| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/12/2011 09:09:14 AM · #1 |
The results of the 'Free Study 2011-04' challenge have been recalculated, due to the disqualification of the former 2nd place image for cloning major elements of the image. Congrats to our new ribbon winners!
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 09:13:40 AM · #2 |
Shame - such a great image !
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 09:40:27 AM · #3 |
oh dear, that must have been one heck of a blemish ???
:( so sorry tangy |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 09:45:53 AM · #4 |
Awwww.... I'm so sorry! It's such an incredible image! One that really sticks in your mind and makes you want to revisit it over and over again.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 10:07:10 AM · #5 |
| Dang! that line is such a blurry one it's hard to know what is acceptable and what isn't. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 10:08:41 AM · #6 |
| I'm sorry this happened. Get well soon! I really liked that image very much. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 10:12:50 AM · #7 |
Boooo, hssssss.....
Can you PM me or post what the major element was? There are times when I want/need to clone but don't know if I should. Viewing actual DQs would really help. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 10:14:27 AM · #8 |
Ouch. That stinks to lose your first ribbon, but I suppose rules is rules. You'll nail another one soon enough, I'm sure. You've been getting really good.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 01:30:16 PM · #9 |
| Really?? - the hem was a major element? Can we hear confirmation/details - this may also be important to the rest of us for future entries. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 01:55:01 PM · #10 |
| If it was the hem in the lower left corner I respectfully disagree with the SC on this one. I hadn't even noticed it was there, and cannot even see it on my work computer. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 02:12:53 PM · #11 |
I think it'd be very useful to know what constitutes a major element alright.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 03:02:56 PM · #12 |
She says in her comments "I filled it in with a bit of the fur from the cuff." She took fur from the cuff of the sleeve and put it at the base of the dress. That's an easy DQ, because she's moving recognizable stuff (in this case fur). It wasn't a clone of empty pixels to cover up a minor flaw. The way I read it, there was no fur at the bottom of the dress until she put it there.
BTW, I want that dog... =) |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 04:13:13 PM · #13 |
Its a tough one because although the ragged cuff may not seem like a DQ for cloning over, it does look like a whole NEW cuff was created by moving pixels down from the neck area.
Maybe a different story if black pixels were cloned from "nearby" to cover ragged edges.
I remember a NON-DQ awhile back for cloning out something "major" at least IMO.
I was wondering how the two would compare.
Originally posted by aliqui:
She says in her comments "I filled it in with a bit of the fur from the cuff." She took fur from the cuff of the sleeve and put it at the base of the dress. That's an easy DQ, because she's moving recognizable stuff (in this case fur). It wasn't a clone of empty pixels to cover up a minor flaw. The way I read it, there was no fur at the bottom of the dress until she put it there.
BTW, I want that dog... =) |
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 04:40:38 PM · #14 |
Awful DQ, IMO. Had she just darkened the entire corner (like a vignette) it would have hidden the problem area completely and she would have been validated.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 04:53:31 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Its a tough one because although the ragged cuff may not seem like a DQ for cloning over, it does look like a whole NEW cuff was created by moving pixels down from the neck area. |
You've just describe how cloning works. Since cloning is legal under advance then so is moving pixels from one part of the image to another. The issue has always been how much of an impact it makes to the viewer. According to the SC it seems that hems are a major element. Who knew? I actually commented on the image during voting essentially saying since that area of the image was so minor that she should have just darkened that whole area.
Message edited by author 2011-05-12 16:55:18.
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 04:58:34 PM · #16 |
I don't know if you remember the NON DQ that I am talking about but you can likely compare to this DQ. I won't post it here but PM me and I'll set you up with the link.
