument....
What was the specific difference between the DQ and this:
...for my own understanding. |
This was was back in 2007, and it's my understanding that it wouldn't be validated today -- that the rules have evolved and changed since that challenge.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2010 10:30:24 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Would be be legal, then, if he colored that whole petal? |
Yes. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 10:33:35 PM · #11 |
To further clarify, the rule:
You May
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it."
is really:
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object (but not parts of an object) within it.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2010 10:36:54 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Would be be legal, then, if he colored that whole petal? |
Yes. |
OK, just to be clear and for the future, is it the area inside the blue triangle that caused the dq?
|
|
|
|
10/25/2010 10:46:41 PM · #13 |
| Either allow this technique or don't. The wavy namby-pamby kinda-sorta middle ground problem isn't worth the anguish. Just my two cents worth. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:09:42 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:15:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
OK, just to be clear and for the future, is it the area inside the blue triangle that caused the dq? |
The area below the chalk is also appears to be a new arbitrary shape. You can desaturate the entry or any object within it (a whole petal), but you can't stray outside the natural boundaries for the same reason you can't draw your name or a rainbow in a blank sky. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:19:10 PM · #16 |
Granted that is the rule. But I'm not sure its that clear. Why not restate it:
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object (but not parts of an object) within it."
Originally posted by scalvert:
but you can't stray outside the natural boundaries |
|
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:22:32 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Either allow this technique or don't. The wavy namby-pamby kinda-sorta middle ground problem isn't worth the anguish. Just my two cents worth. |
"This technique" is that you may select and desaturate any pre-existing shape under advanced editing. "This technique" does not allow the modification or creation of shapes via selection tools. So, for example, you can't make a bunch of circular selections on a red dress and turn them into white polka dots. I'm sure we're all on the same page with that, right?
What happened with Enzo is that he desaturated part, but not all, of a specific shape (a petal) within the flower. An oversight, probably. Unfortunate, certainly. But rules don't work very well when we start to say "Well, this is just a tiny infringement, we'll let it go." I'm sure we can all agree with that, too?
So I have to assume that the referenced "namby-pamby kinda-sorta middle ground" is the actual prohibition against desaturating less-than-all of a defined shape. So I have to ask, "Do you really want a ruleset that allows people to turn a solid red dress into a red dress with white polka dots?"
'Cuz that's what we'd have, if we removed the proscription against arbitrary partial desaturation. Just sayin'... I'm really sorry about Enzon's DQ 'cuz I love the image and think it is really well done, but I can see why SC had to rule the way they did, and I'm not surprised.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-10-25 23:31:26. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:24:19 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Granted that is the rule. But I'm not sure its that clear. Why not restate it:
"saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object (but not parts of an object) within it."
Originally posted by scalvert:
but you can't stray outside the natural boundaries |
|
Because you CAN desaturate parts of an object; petals, for example, are parts of the object "flower". If you include that qualification, you'll find people saying you can't desaturate a single petal of a flower, even IF the petal is a defined shape.
R. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:36:31 PM · #19 |
I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of the rule and how it prevents from adding polka dots to a dress. In that case, I can see it quite clearly. But, the rule as written is not intuitive that what was done in this case was really against the rule.
Specifically there was no new image area, no new objects, and no new features. The examples given, lens flare or motion suggest that the features disallowed are those generally present at the time of capture.
Selectively desaturating a part of an object is a technique present in chemical processing.
I just don't see how the current wording of the rules justifies a DQ. The only justification for the DQ is given in previous posts. That shouldn't be a prerequisite for a challenge entry.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Because you CAN desaturate parts of an object; petals, for example, are parts of the object "flower". If you include that qualification, you'll find people saying you can't desaturate a single petal of a flower, even IF the petal is a defined shape.
R. |
Message edited by author 2010-10-25 23:37:41. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:41:45 PM · #20 |
I suppose I'd be happy with a "no selective desaturation" rule, but then not everyone would agree with that.
I just think it is too fine a line, I suppose. And as Paul points out, very hard to truly understand the way the rule is written, I think. Puttng white polka dots on a red dress that didn't have them before is CLEARLY creating something that wasn't there. Not filling in a full petal shape isn't quite the same thing. I don't see it as "creating a half-petal" at any rate. But that could just be me. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:43:16 PM · #21 |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:48:20 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I suppose I'd be happy with a "no selective desaturation" rule, but then not everyone would agree with that.
I just think it is too fine a line, I suppose. And as Paul points out, very hard to truly understand the way the rule is written, I think. Puttng white polka dots on a red dress that didn't have them before is CLEARLY creating something that wasn't there. Not filling in a full petal shape isn't quite the same thing. I don't see it as "creating a half-petal" at any rate. But that could just be me. |
Well, how is the statement "You can't desaturate just part of a red dress" qualitatively different than "You can't desaturate just part of a red petal"?
See what I'm getting at?
Maybe we should just call it the "color within the lines rule"? That might help clarify things...
R. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:48:28 PM · #23 |
I'm not arguing against the rule or the precedents. Just stating that the rules, as stated, don't make it obvious.
Perhaps this is a good opportunity for a Web Site Suggestion.
If precedents such as the ones you posted exist, perhaps the challenge rules should reference the postings for clarity.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by PGerst:
I just don't see how the current wording of the rules justifies a DQ. The only justification for the DQ is given in previous posts. |
You may desaturate your entry or any object within it. Selecting an arbitrary shape is not desaturating an object, though. This is a well established rule, and there have been MANY precedents. Just a few I found in a quick search: |
|
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:51:52 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
I'm not arguing against the rule or the precedents. Just stating that the rules, as stated, don't make it obvious.
Perhaps this is a good opportunity for a Web Site Suggestion.
If precedents such as the ones you posted exist, perhaps the challenge rules should reference the postings for clarity. |
I've several times in the past suggested a library of decisions, with links, so people can easily research precedents in the rules. Golf has 'em, Yachting has 'em, and both those are largely self-policed, like we are. Never been implemented, though, obviously...
R.
Message edited by author 2010-10-25 23:55:39. |
|
|
|
10/25/2010 11:53:12 PM · #25 |
Yes, "color within the lines" would probably work. Can it be added to the rule, perhaps?
I never could color within the lines, but thankfully I can't "select" or mask either, so this will never be a problem for me. :-) |
|
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 10:18:50 PM EDT.
