I'm not real upset about it becuase it wasn't doing spectacular in the voting anyways, but it is one of my personal favorite images due to it's meaning to me...
I was hoping to get a little clarification as to why it got DQ'd because I received the cut/paste response and I'm still not sure what I did wrong...
-----
This image has been disqualified for the following reason:
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.
-----
So, I'm guessing it has to do with the blur filter I used, but from everything I read, filters were ok to use...
If anyone has some input on this I would appreciate it...
I'm not posting this for a pity party...I just want to make sure I don't make the same mistake again...I'm too addicted to this site to be banned or put on probation or whatever...LoL
im guessing because the cross appears not to be part of the great amount of blur(movement) it looks like it was a selective filter. which i believe is a no no
im guessing because the cross appears not to be part of the great amount of blur(movement) it looks like it was a selective filter. which i believe is a no no
Advanced editing challenge, selection ok anyway, that's not it.
The last 2-3 DQ explanations I read all had to do with blurring that removed too much detail from the original picture. I wondered if yours might get DQ'd for that reason (may have even commented, can't remember). I DID really like your photo, though.
The last 2-3 DQ explanations I read all had to do with blurring that removed too much detail from the original picture.
Bingo. Blurs are legal, but here it was used to such an extent that the people on the left hand side have essentially been moved/removed from the original. In my opinion, major elements cannot be cloned out or obscured to that extent.
speaking for myself, it wasn't that the blur removed too much (although that HAS happened), but in this case the addition of the blur CREATED a major element that was not already there.
we are not disqualifying or disallowing zoom or radial blurs automatically -- the dq's for them so far have to do with the AMOUNT of blur that has been added.
you can use just about any filter "too much." it has nothing to do with which filter was used.
A good way to overcome getting rid of the people completly is just to use the blur on a seperate layer and then erase back the subjects with a low opacity. That way you get the fancy blur and no people are removed.
A good way to overcome getting rid of the people completly is just to use the blur on a seperate layer and then erase back the subjects with a low opacity. That way you get the fancy blur and no people are removed.
but remember that you can't do that in Basic editing.
I think im gonna get DQ'd too, its under investigation. I didn't do a thing to my photo though. Auto levels, and a border. They are saying that my file isn't original, and that it has been run through ACDsee first, I don't get it. My camera automatically runs through ACDsee to view the photos.
Somebody ought to tell em' how basic ACDsee is. LOL. Its gonna hurt when DQ me, stay tuned for more lunatic rants from me. LOL, not really!
I'll fess up to being the bad guy here... I'm the one who initiated the DQ request on this one when I was curious to see how the blur could have been achieved on this shot.
It's an interesting outcome, I'll admit, but the use of the blur effect created a drastic shift in the photo that didn't exist in the original, as muckpond and scalvert had mentioned. Having viewed the original and the final result, it's honestly hard to recognize that this shot even came from the original after so much PS work was done to it.
Don't be discouraged by the DQ... just take 'er easy on the effects :)
Somebody ought to tell em' how basic ACDsee is. LOL. Its gonna hurt when DQ me, stay tuned for more lunatic rants from me. LOL, not really!
you can pull the original file from your card or camera without having ACDSee in the middle.
it IS possible to do some editing with ACDSee.
the rule is simply that we need the original file straight from the camera for validation. it's the same rule for everyone.
So then we should not use ACDSee to get the images from our camera to the computer. What do you suggest instead? Please keep in mind cost of any such application. And as it IS possible to do editing with ACDSee, it is also possible to do editing with the basic software that comes with most cameras, including what came with my Cannon and my Kodak. While it was very basic, it did allow editing. Pleas help clarify this. Thanks.
So then we should not use ACDSee to get the images from our camera to the computer.
Your camera (or media card) is just another storage device like a floppy disk or CD-ROM. You should be able to drag the contents to your computer without opening the files in ANY software. We need the original (RAW, JPEG, NEF, TIF...) files exactly as they came from the camera. Once you save a file in editing software, it's no longer a valid original.
ACDSee has a save-as feature, doesn't it? Open as normal with ACDC and immediately save-as "new file name" and the original is preserved. I think. Been a while since I used it and I wasn't looking at exif data then...
I just drag my files from the card to a folder. I burn the files to CD-R before I erase them from the card, and I always SaveAs any ones I open and edit, so I always have at least 2 copies of any original file.
They are saying that my file isn't original, and that it has been run through ACDsee first, I don't get it. My camera automatically runs through ACDsee to view the photos.
I will vouch for this fact. My sister-in-law got a Pentax Optio S and I helped her get it all set up on her computer. Instead of including custom software like Canon and Nikon do to download the images from the camera (using the USB transfer cable instead of a card reader), Pentax includes ACDSee 3.1 and a "plug-in" to transfer data. So all images transferred in this way do indeed go through ACDsee...
As hurtful as it may be I believe in the rules, keeping everybody honest. However I really dont know what DP wants from me as an original file. I know that if whatever is in question, whatever part of the picture that looks altered, if you ask yourself could ACDsee do it (realistically), and the answer will be "no", it is clearly as original as it was when i clicked it.
I sort of feel like DP is saying its ok to enter, but not ok to do well. And I only feel this way for the lack of seriously looking at this photo. After looking at it, it is clearly original.
As hurtful as it may be I believe in the rules, keeping everybody honest. However I really dont know what DP wants from me as an original file. I know that if whatever is in question, whatever part of the picture that looks altered, if you ask yourself could ACDsee do it (realistically), and the answer will be "no", it is clearly as original as it was when i clicked it.
I sort of feel like DP is saying its ok to enter, but not ok to do well. And I only feel this way for the lack of seriously looking at this photo. After looking at it, it is clearly original.
When I first got into digital, I used to look at all the pictures with Irfanview, and rotate any portrait pictures, and save them rotated. The picture would be exactly the same, not edite at all, but it was in the right direction. I didn't know that in doing this I was altering the EXIF data. If I would have been asked to validate a picture at that time (3 years ago) I would have been in trouble.
DP is not saying it's OK to enter but not to do well. What's being asked for is proof that the picture was taken within the dates of the challenge. If those dates were somehow altered, regardless of whether the picture is the original or not, then it's a problem.
I don't doubt that you're being honest. But sometimes things happen, and if your picture gets DQed, it's not the end of the world. Many of us have had pictures DQed. You'll get over it. And it's not unreasonable for DP to request unaltered originals as proof.
Maybe you can just copy/paste the pictures from the Optio to the computer in the future? It's probably just as fast as using ACDsee.
As hurtful as it may be I believe in the rules, keeping everybody honest. However I really dont know what DP wants from me as an original file. I know that if whatever is in question, whatever part of the picture that looks altered, if you ask yourself could ACDsee do it (realistically), and the answer will be "no", it is clearly as original as it was when i clicked it.
I sort of feel like DP is saying its ok to enter, but not ok to do well. And I only feel this way for the lack of seriously looking at this photo. After looking at it, it is clearly original.
What you say may be true, but... you knew there was a "but"... to be fair to everyone, we absolutely have to treat the "original file" requirement the same in all cases. If the EXIF has been altered in any way it's not an original and there is no way we can validate it, and we apply that same requirement for everyone. To make an exception for one is to open a huge can of worms. I hope you understand that we don't at all like disqualifying any image, and that this disqualification is not a bad reflection on you nor is it an accusation of wrongdoing (in this case). Look at it as a learning experience, let it go and move on. Hope to see more of your work in the challenges.
