| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2010 01:44:55 PM · #1 |
The Halloween Song Titles results have been recalculated due to the disqualification of the third place entry. Congratulations to the new yellow ribbon winner, and the new top 10.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 01:52:47 PM · #2 |
really? I would have assumed that fire would be a texture. Thanks for being specific, but I'm still a bit confused...
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 02:07:31 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
really? I would have assumed that fire would be a texture. Thanks for being specific, but I'm still a bit confused... |
I saw a tutorial on how to make fire. It was by creating a gradient, then putting it through a few deformations. This texture rule stuff is too confusing for me, so I just stick with using nothing.
ETA... but i never claimed to be particularly intelligent.
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 14:08:42. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 02:53:00 PM · #4 |
whatever, I thought it was expert editing.
I applied the texture the same way I applied the cracks.
Oh well, people liked it, and i got good comments.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 03:09:46 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
whatever, I thought it was expert editing.
I applied the texture the same way I applied the cracks.
Oh well, people liked it, and i got good comments. |
So disappointing when things like this happen. Seems like such a minor thing, I didn't even notice the fire in the eyes, until it was pointed out. Still its the small details that make a picture. I would have found it hard to leave it out as well. Especially when it is advanced editing and most of us would have thought it was legal. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 03:23:35 PM · #6 |
| I don't understand why it's not legal in Expert??!!! |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 03:30:28 PM · #7 |
I'm not quite sure how you tell the difference between a texture and clipart.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 03:39:10 PM · #8 |
(Sigh) I promised myself I would not get into another of these rules interpretation discussions. well, I held out for something over six months anyhow.
Could we have a stronger ruling from Site Council on this DQ, please.
Your DQ language is: You may not add graphics, clip art, computer-rendered images or parts of other photographs to your entry or its border during editing. (The fire in the eyes does not qualify as a texture to be exempted from this rule.)
The specific language in Expert for "do and don't" is:
You may: include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo.
You may not: add graphics or clip art images to your entry or its border during editing.
Could the Site Council explain a bit more, please, on just what was not legal about the fire in the eyes?
And further, I find nothing in the Expert rules about You may not add ... computer-rendered images or parts of other photographs to your entry or its border during editing.
And finally, if Textures are to be evaluated for legality, perhaps we must have specific rules elaborating on just what a texture is?
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 03:41:15 PM · #9 |
| It's a clearly identifiable "thing" that he did not take a photo of. Sounds pretty straight forward to me. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 03:44:11 PM · #10 |
It appears to me that the face was done with a texture, which was created from a photo of an old, cracked surface.
It appears to me that the eyes were done with a texture, which was created from a photo of fire.
I must be wrong, but I thought that's what textures were, and how they were created.
WTF? :-/
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 15:45:10. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 04:03:00 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
It's a clearly identifiable "thing" that he did not take a photo of. Sounds pretty straight forward to me. |
Exactly. The fire image was taken from here (one of the first results if you do a Google image search for "fire"). It's not a texture. It's a picture of fire... and used as a picture of fire pasted into the eyes. Expert Editing or not, all photos used must be taken by you during the submission period. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 04:05:47 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
It appears to me that the face was done with a texture, which was created from a photo of an old, cracked surface.
It appears to me that the eyes were done with a texture, which was created from a photo of fire.
I must be wrong, but I thought that's what textures were, and how they were created.
WTF? :-/ |
that's what i did.
I may be wrong, but I don't see it anymore that there was a special rule for this challenge that allowed the use of textures i found on the internet, i didnt need to take the photo of the texture myself.
From the rules:
"You may use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules."
I found that from the thread discussion, but i don't see it attached to the challenge any longer.
if that's not the case, then i'm OK with the DQ, but i don't see how if the crack texture is legal, the fire is not.
Is there a special way you have to apply a texture?
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 16:07:19. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 04:12:15 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
I found that from the thread discussion, but i don't see it attached to the challenge any longer.
|
You're right, it's here. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 04:51:48 PM · #14 |
I'm still a bit confused -- aren't all textures photographs of something? postcards, wallpaper, pond scum, etc.
Or do you specifically have to photograph your own textures, and cannot use the textures found on here or elsewhere on the internet? (I'm just curious for future reference -- since I'm playing around in the textures side challenge, it's something I might consider in future expert editing challenges, and would like to understand the implications.)
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 17:08:28.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 04:57:35 PM · #15 |
Another confusing ruling, courtesy of the SC and DPC's super intricate rulesets...
And before anyone says it, yes SC has a hard job, and we do love them for what they do, even if we don't all always agree... :) |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 07:09:39 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Another confusing ruling, courtesy of the SC and DPC's super intricate rulesets...
And before anyone says it, yes SC has a hard job, and we do love them for what they do, even if we don't all always agree... :) |
I completely agree with this one, though, and don't think it's very complicated at all. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 07:40:18 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Another confusing ruling, courtesy of the SC and DPC's super intricate rulesets... |
I completely agree with this one, though, and don't think it's very complicated at all. |
Ditto.
R. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:04:13 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by aliqui:
It's a clearly identifiable "thing" that he did not take a photo of. Sounds pretty straight forward to me. |
Exactly. The fire image was taken from here (one of the first results if you do a Google image search for "fire"). It's not a texture. It's a picture of fire... and used as a picture of fire pasted into the eyes. Expert Editing or not, all photos used must be taken by you during the submission period. |
This is probably a reason for specifically defining rules for "Textures" as it could be difficult to establish provenance of a texture. I.e. from one's own photography, from the Internet or even from the Texture library here at DPC.
