Now usually, these "why did I get DQ'ed" threads start out contentious and go downhill from there. I hope to avoid that while also getting some kind of reasonable explanation from SC for my DQ aside from the canned response I have attached to my entry.
Anyway, this is my entry:
and this is the original:
As you can see from the notes, all I did was rotate, resize twice, tweak hue and sat, save for web and submit. This is the canned reason I received:
Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.
I don't see how that applies to what I did. I just want some explanation of the reasoning behind the DQ. Resizing, to my understanding is not illegal or everyone would have to select a 640 by XXX crop from their fullsize image. I doubt many do that. If it's a matter of degree, I think clarifying that would make a excellent addition to the new rules.
I'm not looking for an opinion on the image, the voters took care of that during the challenge. In some ways the DQ was a blessing, at least when it comes to my average score.
It's probably the nearest rule to "this is a photography site - submit a photograph OF an abstract, not submit an abstraction that used to be a photograph".
When you consider the topic, especially, it's quite funny :-) I mean, they DID say "Abstracts are about lines, shapes and colors. If it is recognizable as an object - it is not an abstract.", and what is this if not a complete abstraction of shapes and colors? Personally, I thought it was a great experiment, albeit certainly a doomed one as far as the voters went...
It's probably the nearest rule to "this is a photography site - submit a photograph OF an abstract, not submit an abstraction that used to be a photograph".
Funny, I didn't see that in the rules.
You may not think it's a photograph, but that's your opinion. I don't think the entries that have been NI'ed to death are photographs either.
So, basically this is 24 pixels from the original image... can't see a justifiable means for DQ myself.
NO, he took the ENTIRE IMAGE, resized it to 6 pixels x 4 pikels, then blew THAT back up to 640x400, resulting in 24 "blocks" of color since the 640 was created from a 24-pixel image :-)
So, basically this is 24 pixels from the original image... can't see a justifiable means for DQ myself.
NO, he took the ENTIRE IMAGE, resized it to 6 pixels x 4 pikels, then blew THAT back up to 640x400, resulting in 24 "blocks" of color since the 640 was created from a 24-pixel image :-)
R.
Yeah, just caught that and editted my comment, was hoping noone would catch me ;-) Not quick enough for ya ,Bear ;-)
It's probably the nearest rule to "this is a photography site - submit a photograph OF an abstract, not submit an abstraction that used to be a photograph".
Funny, I didn't see that in the rules.
You may not think it's a photograph, but that's your opinion. I don't think the entries that have been NI'ed to death are photographs either.
I actually agree. There are quite a few submissions that are NI'ed beyond photography, you just went the other direction. Like you said, you took a chance.
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say.
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say.
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot.
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say.
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot.
The fact is, the photo is no longer distinguishable in any way, shape, or form...and that constitutes removal/creation of a major element...regardless of the procedure. My view on it, of course. It would be interesting to hear what SC would have to say.
There is no removal or creation of a major element!. What you see is exactly what was shot.
I'll try again. Look at Spazmo's submission. Now tell me: do you see 3 m&m's? I would guess that you don't. This is no different than blurring a photo into obscurity - the original photograph is not distinguishable.
Start thinking in terms of the end result rather than the means to the end. Just because "legal tools" were used to achieve it does not make it legal.
