| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2004 07:07:21 PM · #1 |
This is the complete text of the e-mail I recieved this afternoon:
"We regret to inform you that your submission to the Window View challenge ("Dawn Breaks Over The City") has been disqualified for the following reason:
The Site Council has determined by a majority vote that this violates the spirit and letter of the rules, specifically that part of your scene was fabricated and did not come from your camera.
We received several disqualification recommendations from your fellow photographers and voters, and the DPChallenge administrators have confirmed that your submission must be disqualified.
Thank you for your continued participation in DPChallenge, and please do not let this deter you from submitting photographs for future challenges!"
1. I could not at the time, and have not been able since, to see how that shot infringed the 'letter' of the rules. I did not add anything to my photograph, I merely darkened, blurred and changed colour temperature on selected areas. All of which processes are entirely what the advanced rules were instituted to allow. The result just happens to look like a window frame. I have no problem with being disqualified for offending against the 'spirit' of the rules, other than that such a possibility is at no time made clear in the posted rules on this site.
2. The 'several disqualification recommendations' were not received during the voting period - or if they were, the reponsible psople have been incredibly lax about asking for proof. My original file was only demanded after the final results were posted, in the usual manner. The implication of the e-mail is again misleading, and I would be grateful if that part were retracted.
3. The rules are very specific on one point:
Entries can and will only be disqualified for:
the photograph being taken outside of the challenge week
adding text to the photograph
creating a submission from multiple images/sources
violating the content rules
use of a non-digital camera
The 'content rules' mentioned above state:
"Rules regarding content are as follows:
Subject matter must comply with the DPChallenge Terms of Use. The following are additional restrictions on subject matter:
Artwork. Literal photographic representations of the entirety of existing works of art (including your own) are not considered acceptable submissions, however creative depictions or interpretations of "art" are permissible. This includes, but is not limited to: paintings, sculptures, photographs, drawings, and computer artwork.
Nudity. Nudity is an acceptable form of art on this site. Photographs may not, however, show a penis or a vagina or any acts of sex. Nudity should be presented in a tasteful manner. "
If the 'terms of use' prohibit the imaginitive use of darkening and blurring, then it's a damn silly place to display such restrictions.
My photograph infiringes not one of these stipulations. Not even vaguely. Not even close. Not once. It is therefore clear that this disqualification is a matter of opinion, and personal exercising of power only.
4. The reason for the disqualification should be acknowledged properly. It should be made abundantly clear that the administrators and site council of this site have taken upon themselves to be absolute arbiters of validity (the obeying of the spirit of the rules) in any photograph. This ABSOLUTELY MUST be made clear in the terms of use, the rules, and anywhere else new members are likely to look for guidance.
If this approach is to be maintained, then for fairness to all it must be made clear that the meeting of the spirit of the rules is utterly essential to the acceptability of an photograph as an entry, and that the site council are the only and final judges of that quality in a shot.
In short - the rules MUST be changed, and that change must be made immediately. I was and am offended to see that that is not the case, and that under the rules as presently constituted there are no grounds for my photograph's disqualification whatsoever.
Ed
PS. For those kind enough to have made that shot a favourite, it is in my portfolio 
edited for clarity and a couple of typos
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 19:09:37.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:20:31 PM · #2 |
What probably got you into trouble is the original shot (i assume) had no window frame at all. So since it is not part of the original image, it must have been part of another or a unique creation (orignal artwork? ;)
While technically you may have I did not add anything to my photograph, I merely darkened, blurred and changed colour temperature on selected areas. The end result looks for all the world to be an added item not originally seen by the camera. I suppose ANY digital manipulation could be termed or defined as ' darkened, blurred and changed colour temperature on selected areas.' as that is what actually happens to the pixels.
