Just a "for what it's worth" to anyone wondering or questioning what "was" in a shot, right click, save as, open in PS or Irfanview for that matter, and jack the brightness, gamma, contrast around.
You will often see what lies underneath.
Your photo was disqualified because of your use of radial blur. The majority of the SC felt that the use of the blur violated the major elements rule - it essentially obliterated every detail of the photo with the exception of the man on the phone.
I am beginning to see that perhaps the rules are not clear as the major elements clause and filters clause appear in two separate paragraphs and I think that maybe people are not adding the two together.
I'm going to bring this lack of clarity up with the other SC and see if we can't refine things a little.
thanks for your response to my whinging; it's appreciated. regards to the rules, I personally would appreciate a little more clarity as i'm still a little unsure of where precisely i misinterpreted the rules. because i feel like such a rotter, and now i know why i was DQ'd, i'd like to say why it was i didn't see this coming:
the rules for selective editting clearly defined that to "duplicate, create, or move major elements" is forbidden - i didn't think blurring actually did any of this. also, under selective editting it only lists the clearly defined actions of cloning, dodging and burning and the decidedly unhelpfully vague "etc" (i'm not sure it's reasonable for someone to assume that "etc" really would automatically include blurring).
oh, it just occured to me (seeing muckponds comment), that "element" might mean something beyond a specific thing/item, like in a philisophical sense... i think that's what i didn't quite translate...
Filters: i think (could be wrong) that in PS all the blurs are found under "filters". i thought from the phrase "extensively altering the "look" of your photograph with an "effects" filter is often not well received by voters" it is implied that applying a filter to extensively alter the look of my photo would be permissable under the rules. would the same DQ apply if i was heavy handed with a gaussian blur, something even permitted under basic editting?
please note this is not me having a go at the SC. after such a long time of get piss poor scores, my excitement was buzzing unusually high, so obviously the crash down to earth is a bit more of a, well, downer. i'm also very deeply embarrassed. i just wish someone requested it be validated before the end of voting...
What happened to the forum post that discussed rule updates that were under review? It was out there for comment a couple of weeks back - now I can't find it.
I am not trying to start anything or make anyone mad at me but I am just wondering.....what is the difference between these two images? I just don't want to make the same mistake if mine comes in last then gets DQ'ed.
i just wish someone requested it be validated before the end of voting...
You can always request a SC-ruling on your own photo. I had a high scoring photo a couple a challenges ago and I requested a validation myself just to awoid exactly this kind of embarresment myself. And since it ribboned I didn't need to send in a new copy for validation, since it was already validated. (you still get the automated request for original though).
I understand how frustrated and disappointed you must feel. This sucks big time, but life goes on, and now you know you have it in you to ribbon so your confidence will grow and you will get a ribbon soon.
Good luck
David, it's very sad about your DQ. You should be so proud of having created such a stunning image!! Many of us misinterpret the editing rules by accident, it's nothing to be embarrased about.........it happens. Nothing can take away that you created a superb shot!
David, it's very sad about your DQ. You should be so proud of having created such a stunning image!! Many of us misinterpret the editing rules by accident, it's nothing to be embarrased about.........it happens. Nothing can take away that you created a superb shot!
I agree. And I think that the rules are (perhaps necessarily?) unclear. I personally don't think that your photo "duplicated, created, or moved a major element." Having said that, though, any DQ comes down to a judgement call, and I'm sure that the SC "calls 'em as they see 'em." I suppose I could see a blur being a major element, depending on how you look at it...
Anyway, great shot, and you definitely have nothing to be embarassed about!
...what is the difference between these two images? I just don't want to make the same mistake if mine comes in last then gets DQ'ed.
The difference is that everything significant in the original is still discernable in the final, just a little blurry. The confusion arises when someone points to the rules and says, "Hey! Blur is legal!" Yes it is, but using any tool to remove or obscure large areas of detail is not. The same would apply if an ordinary gaussian blur was used to wipe out prominent elements in the scene.