Still, it would be interesting to better understand the reasoning you use, Shannon, when you say, "expert editing or not, all photos used must be taken by you during the submission period."
I think the masterful job done by H2 with his first place image in the Landscape Challenge just concluded -  - where he says "moon printed from WikiMedia image" might not square with this rule? Or does it?
I do get so very confused sometimes.
Yeah, it's probably just me. But tell me where I'm going wrong. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:08:26 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Yeah, it's probably just me. But tell me where I'm going wrong. |
He printed out that image and used it as a backdrop for his setup. Same sort of thing as using an image on the computer screen as a backdrop, it's done all the time, both ways. If you forbid the use of artwork as a backdrop, then you have to define artwork, and it gets really ridiculous, because buildings are artwork, cars are artwork, all sorts of things are artwork and when you include them in your image, that would be a problem.
It's no different, conceptually, than this shot, where I posed her against a fine-art print that used to hang on my wall, a very large still life:
So, if that's legal, so does his moon/wolf BG have to be. And if you say my still life BG is not legal, then what about ANY sort of created backdrop, like the vaguely splotchy ones portrait photographers use? See what I mean?
R.
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 20:11:11. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:47:35 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Yeah, it's probably just me. But tell me where I'm going wrong. |
He printed out that image and used it as a backdrop for his setup. Same sort of thing as using an image on the computer screen as a backdrop, it's done all the time, both ways. |
Yes, Robert, I do understand that reasoning. But this squares with "Expert Editing or not, all photos used must be taken by you during the submission period." how? |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:56:26 PM · #21 |
*shakes head*
The moment I saw the front page the morning after rollover on this challenge, I asked myself how long it would be before this one got DQ'd. IMO, it should not have been, but then my interpretation of the intent of the rules is apparently different from the current SC makeup. It's a big reason I'm wearing a blue shirt today, and I will say no more than that.
My condolences to Mike, IMO this should not have been DQ'd. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 08:57:41 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
*shakes head*
The moment I saw the front page the morning after rollover on this challenge, I asked myself how long it would be before this one got DQ'd. IMO, it should not have been, but then my interpretation of the intent of the rules is apparently different from the current SC makeup. It's a big reason I'm wearing a blue shirt today, and I will say no more than that.
My condolences to Mike, IMO this should not have been DQ'd. |
ETA: And the fact that it took nearly a month is incomprehensible.
ETA: I should correct myself. SC was almost certainly not aware of any potential issue until rollover which was on the 29th, so just under 2 weeks. Still a very long time to debate, but not as egregious as my earlier statement made it seem.
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 21:13:43. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 09:31:36 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by kirbic:
*shakes head*
The moment I saw the front page the morning after rollover on this challenge, I asked myself how long it would be before this one got DQ'd. IMO, it should not have been, but then my interpretation of the intent of the rules is apparently different from the current SC makeup. It's a big reason I'm wearing a blue shirt today, and I will say no more than that.
My condolences to Mike, IMO this should not have been DQ'd. |
ETA: And the fact that it took nearly a month is incomprehensible.
ETA: I should correct myself. SC was almost certainly not aware of any potential issue until rollover which was on the 29th, so just under 2 weeks. Still a very long time to debate, but not as egregious as my earlier statement made it seem. |
What do you mean by the interpretation of the intent of the rules? What intent are you inferring to?
Although it hurts to see this DQed I have to agree with the SC on this one but only if you define the intent of expert editing as not a free for all anything goes graphic extravaganza of cut and paste snippets of images collaged together to create something which is not photographic. |
|
|
|
11/10/2010 09:51:36 PM · #24 |
What worries me the most is this:
When I searched for textures, photoshop & fire, I came up with this:
earth, wind and fire textures
If you click on the earth wind and fire textures, it shows pictures of fire.
If I had just grabbed cracked textures from one place, I would have thought the fire textures from another place were fair game.
How do we know what is and isn't considered a texture? While he grabbed just an image -- it looks remarkably similar to the textures in that library that I just posted.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2010 11:18:05 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Jac:
What do you mean by the interpretation of the intent of the rules? What intent are you inferring to?
Although it hurts to see this DQed I have to agree with the SC on this one but only if you define the intent of expert editing as not a free for all anything goes graphic extravaganza of cut and paste snippets of images collaged together to create something which is not photographic. |
There was nothing to interpret here and no debate on the validity. Once we discovered someone else's photo used as a photo, it was a DQ. The delay was just a matter of waiting for everyone to vote after the issue was revealed. Per the rules: All additional photographs must be taken by you after the challenge is announced with a digital camera that records EXIF data. You may use images that do not meet the source or date requirements as textures in your entry if they function specifically as textures and not to circumvent other rules.
Sure, you can do all sorts of things cutting and pasting photos in Expert... as long as they're YOUR photos and taken within the challenge dates. The only exception is textures, but this photo of fire was used as a photo of fire. It's not some grunge layer or modification of the existing surface appearance, nor was it artwork included while photographing the entry. It's somebody else's photo of fire taken outside the challenge dates and pasted into the shot in Photoshop.
Message edited by author 2010-11-10 23:18:27. |
|
