"Nude III" Results Recalculated - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

09/03/2005 03:00:39 PM · #3

sweeeet!!! 8th!

Balko

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

09/03/2005 03:10:01 PM · #4

Wow - up to 23 LOL

ShutterPug

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/03/2005 03:30:02 PM · #5

Originally posted by Manic:

hmmm - was there a big zit removed from the bum?

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/03/2005 03:32:50 PM · #6

Originally posted by ShutterPug:

Originally posted by Manic:
Please be advised the results of the "Nude III" challenge have been recalculated due to a disqualification.

The entry previously ranked in 7th place was disqualified due to an SC decision that there had been a major element removed from the shot.

hmmm - was there a big zit removed from the bum?

A softbox actually.

jrtodd

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/03/2005 03:38:17 PM · #7

That's to bad, especially at this late date. Really poor.

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

09/03/2005 03:55:22 PM · #8

Originally posted by jrtodd:

That's to bad, especially at this late date. Really poor.

This was DQ'd at least a day or two ago - wasn't it? I review the 'Recently Uploaded' image gallery once in a while, and I could swear that Dr. Jones had posted an original of the DQ'd shot...

glad2badad

DJI Mavic Air 2

Sears 55mm f/1.4 M42

09/03/2005 03:59:32 PM · #9

yep...he uploaded the DQ original on Sept 1st.

Artyste

Sony Ericsson W810i

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Pentax

09/03/2005 04:00:35 PM · #10

Sometimes the SC just have a lot of things on their plate and take a little bit to get to announcements.. *shrug*

jrtodd

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/03/2005 05:24:01 PM · #11

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by jrtodd:
That's to bad, especially at this late date. Really poor.

This was DQ'd at least a day or two ago - wasn't it? I review the 'Recently Uploaded' image gallery once in a while, and I could swear that Dr. Jones had posted an original of the DQ'd shot...

Sorry, I didn't know that. Of course the SC are very busy folks on this site and I am not in the least trying to come down on them.

09/03/2005 05:27:21 PM · #12

Originally posted by jrtodd:

That's to bad, especially at this late date. Really poor.

We were just waiting for more SC members to vote since the decision was close, and then someone forgot to post the recalculation notice. Sorry for the delay.

graphicfunk

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/03/2005 05:57:27 PM · #13

If I understand this correctly the image was dq because of a softbox removal. This begs the question if you are shooting a subject specially as a nude as the only subject matter how can a softbox be considered a major element? It does not figure at all. This is the type of S/C decision that will benefit the entire dpc community and should be made public. It appears to me, with the info I have, that this decision could have easily gone either way, although more favoring the removal of a non important item. Please someone please explain?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

09/03/2005 06:01:33 PM · #14

Daniel, you're correct, it could easily have gone either way. If the photog sees this thread and is inclined ot post the original, I agree that it would be informative. I can only say that the softbox was a significant part of the BG, though IMO it was not intended as any kind of element in the image. Note the "IMO" and the "intended."

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

09/03/2005 06:03:31 PM · #15

He already posted the original in his portfolio.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/03/2005 06:07:12 PM · #16

Originally posted by kirbic:

I've also requested that we consider a "higher standard" for DQ on subjective grounds than a simple majority, but so far there's been no discussion on that aspect of it. I think it should take a 2/3 vote, or a margin of 3-4- votes or something; otherwise I believe we should err on the side of inclusivity.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/03/2005 06:07:47 PM · #17

I have repeatedly heard it "explained" that the goal of the editing rules is to promote "pure" photography where the image that is displayed is in sunstantive form the image that came out of the camera. Specifically, that images should be composed as so as not to require major photoshop surgery to work.

Martin has been good enough to post his original. This is a studio shot, where he had control of all his lights etc, and the original image prominently features a softbox on alight stand filling the left third of the background. For his entry he completely cloned out this piece of apparatus. Anyone looking at the original would describe it as a very sexy picture of a nude where the photographer forgot to move a light out of camera range and ruined the shot. It looks like an "oops" outtake.

It seems to me perfectly consistent with past rulings that SC struck down this entry. To do otherwise would be to open the doors to the wholesale removal from challenge entries whatever elements don't strike our eye favorably. The famous case of the black-couch-turned-white comes to mind; it's not reasonable to me that the DQ was warranted in the "couch" case and not in this case.

R.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/03/2005 06:09:38 PM · #18

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

It appears to me, with the info I have, that this decision could have easily gone either way, although more favoring the removal of a non important item. Please someone please explain?

