The results of the 'Toothpicks' challenge have been recalculated, due to the disqualification of the former 2nd place image for creating objects/features that were not in the original. In this case, lighting effects were added to the mirrored candles in post-processing to make them appear to be lit and glowing. Congrats to our new ribbon winners & honourable mentions!
Message edited by Bear_Music - amplified the reason for the DQ.
i thought it would have been dq'd for the fact that he printed out a picture and took a picture of it, thus circumventing post processingartwork rules...
i thought it would have been dq'd for the fact that he printed out a picture and took a picture of it, thus circumventing post processing rules...
As long as the photo is taken within the challenge dates it is fine. I have done the same and received validation (for just such a method of putting a picture in a mirror actually). Several other DPCers have done the same some placing in the top 5 and passing inspection.
i thought it would have been dq'd for the fact that he printed out a picture and took a picture of it, thus circumventing post processing rules...
As long as the photo is taken within the challenge dates it is fine. I have done the same and received validation (for just such a method of putting a picture in a mirror actually). Several other DPCers have done the same some placing in the top 5 and passing inspection.
maybe i misread the rules or they changed without announcement that i saw, but you can use the artwork rule to circumvent editing. the key is how prominent a role the offending image plays in the image.
now i haven't seen Christophe original, so i dont know what he edited, but his description leads me to believe he printed the image to circumvent an editing rule, my guess is to clone out some stuff.
granted i speculating a lot, but i'm still confused as hell what constitutes legal when it comes to printing out stuff and using it in your image.
on a personal note i was hoping he wouldn't have gotten a DQ for printing out the image (and he didn't) as my argument in the other thread is that it would stem creativity and rob us of images like this one.
Yes, it would have been DQ'd for violating the Artwork rule, too, but lighting up those candles was incontrovertible.
thanks for that clarification.
Very nice clarification indeed.
I wonder, can the DQ description on the photo itself be updated to say this? I ask for future reference, as I'm sure we can all imagine another "artwork" debate and this image coming into play.
I wonder, can the DQ description on the photo itself be updated to say this? I ask for future reference, as I'm sure we can all imagine another "artwork" debate and this image coming into play.
We're close to an update on the Artwork rule wording, and that should address future issues.
is it possible to have the original image posted when there is a DQ so we can clearly see for ourselves where the limits are? might be hard for expert though with multiple files...
Not a subtle transgression of the rules either. Very surprising from the DPC veteran.
how can you know without seeing orig?
He lit candles that weren't originally lit, using PS. Don't need to see the original to know the Advanced Editing rules were obviously broken.
You've already changed the description from what Shannon said, without seeing the original. Soon, you'll be accusing him of burning down the Reichstag.
Not a subtle transgression of the rules either. Very surprising from the DPC veteran.
how can you know without seeing orig?
He lit candles that weren't originally lit, using PS. Don't need to see the original to know the Advanced Editing rules were obviously broken.
You've already changed the description from what Shannon said, without seeing the original. Soon, you'll be accusing him of burning down the Reichstag.
Please. So dramatic, Don.
In Manics original post " . In this case, lighting effects were added to the mirrored candles in post-processing to make them appear to be lit and glowing "