I favor more editing freedom, so in general i support your position. However, I can see where the SC saw the original and your submission and had questions as to how the frame was added.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:21:05 PM · #3 |
Ed,
I personally agree you did not break any of the rules you listed. However, you mentioned that if the site council or admin expect to be able to make subjective decisions about the spirit of the site, then it needs to be explicitly stated in the rules. I agree that they do need to spell that out more explicitly, but you have ignored this part of the rules:
"Members are reminded to hold photographic integrity in the highest regard when both submitting and voting."
This is not in the "suggestions" portion of the rules. It states that your shot must hold up to photographic integrity. I believe that this implies that the site council (the rules judges) hold the power to decide when this is broken. If you photo does not stand up to "photographic integrity," then it deserves to be DQ'd. I think you have a great photo, but I would have DQ'd it on this basis, as well.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:24:52 PM · #4 |
i think it would have been better if you wouldnt have said that the window was fake in your photographers comment box....
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:25:53 PM · #5 |
I agree - and I agree that the shot was outsidde the spirit of the rules. But in the advnaced rules (and believe me I looked), it says photos may and will only be disqualified for certain reasons. Clever manipulation not being one of those reasons.
It would take a matter of seconds to amend them. It hasn't been done.
I should say again, I have no issue with the fact of the disqualification, only with the manner of it
Ed
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 19:27:53.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:26:57 PM · #6 |
| I see the thread Setzler started where he said he was removing his tutorials is now locked. Does this disqualification mean that the tutorials are coming back? I presume this photo is what he was making a point over? |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:33:47 PM · #7 |
I dont get it?
Are people saying that the window frame is digitally created or that the frame was added from another picture, or that the frame is a prop, that was held in front of the camera, and not actually shot through a window?
Im confused, clue me in... |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:38:18 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by buzzrock:
I dont get it?
Are people saying that the window frame is digitally created or that the frame was added from another picture, or that the frame is a prop, that was held in front of the camera, and not actually shot through a window?
Im confused, clue me in... |
It was created, Buzz. In post-processing. No pixels were moved to do it, just areas were selected and then darkened, or blurred, or slightly colour-shifted. It looked like a window frame, if you weren't looking too closely. (Ask yourself where the glass fitted into it ...).
Ed
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:38:51 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by buzzrock:
I dont get it?
Are people saying that the window frame is digitally created or that the frame was added from another picture, or that the frame is a prop, that was held in front of the camera, and not actually shot through a window?
Im confused, clue me in... |
Tim, the picture had no window frame originally, the window frame was digitally addded in photoshop.
N |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:42:47 PM · #10 |
A little addendum to the rules could address this isuue: "The final determination of what does or what does not 'violate the spirit of the rules' is made by the site council."
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:48:17 PM · #11 |
Yes I can see it now,
You all have good eyes to spot that, at first glance at least to me, it appeared real.
Im not gonna get into the editing rules debate, but that must have taken alot of work to get that effect.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:49:18 PM · #12 |
"The window glass or frame must be included in the photo to make it obvious it's been taken from a window."
I think the relevant point is this.
I think Ed's image is a beautiful picture but it is obviously in breach of the above.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:50:15 PM · #13 |
I think the editing itself was legal, by the advanced editing rules... but I would have to agree it was outside of the *spirit* of the rules. The reason for the window glass or frame being in the picture was to prove that it was a window view.. that it was taken from or at least through a window. Many people carried a window around with them to effectively get around the rules, but at least they can say with a straight face that it was taken through a window. Since this was not a window view in any shape or form, the shot was completely off topic or, at the least, out of the individual challenge guidelines.... just my opinion. I think the challenge description should be considered as part of the "law of the land", too... that is as much part of photographic integrity as are the editing rules themselves.
Just my opinion.. it was a pretty photograph though. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:51:11 PM · #14 |
No-one spotted it Buzz. Or no-one that said so.
peecee, I know why it was disqualified; it's just that the rules do not allow for that to be grounds for disqualification. I'm not asking to be re-instated, just for the rules to be re-worded.