Nowhere in the rules does it say that the element must be important, intentional or relevant to the subject to be considered major. There were only two things in the original: a softbox and the most-viewed prop on this site (sorry, Bianca ;-) ), and one of those was removed. The original could reasonably be described by most people as a picture of a nude and a softbox, and the final is just a nude. Whether the other object was a softbox, rock or elephant- intentional or not- it was still more than just a minor distraction to the majority of the SC (though not all).

Message edited by author 2005-09-03 22:12:37.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/03/2005 06:15:42 PM · #19

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by graphicfunk:
It appears to me, with the info I have, that this decision could have easily gone either way, although more favoring the removal of a non important item. Please someone please explain?

Nowhere in the rules does it say that the element must be important, intentional or relevant to the subject to be considered major.

Here are the first three definitions of "major" from Dictionary.com -- note that they use the terms above to define the word.

1. Greater than others in importance or rank: a major artist.
2. Great in scope or effect: a major improvement.
3. Great in number, size, or extent: the major portion of the population.

If it's not important or relevant to the final picture, and "size doesn't matter," how can it be "major?"

09/03/2005 06:34:12 PM · #20

A huge softbox commanding a third of the background is:

1. Greater in importance than a telephone wire or twig
2. Greater in scope or effect than a pimple or wrinkle
3. Greater in number, size or extent than sensor dust or a stray hair

Within the context of the rules, I equate "major" with "significant" (which fits all three of the definitions you posted perfectly). An object doesn't have to be relevant to the topic or intentional to be significant... or major IMO.

graphicfunk

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/03/2005 06:34:47 PM · #21

Can we know what the total s/c vote tally is: How many said it was okay and the opposition?

The reason I ask this is simple: for this image ro be done exactly as is requires the soft box this close. You can suspend it and not show the light stand but to raise it higher and increase the light power would yield a different look.

This image is different from the couch image. This image is not a mistake by the photographer or an oversight. All things are arguable when removing any element. Take an image that suspends an item by a thread. Without the thread the effect can not be done, so the thread can be argued to constitute a major element. Yet its removal is never questioned.

Yes, we all abide by the S/C decision but I believe that the General is correct in his advise to raise the level when it comes to such a dq.

What prompts my response is the fact that a.e. allows a subject to be selected and then a gradient added. So, if you have a wrinkled white backdrop background you can select the subject and drop a white or color background even with a gradient. This to me is major surgery, yet it is accepted. We now return to the image in question and I think that in view of past images, a slight injustice may have been done here. This is simply my opinion from having observed many images in which some different shades of colors have even been added!

Personally I have been fighting for purer images and the closing of loopholes but the site has allowed them for so long.

nsbca7

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

09/03/2005 07:00:52 PM · #22

My first question is would anyone have caught that if the photographer had not mentioned his steps under Photographer's Comments?

The second question is why was this image disqualified

...and not his one?

You all really need to clarify what is and is not permissible.

09/03/2005 07:02:40 PM · #23

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

The reason I ask this is simple: for this image ro be done exactly as is requires the soft box this close.

Martin could have used a larger light source farther away (like a window) or cropped the image. In a cropped version, the less imposing light stand would be less of an issue and likely would have passed.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

This image is not a mistake by the photographer or an oversight.

I don't think we can (or should) judge the photographer's intent. The softbox is a big, significant thing in the original (i.e. major) whether it was a mistake or not.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

Take an image that suspends an item by a thread. Without the thread the effect can not be done, so the thread can be argued to constitute a major element. Yet its removal is never questioned.

Whether the thread is important to the setup is irrelevant (likewise with the softbox). A thread is visually insignificant (unless the shot is an extreme macro, I suppose), so it's no different than a stray hair or twig. Not so with a big piece of equipment in an otherwise barren background.

Originally posted by graphicfunk:

...if you have a wrinkled white backdrop background you can select the subject and drop a white or color background even with a gradient.

Actually, I don't think that's entirely true. You can replace an essentially blank background with another blank background, and color shifts are allowed, but you couldn't replace a flat background with an obvious gradient. Also, if the background was heavily textured or had deep shadow detail from the wrinkles, you might not be able to replace it with a flat color. I'm looking for the final to be essentially what the original was... blank to blank, not something to nothing or nothing to something.

terje

Apple iPhone

09/03/2005 07:08:23 PM · #24

A sexy babe like that should never be DQ! No matter what!