Just curious, why do we need to post the dq'ed photo??
"We" don't need to; I provided the thumbnail/link as a service. Whenever there's one of these DQ announcements, I always look to see what photo was DQ'd. Don't you?
Just curious, why do we need to post the dq'ed photo??
"We" don't need to; I provided the thumbnail/link as a service. Whenever there's one of these DQ announcements, I always look to see what photo was DQ'd. Don't you?
Just curious, why do we need to post the dq'ed photo??
"We" don't need to; I provided the thumbnail/link as a service. Whenever there's one of these DQ announcements, I always look to see what photo was DQ'd. Don't you?
I always look ...
Me too, but when you go to the end of the challenge results to look you see who took the photo, what their original score and placing was, and the reason for the DQ - all without having to click the thumbnail and increasing the image views yet even more.
It's bad enough that the DQ'd image gets front page coverage for almost a week, and the new ribbon winner gets what - one day?
Me too, but when you go to the end of the challenge results to look you see who took the photo, what their original score and placing was, and the reason for the DQ - all without having to click the thumbnail and increasing the image views yet even more.
If you are that concerned with increasing their image views, then by all means do it the other way.
Just curious, why do we need to post the dq'ed photo??
"We" don't need to; I provided the thumbnail/link as a service. Whenever there's one of these DQ announcements, I always look to see what photo was DQ'd. Don't you?
I always look ...
Me too, but when you go to the end of the challenge results to look you see who took the photo, what their original score and placing was, and the reason for the DQ - all without having to click the thumbnail and increasing the image views yet even more.
It's bad enough that the DQ'd image gets front page coverage for almost a week, and the new ribbon winner gets what - one day?
I agree that it's not cool to have a DQ'd image take up front page space for almost a week and then have the new ribbon winner get a few days, or in some cases NO front page time ... I wish the validation period was quicker in those cases ...
I wish the validation period was quicker in those cases ...
Me too. And the rules say you only have 48hrs to submit the original, I wonder what takes so long (other than SC debating the image....seems to me rules are rules and it's either yes or no, no need for debate, right?
I wish the validation period was quicker in those cases ...
Me too. And the rules say you only have 48hrs to submit the original, I wonder what takes so long (other than SC debating the image....seems to me rules are rules and it's either yes or no, no need for debate, right?
I would hazard a guess it was an issue requiring further communication with the shooter: his processing notes mention use of a "gaussian blur layer at 51%", and you can't do that in basic, but you can get the same result by adding the same amount of gaussian blur to the base layer and then using "edit>fade" to take it down to 51%. So I would imagine SC was making sure there wasn't a semantic issue here, that he actually DID use a separate layer in his processing.
Me too, but when you go to the end of the challenge results to look you see who took the photo, what their original score and placing was, and the reason for the DQ - all without having to click the thumbnail and increasing the image views yet even more.
If you are that concerned with increasing their image views, then by all means do it the other way.
The point is, when you plug the thumbnail into this forum thread you're just highlighting the DQ'd image even more.
I wish the validation period was quicker in those cases ...
Me too. And the rules say you only have 48hrs to submit the original, I wonder what takes so long (other than SC debating the image....seems to me rules are rules and it's either yes or no, no need for debate, right?
I would hazard a guess it was an issue requiring further communication with the shooter: his processing notes mention use of a "gaussian blur layer at 51%", and you can't do that in basic, but you can get the same result by adding the same amount of gaussian blur to the base layer and then using "edit>fade" to take it down to 51%. So I would imagine SC was making sure there wasn't a semantic issue here, that he actually DID use a separate layer in his processing.
The point is, when you plug the thumbnail into this forum thread you're just highlighting the DQ'd image even more.
Yes, exactly. If someone wants to look at it they can go to the challenge page. I fail to see the 'service' performed by posting it here. I see it as a dis-service to the new ribboner since the new ribbon winner misses out on front page time.
The point is, when you plug the thumbnail into this forum thread you're just highlighting the DQ'd image even more.
Yes, exactly. If someone wants to look at it they can go to the challenge page. I fail to see the 'service' performed by posting it here. I see it as a dis-service to the new ribboner since the new ribbon winner misses out on front page time.
I wish the validation period was quicker in those cases ...
Me too. And the rules say you only have 48hrs to submit the original, I wonder what takes so long (other than SC debating the image....seems to me rules are rules and it's either yes or no, no need for debate, right?
I would hazard a guess it was an issue requiring further communication with the shooter: his processing notes mention use of a "gaussian blur layer at 51%", and you can't do that in basic, but you can get the same result by adding the same amount of gaussian blur to the base layer and then using "edit>fade" to take it down to 51%. So I would imagine SC was making sure there wasn't a semantic issue here, that he actually DID use a separate layer in his processing.
Of course, I've been known to be wrong :-)
R.
Pretty daggone close, there rowbear.
The sad part is that Photoshop has the edit/fade option and Paint Shop Pro doesn't. The only way to do this in PSP would be to duplicate the layer - blur - set opacity of the duplicate layer and merge. Not legal in basic but virtually the same thing.