It's worth noting that just because an image is validated or DQ'd, that doesn't necessarily mean the SC decision was unanimous. Borderline images often squeak by on a close majority.
Something to keep in mind related to major elements. Part of what major elements covers is MOVING pixels. Radial and zoom blur move bits. The more bits you move, the more major it becomes.
When we look at the original, and the final result we determine just how major that change is. In your image, there was no zoom blur at all. So essentially you created a new component of the image from whole cloth so to speak. You MOVED those pixels around to make a different shot. Does that make sense?
If you could- post a copy of the original with your final result. I think this could really help people understand what we mean. :)
Clara- hoping this helps with general understanding
If you asking whether Central Park was removed from the background of the first photo, we don't know. Nobody requested validation on that shot, so we haven't seen the original. I suspect that the buildings are hidden behind the bridge from this low angle. Only the photographer knows for sure.
...and you simply can't use those shots to draw conclusions on another photo. You might be right, or you might be shamefully wrong. Only one original matters.
I am not trying to start anything or make anyone mad at me but I am just wondering.....what is the difference between these two images? I just don't want to make the same mistake if mine comes in last then gets DQ'ed.
FWIW, there was a pretty extensive debate about this photo. it definitely teetered on the brink of the major elements threshold.
i understand that this is a confusing line. we're really trying to define things more clearly and be more consistent in our rulings. remember too that the SC is about 20% new members and the rookies have brought some new insight into the decision-making process. we can't change what's been done in the past, but we are working toward making things easier for everyone in the future. the changes to the Advanced Editing ruleset (discussed in the other thread) are a big first step and intended to clarify the major element rule.
SC still waiting for the original? Will be interesting to see how much BG there is.
I'm guessing that there has been major editing as he says the shot was taken at 2pm, so unless the light was REALLY weird...
I hope you guys prove us wrong and the shot is legit.
no. we have the original. we are discussing it.
guys, please lay off the discussion about it. you are taking a lot of circumstantial evidence (time of the shot, the photog's comments) into account. we can ask the photog to post the original for comparison, but that's HIS decision. otherwise, please understand that we are working on it and leave it at that.
yes and no. we are trying to clarify the ruleset to make things more clear. until then, think of it like this:
Major elements are the features that a typical person might mention if asked to describe the photo in general terms.
this is in the new ruleset (not yet approved), but it IS a guideline that many of the SC use when voting on images.
my opinion about redmoon's shot was not that major elements were obscured (as he said there were some lights and stuff removed) -- that didn't bother me personally. for me, the fact that the radial blur was used and essentially created all of the impact in the photograph made it a major element.
there's even internal debate about this in the SC, but i think a "major element" does not have to be something IN the photo -- it can also be a FACTOR of the photo. in this case, the radial blur is a large part of the shot and it was not there in the original at all. therefore, a major element was created.
that's a little insight to my cobwebby thought process anyway.
redmoon, i'm really sorry about the DQ. i know it totally sucks. i hope this explanation makes sense, though. it does little good i'm sure.
If you asking whether Central Park was removed from the background of the first photo, we don't know. Nobody requested validation on that shot, so we haven't seen the original.
Don't ribbon winning shots have to be validated anyway? I'm confused.. :-/
Don't ribbon winning shots have to be validated anyway? I'm confused.. :-/
The first photo Pawdrix posted wasn't a ribbon winner. THAT'S the one we don't have an original for, but I think he was just trying to show that there should be something in the background of any photo of that Central Park bridge (not necessarily true).
. I suspect that the buildings are hidden behind the bridge from this low angle. Only the photographer knows for sure.
...and you simply can't use those shots to draw conclusions on another photo. You might be right, or you might be shamefully wrong. Only one original matters.
Buildings no...lot's of green trees ,yes.
All six of these Challenge entries were taken within 200 yards(maybe 300 yards?) of that bridge during the day plus many others in my portfolio. You're right, I could be wrong but shamefully...I don't know.
I hope you're right because I feel bad about beating this, I just found it all a bit confusing knowing that terrain so well...