E
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:51:36 PM · #15 |
I would imagine that Site Council is working on that after the fun we all had this week. :)
As we all learned, sometimes the site counci takes a bit longer than we think is appropriate. In a world where you can connect instantly to others it can be difficult to remember the old days when things just took time to wrestle through.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:53:32 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by e301:
peecee, I know why it was disqualified; it's just that the rules do not allow for that to be grounds for disqualification. I'm not asking to be re-instated, just for the rules to be re-worded.
E |
Fair comment. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:55:04 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by blemt:
I would imagine that Site Council is working on that after the fun we all had this week. :)
As we all learned, sometimes the site counci takes a bit longer than we think is appropriate. In a world where you can connect instantly to others it can be difficult to remember the old days when things just took time to wrestle through. |
It seems to have taken dear Zeus about ten seconds ...
E
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 07:57:16 PM · #18 |
Do you have the photo before you did anything to it in photoshop, I, and I'm sure others, would like to see it and make our own judgement on it and see if the DQ was necessary or not. That doesn't mean they are going to put it back up, I would just like to be curious and see the original before all the darkening, bluring, and so forth.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:00:08 PM · #19 |
While yes, we could just slap a bandaid on the current rules, a la Zeusen, there are obviously problems bigger than what a single statement could fix. And yes, it's taking some time, emails are instanteous but discussion between a group of 14 people in different time zones and countries, is not. We feel that it's important to spend enough time on this that we come up with the best possible solution, not just the fastest.
I do agree with you, e301, the rules do need to reflect on what basis we are going to be making our decisions and they will. Don't think that your concerns have gone unheard. |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:04:05 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by JackCruise:
Do you have the photo before you did anything to it in photoshop, I, and I'm sure others, would like to see it and make our own judgement on it and see if the DQ was necessary or not. That doesn't mean they are going to put it back up, I would just like to be curious and see the original before all the darkening, bluring, and so forth. |
 cropped, but otherwise virgin
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:09:17 PM · #21 |
And it takes Congress a year to pass a new law. :)
Site Council is obviously somewhere in between. It's also possible the DQ request didn't come through until after the challenge finished. With all the issues that blew up on that challenge, it could have taken longer to come to resolution.
The other point is like it or not, this week exposed all the recent images to a very high level of scrutiny. I'm sorry you were DQ'd, but I'm not so sure SC had a choice given the current situation.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:12:13 PM · #22 |
Ed, Im curious now.
Did you intentionally shoot the photo for the challenge, intending to add the frame digitally later?
Or
Did you just happen to take the photo within the time period , and after looking at your shots you took last week thought to yourself, I think I'll add a frame to make it fit the challenge? |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:12:16 PM · #23 |
Ed,
I think you will find that most of your concerns will be address in the rules revision which has been 'in the works' for the last ten days. That said, please allow me to address your concerns point by point:
Originally posted by e301:
1. I could not at the time, and have not been able since, to see how that shot infringed the 'letter' of the rules. I did not add anything to my photograph, I merely darkened, blurred and changed colour temperature on selected areas. All of which processes are entirely what the advanced rules were instituted to allow. The result just happens to look like a window frame. |
I have no problem with being disqualified for offending against the 'spirit' of the rules, other than that such a possibility is at no time made clear in the posted rules on this site. [/quote]
The rules contain the following: This means you are free to use dodging and burning tools to correct exposure issues, use the clone tool to remove dust spots, use third-party image enhancement filters, etc. to make your photo "the best it can be". You are encouraged to list all of the post-shot editing tools that you used in the "Photographer's Comments" section of your submission.
Note this rule clarifies WHY these filters are allowed. It does not permit using these tools to make a photo meet the challenge when it otherwise would not.
Your entry must come from a single photo, taken during the week of the challenge. No multi-image compositions, no layering of multiple exposures, no copying-and-pasting elements from other photographs (even those taken during the challenge week), etc.
