| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2023 12:05:32 PM · #1 |
| Rather ironically, 2 of the top 5 finishers in the "Failure II" challenge failed to pass muster in Validation: the former 1st and 4th place finishers :-( Congrats to our new ribboner and HM. |
|
|
|
08/10/2023 12:15:53 PM · #2 |
The irony that I used a brush to ‘create clouds that weren’t there’ when there were clouds there I just redefined them. Must like adding light in to a lightbulb. For the record, I don’t care about the DQ.
I do hope SC can see the irony - creating blur/motion on an existing floor is okay, putting light via a brush in to a lightbulb is okay but redefining clouds on an existing cloud bank is not okay. It’s not like the sky was blue and I added clouds. The clouds were there already. |
|
|
|
08/10/2023 12:37:50 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
The irony that I used a brush to ‘create clouds that weren’t there’ when there were clouds there I just redefined them. Must like adding light in to a lightbulb. For the record, I don’t care about the DQ.
I do hope SC can see the irony - creating blur/motion on an existing floor is okay, putting light via a brush in to a lightbulb is okay but redefining clouds on an existing cloud bank is not okay. It’s not like the sky was blue and I added clouds. The clouds were there already. |
I'm sorry about the DQ. I hope that the site council is still reviewing things. I thought the motion blur on the floor was too much and more of expert editing. I think the editing rules are to loose. Please rethink things. |
|
|
|
08/10/2023 01:31:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by ErinKirsten:
...It’s not like the sky was blue and I added clouds. The clouds were there already. |
Yes, that is true, there was a pretty much featureless, continuous bank of clouds there in the original; essentially a flat, featureless gray sky. In your final image, however, there appears to be a blue sky, populated with feathery white clouds. It's a completely different sky, and the cloud shapes are entirely created.
I think that this instance may be a great opportunity for education, and I would encourage you to post the original for comparison. |
|
|
|
08/10/2023 05:34:02 PM · #5 |
Did anyone apply a detail enhancer on the original to see if there were there already and just enhanced; that would be legal.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2023 05:39:02 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
08/10/2023 05:57:06 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
Did anyone apply a detail enhancer on the original to see if there were there already and just enhanced; that would be legal. |
Yes, that would be part of a diligent review of the original vs. the submitted image |
|
|
|
08/10/2023 11:16:05 PM · #8 |
I failed with bravado and I seem to be in a roll. Cannot simply walk the line if I shoot with the iphone.
Tibi taught me how to download from cellular but I proved to be a bad student. The date of my download was simply different.
Back to the drawing board.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2023 11:35:54 PM · #9 |
| Oh, wow. First time a DQ has done this to me. I genuinely thought this was going to just be good for a mid pack finish. |
|
|
|
08/13/2023 09:02:47 PM · #10 |
Would someone kindly explain why the shapes created in this sky were legal
...but the shapes created in the disputed image of this thread were not. Thank you. |
|
|
|
08/13/2023 10:02:19 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Would someone kindly explain why the shapes created in this sky were legal
...but the shapes created in the disputed image of this thread were not. Thank you. |
The question is legitimate as processing goes. In my view, the entire challenge was totally misrepresented in images appropriate for a total failure topic.
More than that, a total disrespect for van Gogh.
I would place this in the same category as a doll sold for a while at the Met store, of all places, representing a tiny van Gogh rag creature with a detachable velcro ear. |
|
|
|
08/13/2023 11:00:11 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Would someone kindly explain why the shapes created in this sky were legal
...but the shapes created in the disputed image of this thread were not. Thank you. |
The original for that image was a starry night-sky mountainscape with the lights from a village blooming above the ridge on the left. The photographer used distortion filters in Photoshop to swirl the sky around to produce what he felt was a Van Gogh effect. We don't restrict the use of distortion filters in Standard editing.
In the DQd image, that entire, lovely bit of sky was created out of whole cloth. There were no puffy clouds, no blue sky, nada. It's as if it were a composite image with a foreground blended with an entirely separate sky from another shot. That's Extended-editing stuff. |
|
|
|
08/13/2023 11:43:45 PM · #13 |
| so just be sure to draw in your clouds with a distortion filter |
|
|
|
08/14/2023 08:17:26 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
so just be sure to draw in your clouds with a distortion filter |
It's unfortunate that the original hasn't been shared for the discussion of the DQ'd image of this thread. It would be very enlightening for many here.
FWIW - the DQ on this image was decided quickly and without debate, with no dissenting votes / opinions among the SC members - which doesn't happen frequently. It was that evident that this image was outside the boundaries of the ruleset that applied to this challenge. |
|
|
|
08/14/2023 08:52:07 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by skewsme:
so just be sure to draw in your clouds with a distortion filter |
It's unfortunate that the original hasn't been shared for the discussion of the DQ'd image of this thread. It would be very enlightening for many here.
FWIW - the DQ on this image was decided quickly and without debate, with no dissenting votes / opinions among the SC members - which doesn't happen frequently. It was that evident that this image was outside the boundaries of the ruleset that applied to this challenge. |
My problem with it is: isn't it technically just lightening and darkening which you declared legal in other threads? That was the concern I had in previous discussion threads -- that you can create almost anything that way. And that's what I have a problem with in standard editing. It doesn't seem like we should be able to create objects that weren't part of the original scene, unless it's in expert editing. The exception being: cloning out something and replacing it with the background that would be there. I would love to have this discussed and clarified. |
|
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: 05/29/2024 12:31:34 AM EDT.