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Its a tough one because although the ragged cuff may not seem like a DQ for cloning over, it does look like a whole NEW cuff was created by moving pixels down from the neck area. |
You've just describe how cloning works. Since cloning is legal under advance then so is moving pixels from one part of the image to another. The issue has always been how much of an impact it makes to the viewer. According to the SC it seems that hems are a major element. Who knew? I actually commented on the image during voting essentially saying since that area of the image was so minor that she should have just darkened that whole area. |
|
|
|
|
05/12/2011 06:33:17 PM · #17 |
Hi everyone,
Thank you for your sympathy. It was REALLY stupid of me. Yes, I could have vignetted the area and I'd still have my ribbon, but Heaven only knows why I didn't think of it at the time. I suppose I was in "design" mode, and not DPC mode. My subsequent edit (for submission elsewhere....) takes into consideration  yanko's excellent suggestion, and that area IS now somewhat more darkened (but still has fur). Live and learn, I suppose. And I'm laughing because I'm a bit of a stickler for rules, and I just blanked out on this. Regardless, I love you all for honoring this image as you have - it has a special place in my heart.
In any event, congrats to both  tome and dswann for their awesome images and shiny new ribbons.
@  aliqui - stand in line. I want the dog too :-)
ETA
Yes, I copied the fur from one part of the image and pasted it in another, where it did not exist previously.
Message edited by author 2011-05-12 18:34:03. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 06:43:50 PM · #18 |
Of course, me being a 'typical viewer' of the image, I would describe it as "a photo of a furry cuff, with a woman and a dog in the background"
So my description of the image was changed by the edit, hence the DQ. |
|
|
|
05/12/2011 11:17:11 PM · #19 |
| LOL, JH! I'm glad SOMEBODY finally saw the image for what it is :-) |
|
|
|
05/13/2011 12:01:20 AM · #20 |
| I like the fur, I think it would have worked without, I dont think in either case its a major element, nor would it change the way I saw the picture, I mean really, your eye doesnt go to the fur on her leg... lol, its that dog and those ... those eyes! |
|
|
|
05/13/2011 12:49:20 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I don't know if you remember the NON DQ that I am talking about |
OH OH I DO I DO. 
|
|
|
|
05/13/2011 10:53:35 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Since cloning is legal under advance then so is moving pixels from one part of the image to another. The issue has always been how much of an impact it makes to the viewer. According to the SC it seems that hems are a major element. Who knew? |
You can clone out imperfections, but you can't duplicate or move objects to create something that wasn't already there. Cloning to repair a minor blemish = legal. Cloning to put two heads on a body, illuminate an unlit light bulb, or create a furry cuff = DQ. |
|
|
|
05/14/2011 03:09:32 AM · #23 |
| Johanna - My internet service has been down for 2 days, so I could not post until now. I was really surprised and sorry to see your DQ. That is such a great image and very well deserving of the ribbon. As others have said, your work is really outstanding and many more ribbons will surely be headed your way soon! Thanks for your congratulations on my moving up to a ribbon, that is very gracious of you, although I would rather it not happen in this manner. |
|
|
|
05/14/2011 03:53:46 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Since cloning is legal under advance then so is moving pixels from one part of the image to another. The issue has always been how much of an impact it makes to the viewer. According to the SC it seems that hems are a major element. Who knew? |
You can clone out imperfections, but you can't duplicate or move objects to create something that wasn't already there. Cloning to repair a minor blemish = legal. Cloning to put two heads on a body, illuminate an unlit light bulb, or create a furry cuff = DQ. |
Well of course nobody is cloning in two heads. Her edit was clearly to fix a minor imperfection in the garment. Like I said, she could have edited it differently and gotten validated, which sort of illustrates the silliness of the rule.
Maybe she should have cloned in some hair instead?
Message edited by author 2011-05-14 04:01:43.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2011 05:42:31 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You can clone out imperfections, but you can't duplicate or move objects to create something that wasn't already there. |
But you can also clone out power lines or other very minor elements that detract from the overall photograph. I see no difference between cloning out an ugly power line and using the clone tool to fix an ugly hem that is a very minor element in the bottom corner of the photograph.
Message edited by author 2011-05-14 05:42:49. |
|
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: 04/23/2024 04:50:46 AM EDT.