Me too, but when you go to the end of the challenge results to look you see who took the photo, what their original score and placing was, and the reason for the DQ - all without having to click the thumbnail and increasing the image views yet even more.
If you are that concerned with increasing their image views, then by all means do it the other way.
The point is, when you plug the thumbnail into this forum thread you're just highlighting the DQ'd image even more.
Yet a DQ doesn't make a really nice photo any less really nice. It was a mistake, sure, but it's a fantastic photo and still, IMO, deserves a look.
I was glad to have it in this thread myself, as I had remembered it and was wondering if that gaussian blur had been a layer, and liked having the quick click to see what DQ reason was used.
The sad part is that Photoshop has the edit/fade option and Paint Shop Pro doesn't. The only way to do this in PSP would be to duplicate the layer - blur - set opacity of the duplicate layer and merge. Not legal in basic but virtually the same thing.
Yes, and it's a tough issue to deal with. If people say, "Tell us what tools and techniques are legal," then we run into problems like this where the result is the same, but the method is illegal. If we focus on what results are allowed, then we get complaints that it's too subjective since the same tool can be legal in some situations and illegal in others. Pick your poison.
The sad part is that Photoshop has the edit/fade option and Paint Shop Pro doesn't. The only way to do this in PSP would be to duplicate the layer - blur - set opacity of the duplicate layer and merge. Not legal in basic but virtually the same thing.
Yes, and it's a tough issue to deal with. If people say, "Tell us what tools and techniques are legal," then we run into problems like this where the result is the same, but the method is illegal. If we focus on what results are allowed, then we get complaints that it's too subjective since the same tool can be legal in some situations and illegal in others. Pick your poison.
Me too, but when you go to the end of the challenge results to look you see who took the photo, what their original score and placing was, and the reason for the DQ - all without having to click the thumbnail and increasing the image views yet even more.
If you are that concerned with increasing their image views, then by all means do it the other way.
The point is, when you plug the thumbnail into this forum thread you're just highlighting the DQ'd image even more.
Yet a DQ doesn't make a really nice photo any less really nice. It was a mistake, sure, but it's a fantastic photo and still, IMO, deserves a look.
I was glad to have it in this thread myself, as I had remembered it and was wondering if that gaussian blur had been a layer, and liked having the quick click to see what DQ reason was used.
A valid point for sure, it is a nice photo, and it DID get plenty of looks while it on the front page. In this case the DQ appears to be a minor slip in following the rules - an accident per-se.
However, how would you feel if this photo was DQ'd because it was taken outside of the challenge date (say a year ago) and the challenge rules were flagrantly broken? I suppose it could still deserve a "look", but while on the front page for 6 days it rec'd substantially more "looks" than deserved.
Me too, but when you go to the end of the challenge results to look you see who took the photo, what their original score and placing was, and the reason for the DQ - all without having to click the thumbnail and increasing the image views yet even more.
If you are that concerned with increasing their image views, then by all means do it the other way.
The point is, when you plug the thumbnail into this forum thread you're just highlighting the DQ'd image even more.
Yet a DQ doesn't make a really nice photo any less really nice. It was a mistake, sure, but it's a fantastic photo and still, IMO, deserves a look.
I was glad to have it in this thread myself, as I had remembered it and was wondering if that gaussian blur had been a layer, and liked having the quick click to see what DQ reason was used.
A valid point for sure, it is a nice photo, and it DID get plenty of looks while it on the front page. In this case the DQ appears to be a minor slip in following the rules - an accident per-se.
However, how would you feel if this photo was DQ'd because it was taken outside of the challenge date (say a year ago) and the challenge rules were flagrantly broken? I suppose it could still deserve a "look", but while on the front page for 6 days it rec'd substantially more "looks" than deserved.
Then I'd have to give it a slide as an anomaly, in the interest of having most of the DQs as innocent mistakes not become a victim to outrage over flagrant rules violations making us decide to treat everything as if it was flagrant/intentional/etc.
I wish the validation period was quicker in those cases ...
Me too. And the rules say you only have 48hrs to submit the original, I wonder what takes so long (other than SC debating the image....seems to me rules are rules and it's either yes or no, no need for debate, right?
I would hazard a guess it was an issue requiring further communication with the shooter: his processing notes mention use of a "gaussian blur layer at 51%", and you can't do that in basic, but you can get the same result by adding the same amount of gaussian blur to the base layer and then using "edit>fade" to take it down to 51%. So I would imagine SC was making sure there wasn't a semantic issue here, that he actually DID use a separate layer in his processing.
Of course, I've been known to be wrong :-)
R.
Pretty daggone close, there rowbear.
The sad part is that Photoshop has the edit/fade option and Paint Shop Pro doesn't. The only way to do this in PSP would be to duplicate the layer - blur - set opacity of the duplicate layer and merge. Not legal in basic but virtually the same thing.
Tim
As a PaintshopPro user, I am painfully aware of this, as well. :( :) AND, mine never seem to look as good, either. Probably about time I start considering the "jump:
