First of all, you are bogarting my thread ;P … secondly, that Lucky 7 image of scalvert's hits caffeinated nerve for me … I can't believe we weren't talking about his DQ!!! Me oh my! - Gotta love the guy but c'mon!!!!
First of all, you are bogarting my thread ;P … secondly, that Lucky 7 image of scalvert's hits caffeinated nerve for me … I can't believe we weren't talking about his DQ!!! Me oh my! - Gotta love the guy but c'mon!!!!
He had all his steps nicely layed out, and we were able to replicate it perfectly :))))
First of all, you are bogarting my thread ;P … secondly, that Lucky 7 image of scalvert's hits caffeinated nerve for me … I can't believe we weren't talking about his DQ!!! Me oh my! - Gotta love the guy but c'mon!!!!
Did you submit a validation request for that image? That's the propoer procedure if you think an entry has violated the editing rules, not casting insinuations in the forums ...
If we cannot replicate an entry based on the original and the reported editing steps, just what else are we supposed to do other than DQ the photo as it says in the rules?
You can't seriously be suggesting that we arbitrarily choose to not follow the rules when we feel like it, for people we "have reason to trust" or something ... that's just about the opposite of the way it has to work.
The photoshop edit provided the "magic" in that clover photo. THe old "this is a photography web-site" thing. There was a rule (in the old rule set I think) that said that if the edit changed the average person's description of the photo it was grounds for DQ - and that is the case here I believe. I don't want to sound like I am attacking anyone though - people can be sensitve (like me ;)
I didn't vote on all the images so I didn't see it during the challenge so I couldn't have asked to have it reviewed.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You can't seriously be suggesting that we arbitrarily choose to not follow the rules when we feel like it, for people we "have reason to trust" or something ... that's just about the opposite of the way it has to work.
I honestly don't think there's ever an assumption of guilt when DQ requests come in. In fact, I think you'd be surprised at the extremes that some SC members go through in an attempt to prove things to be legal.
If you need to prove innocence, then you are presuming guilt. I'm not saying that's unreasonable, but that is the standard procedure here.
There was a rule (in the old rule set I think) that said that if the edit changed the average person's description of the photo it was grounds for DQ...
Every version of the rules is listed here. I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, though, since the "average person's description" and major elements clauses pertain to moving, creating or deleting objects or physical distortions (such as stretched Liquify manipulations), not surface attributes such as color or texture.
There was a rule (in the old rule set I think) that said that if the edit changed the average person's description of the photo it was grounds for DQ...
Every version of the rules is listed here. I don't think you'll find what you're looking for, though, since the "average person's description" and major elements clauses pertain to moving, creating or deleting objects, not surface attributes such as color or texture.
I think this is a matter of choosing one's words carefully. In my interpretation of the rules, you created sketches of clovers where there were no sketches previously and deleted actual clovers. The selective texture substantially alters the content of the photo - it's not just a matter of a color shift. Don't get me wrong, the photo is very clever and gorgeous, but it seems like you're using semantics to get around the rules here.
Edited to clarify that I don't think Shannon received special treatment - I have noticed that SC in general has become MUCH more liberal with the major elements clause since I joined up last year.
In my interpretation of the rules, you created sketches of clovers where there were no sketches previously and deleted actual clovers. The selective texture substantially alters the content of the photo - it's not just a matter of a color shift.
I posted a version without the texture- nothing more than selective desaturation and USM. Does the texture really make THAT big a difference?
This really isn't the place to discuss it, though. Feel free to start a thread on the subject if you want to continue debate.
If you need to prove innocence, then you are presuming guilt. I'm not saying that's unreasonable, but that is the standard procedure here.
Sooooooo... as long as someone says they followed the steps legally, it's legal, then? How do you propose doing it?
Again, I wasn't taking sides here. I just wanted to clarify the use of a well-defined and important concept: presumption of innocence vs. presumption of guilt.
In my interpretation of the rules, you created sketches of clovers where there were no sketches previously and deleted actual clovers. The selective texture substantially alters the content of the photo - it's not just a matter of a color shift.
I posted a version without the texture- nothing more than selective desaturation and USM. Does the texture really make THAT big a difference?
This really isn't the place to discuss it, though. Feel free to start a thread on the subject if you want to continue debate.
My final thought is just to answer this question: Yes, though it's not JUST the texture, but also the removal of the shadow that previously gave it a visual separation from the paper. My perception of the photo is substantially altered, and that goes well beyond my comfort level with regards to major elements. I suppose I'm a conservative on that issue.
If you need to prove innocence, then you are presuming guilt. I'm not saying that's unreasonable, but that is the standard procedure here.
Sooooooo... as long as someone says they followed the steps legally, it's legal, then? How do you propose doing it?
Don't really see a problem with the status quo, but then again I haven't been DQ'd because someone else couldn't figure out how I did something and assumed if they couldn't do it legally than neither could I.
To make it less subjective, one route would be to request editing data from the app itself such as a File Info dump from Photoshop. For apps w/o that feature, screen captures of all layers and their associated data (opacity, blending mode, masking data, etc) should be the required submission.
Can't imagine this is a big issue, but there's a proposal nontheless.
Well, I understand both sides of this and I agree that perhaps maybe the second request for info could be sllightly more detailed as to what the problem is. Now that I know, I just provided the SC with screen dumps from noise ninja and a layered PSD file of my attempt to recreate the results. I am hoping this will be acceptable and I worked hard to provide something that would help replicate the controversial results.
No such luck … well at least the decision wasn't reversed. Considering all of the images they must need to check, I can undestand why.
I'm curious how Scalvert got through so fast in asking the SC about his one day challenge entry and getting an answer before the deadline. Again, not a personal attack, just an observation that someone pointed out to me.
SC did look, and as a matter of fact, is still looking.
Even with the screen shots, it is not being able to be reproduced, as even you yourself were not able to reproduce it.
Sorry we weren't able to "reverse" the decision in time to enter, but frankly, I don't think it is going to be reversed.
If it is that good of a shot, enter it in the free study.
eta: scalvert is not the only one who has gotten last minute "advice" on "legality" of a shot. I have seen tickets come in within an hour of entry deadlines that got an answer.
You didn't get an answer because there isn't an answer yet.
Please give up. Call off the dogs. I never said it was a "good shot" (I actually said it was one of my worst) and it's tough to reproduce an exact edit several weeks later.
It doesn't make sense to review it further because I will already be able to submit to the next challenge. Thanks.
Honestly, please waste no more time on that. I appreciate the SC, I just question some of the decisions on occasion - this is healthy, I suppose, art is never without controversy.