The examples of what you may not do in this paragraph are only that -- examples. The list is not comprehensive; if it were it would not have been ended with 'etc.' Darkining to zero and then drawing in something new in the newly blackened space is a violation of this rule; what appears in that space does not come from the "single photo" being entered... it comes from your drawing tools.
Taken together, and in the spirit of the rules, the Site Council felt this warranted disqualification.
Originally posted by e301:
2. The 'several disqualification recommendations' were not received during the voting period - or if they were, the reponsible psople have been incredibly lax about asking for proof. My original file was only demanded after the final results were posted, in the usual manner. The implication of the e-mail is again misleading, and I would be grateful if that part were retracted. |
That part of the message is automatically generated. While it should be changed for cases where no rquests were, in fact, received, in your case we did receive several requests for disqualification. Those requests came in after the challenge ended and results were posted. By that time, of course, we had already made the routine proof request as required by your top-5 finish, but that does not negate the fact that the requests were received. The rules explicitly allow for site users to initiate a DQ request up to 7 days after voting for a challenge ends, and for Site Council to initiate a request for proof at any time.
Originally posted by e301:
3. The rules are very specific on one point:
Entries can and will only be disqualified for:
the photograph being taken outside of the challenge week
adding text to the photograph
creating a submission from multiple images/sources
violating the content rules
use of a non-digital camera
...If the 'terms of use' prohibit the imaginitive use of darkening and blurring, then it's a damn silly place to display such restrictions.
My photograph infiringes not one of these stipulations. Not even vaguely. Not even close. Not once. It is therefore clear that this disqualification is a matter of opinion, and personal exercising of power only. |
For the stipulations which we collectively determined were infringed, please see my reply to point #2 above. Ultimately, all disqualifications are a matter of collective opinion of the Site Council .. but as it takes a majority vote from a jury of 14 people, it could hardly be considered a "personal exercising of power." No one person will disqualify an entry.
[quote]4. The reason for the disqualification should be acknowledged properly. It should be made abundantly clear that the administrators and site council of this site have taken upon themselves to be absolute arbiters of validity (the obeying of the spirit of the rules) in any photograph. This ABSOLUTELY MUST be made clear in the terms of use, the rules, and anywhere else new members are likely to look for guidance. [/quote]
I always thought that was clear. One of the primary functions of Site Council is to adjudicate DQ requests. Nonetheless, this has already been further clarified in the forthcoming rules revision.
Originally posted by e301:
If this approach is to be maintained, then for fairness to all it must be made clear that the meeting of the spirit of the rules is utterly essential to the acceptability of an photograph as an entry, and that the site council are the only and final judges of that quality in a shot. |
This has also already been further clarified in the forthcoming revision.
Originally posted by e301:
In short - the rules MUST be changed, and that change must be made immediately. I was and am offended to see that that is not the case, and that under the rules as presently constituted there are no grounds for my photograph's disqualification whatsoever. |
Agreed. In fact, a rules revision has been in process since 12 April. All of the concerns you addressed, even the ones that are already addressed in the current ruleset, are further clarified in this revision. We completely understand the urgency of this, but it is also important that we do not publish a rulset that is hastily thrown together, as doing so will likely cause more problems than it solves. At this point, the major form of the new rules is in place, though we are stil ironing out some small kinks to publish the best possible finished result. I fully expect, but do not promise, that the revised rules will be posted within the next few days, putting them in place in time to be effective for the next members' challenge, which begins Monday morning.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:13:05 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by e301:
Entries can and will only be disqualified for:
the photograph being taken outside of the challenge week
adding text to the photograph
creating a submission from multiple images/sources
violating the content rules
use of a non-digital camera
|
I would think that adding a window frame to a digital photograph is composing an image from two different sources: the camera and digital artwork creation in photoshop. Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
04/21/2004 08:15:33 PM · #25 |
Terry: Thankyou. I'm sure that pertains from everyone.
One small point: nothing was drawn in in my image.
E
Message edited by author 2004-04-21 20:16:14.
|
|
