My entry has been disqualified. :(
Your submission has been disqualified:
Your border must be distinct and clearly recognizable as a border.
Heck and I was just doing so well with a score of 6.3546
The lines on the pillars where I cropped them off are very distinct imo as a border. The rest of the border is more of a invisible line between these distinct lines. This is an art challenge after all and one has to use some imagination. Should the rules not be a bit more flexible in this case? I don't know. Am I right or not? I am not arguing for my entry not to be disqualified by the way. I agree with the judges decision, I am only making a case for perhaps allowing more leeway in future art challenges such as the expert rules to allow for more freedom in being creative since it is an ART challenge after all.
Ps. The image is in fact a public sculpture which I photographed by lying on my back in between the 3 pillars and shooting upwards. The sky was blue but I changed it to pure white during processing. Then I cropped and added a wide white border. Then I rotated the image 45 degrees and cropped again.
For those interested here is the actual sculpture that I photographed. It is located on the banks of the Waal river in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. There is an option to view 3 different angles of the sculpture. The sculpture show from different angles various Roman numerals. This is to illustrate the rich Roman history that Nijmegen had in the far flung past.
//www.nijmegen.nl/kos/kunstwerk.aspx?id=513
The sky was blue but I changed it to pure white during processing..
I think this is what got you disqualified.
I don't think so. I think it's because of the reason that was given. Changing a color is allowed according to the rules.
"You may saturate, desaturate or change the colors of your entry or any existing object within it."
Of course you are right in the sense that if I had left the sky blue then the border would have clearly defined. But the impact of the image would have been less. I wanted it to appear that the object was floating in negative space. I had hoped it would be ok to do this in an art challenge for the sake of art. Ah well....not too serious. Life goes on.
You can't tell the difference between sky and border. That's what got you DQ'd, plain and simple. If you'd left the sky a very pale blue this wouldn't have happened. Borders have to be clearly recognizable as borders.
Okay, my bad, I was looking at three threads and posted in the wrong one... Back to subject at hand, I think you are right that the rules should have been expanded to expert editing, could have made this challenge even more interesting. But unfortunately the bottom line was that the rules weren't expanded... So unfortunately, its a legimate D.Q.
Just to make it clear before some individuals start attacking me again as per usual. I am NOT disputing the fact that the DQ is valid. I agree that in some parts of my image there is no actual border to be seen. I posted here because I think it's quite an interesting debate because it's an ART challenge and that perhaps in future the rules could be expanded a bit like maybe to expert editing. Just to give members a bit more of a creative free hand.
You can't tell the difference between sky and border. That's what got you DQ'd, plain and simple. If you'd left the sky a very pale blue this wouldn't have happened. Borders have to be clearly recognizable as borders.
R.
Somebody not too long ago got pinged for the same thing with a black border and a night shot. Border has to be clear....
You can't tell the difference between sky and border. That's what got you DQ'd, plain and simple. If you'd left the sky a very pale blue this wouldn't have happened. Borders have to be clearly recognizable as borders.
R.
This is it, in a nutshell. I actually requested DQ on your image during voting for this exact reason. I do agree that more expert editing challenges would be fantastic, and I think this kind of challenge would be perfect for that ruleset in the future.
Just to make it clear before some individuals start attacking me again as per usual. I am NOT disputing the fact that the DQ is valid. I posted here because I think it's quite an interesting debate because it's an ART challenge and that perhaps in future the rules could be expanded a bit like maybe to expert editing. Just to give members a bit more of a creative free hand.
I hope that wasn't on account of my post... If it was I didn't mean for it to be... I definitely agree with you about the expert editing... We get what, 1 maybe 2 expert editing challenges a year...
I posted here because I think it's quite an interesting debate because it's an ART challenge and that perhaps in future the rules could be expanded a bit like maybe to expert editing. Just to give members a bit more of a creative free hand.
I thought it was a very clever image and interesting for sure. One thing that stands out to me (besides agreeing with the border not being apparent) is that the way the top of the columns appear now to be some abstract piece that ends, rather than being a corner. Matter of fact I didn't notice that an apparent square was in there with the rotation. One of those eye trick kind of things I guess.
I thought it was a very clever image and interesting for sure. One thing that stands out to me (besides agreeing with the border not being apparent) is that the way the top of the columns appear now to be some abstract piece that ends, rather than being a corner. Matter of fact I didn't notice that an apparent square was in there with the rotation. One of those eye trick kind of things I guess.
Thanks. Glad you like it. Here is the actual sculpture that is featured in my DQ entry. You can click to see 3 different angles.
//www.nijmegen.nl/kos/kunstwerk.aspx?id=513
I think if you put a thin black line between your wide white border and the image, it would make the image even more interesting and also made it legal. That tilted square would meld well with the two tilted square shapes in your image...
I wasn't certain but this did look like an image taken of someones art work...so, I don't know how far this can go but the borders weren't clear or recognizable to me. IMO it's a picture of existing art so, I'm not sure how much artistic high ground you can claim as your own on this one. Just an opinion.
You certainly have a point there. But is it not also a matter of interpretation? I tried to made the existing artwork look quite different from the original by using a different perspective, cropping away part of it, rotating it and placing it in a empty negative space to create a feeling of floating and not being attached to anything. Perhaps in the next fine art challenge it should be stated in the rules that existing man made art may not be used otherwise it will remain a point of discussion. Here is the original sculpture by the way. //www.nijmegen.nl/kos/kunstwerk.aspx?id=513
This an interesting thread. I have to say that I agree with Pawdrix about taking pictures of other people's art although this is shot with an interesting twist which makes it almost okay in my book. I would also agree with coryboehne's preference since I believe this shot would have worked well with or without the added effects.
Both of those are asides, though, to what you are asking.
Clearly, it's not apparent where the sky ends and the border begins. To me, there is no question at all that this border thing is a silly rule even though it's one that must be followed or you're breaking the rules. So that's that. However, imo, what thingfish did here is what makes this a very clever edit and one which should be applauded. I certainly would never have thought of it. I rather like it. Does it make it a more arty photo? None of us really know what "fine art" is so how can we say whether this is finer than it would have been without it. Again, I really like the thinking and 'tis a shame about the dq.
Ahhh, the ultimate validation in a fine art challenge, a DQ for pushing the creative envelope agaist the current rule set.
Wear it with pride! ;-)
I also have a DQ in this challenge:
Your submission has been disqualified:
You may not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture.
I was told that my pp was the problem, though I have yet to receive clarification from SC on exactly what I did that was outside the rules. I did some severe messing with colours in Photoshop but to the best of my knowledge did not create any new thingies.
