| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/19/2009 06:49:04 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by stupidcat:
Originally posted by muckpond:
the rules are clear about spot editing in basic. if you're willing to let some slip, how much is too much? |
Yep. But it appears as there have been many examples with this photo that the spots could have been removed legally. When are you willing to let it go and admit it was possible and let the man keep his ribbon? |
I don't think this is true. There may have been examples of how to get the spot to not show, but nobody has been able to duplicate how to get the spot to disappear and then NOT REAPPEAR when you apply a harsh levels adjustment to it. In everybody's example I can easily get the spot to show back up but not in the submitted version. If you can do that, I'll be impressed. |
|
|
|
06/19/2009 08:17:02 PM · #77 |
| I've yet to see an example where the spot was removed and the rest of the picture looked like the dq'd entry. |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 11:43:10 AM · #78 |
It appears that everyone has been attempting the editing on the JPG version and not the original RAW version. Editing the RAW version in Capture NX would be the only way to emulate the process Lutchenko went through as you're then working with the original tonal range and resolution.
Anyway, things have gone very quiet on this thread, and there's a blue ribbon hanging in mid-air on the results of that challenge. Somebody must be having a long think.... ;) |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 11:46:51 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by JH:
It appears that everyone has been attempting the editing on the JPG version and not the original RAW version. Editing the RAW version in Capture NX would be the only way to emulate the process Lutchenko went through as you're then working with the original tonal range and resolution.
Anyway, things have gone very quiet on this thread, and there's a blue ribbon hanging in mid-air on the results of that challenge. Somebody must be having a long think.... ;) |
There's usually a long think involved when you have to push through a lot of crap :D |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 12:08:14 PM · #80 |
| am i missing something here? the rules clearly state that removing sensor dust is legal in basic editing. since the photo was taken at F18 it would appear to me that the spot in question was "in-focus" sensor dust and thus legal to be removed... |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 12:26:47 PM · #81 |
| Yeah actually that leads me to a question, why the ability to clean off sensor dust but not lens-lint? Why make that distinction? |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 01:02:23 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by Mephisto:
am i missing something here? the rules clearly state that removing sensor dust is legal in basic editing. since the photo was taken at F18 it would appear to me that the spot in question was "in-focus" sensor dust and thus legal to be removed... |
Doubt it since it's fairly bright. Sensor dust should look like a silhouette since it can only be backlit.
Originally posted by AP:
Yeah actually that leads me to a question, why the ability to clean off sensor dust but not lens-lint? Why make that distinction? |
Probably because then you get into the problem of determining what is lens lint and what is lint in the actual scene. Just a guess. Of course they could allow removal of any dust...
Message edited by author 2009-06-20 17:15:54.
|
|
|
|
06/20/2009 01:20:56 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Mephisto:
am i missing something here? the rules clearly state that removing sensor dust is legal in basic editing. since the photo was taken at F18 it would appear to me that the spot in question was "in-focus" sensor dust and thus legal to be removed... |
Doubt it since it's fairly bright. Sensor dust should look like a silhouette since it can only be backlit. |
mmh you're right. well then carry on with the village burning...;) |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 01:34:06 PM · #84 |
| Note: A tiny speck of oil from inside the camera on the sensor can appear as a white dot with a darker border. |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 01:39:32 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Note: A tiny speck of oil from inside the camera on the sensor can appear as a white dot with a darker border. |
I think if you have this condition then you have a problem far more important than an virtual DQ ... |
|
|
|
06/20/2009 02:05:42 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by togtog:
Note: A tiny speck of oil from inside the camera on the sensor can appear as a white dot with a darker border. |
I think if you have this condition then you have a problem far more important than an virtual DQ ... |
I had two such drops within my first four months of owning my D300.
//community.the-digital-picture.com/blogs/news/archive/2009/05/14/canon-usa-service-notice-regarding-oil-spots-on-canon-eos-1d-1ds-mark-iii-sensors.aspx
Some info there about the problem on specific Canon cameras with an example "white dot".
-tog
|
|
|
|
06/20/2009 04:24:01 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by I cant remember who said it:
Probably because then you get into the problem of determining what is lens lint and what is lint in the actual scene. Just a guess. Of course they could allow removal of any dust... |
Bingo! Like I said before - much hoopla over an incredibly trivial issue. |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 02:02:51 AM · #88 |
The DQ stands.
Whilst the reason seems a little petty rules are rules, my only issue is that I didn't spot edit but after 3 weeks or so I simply cannot remember the editing steps and
for the life of me can not correctly duplicte the affect so there we are onward and upward eh.
I would like to thank everyone for being supportive.
Will.....
|
|
|
|
06/22/2009 05:18:28 AM · #89 |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 05:29:46 AM · #90 |
Bad call.
This long after the challenge has ended means the new ribboners won't even get front-page time.
I fail to see what this DQ has achieved; apart from more confusion over the 'dust removal' rule, frustration over not being able to recall editing steps, and a demonstration of triviality at its best. |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 05:36:14 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by JH:
I fail to see what this DQ has achieved; apart from more confusion over the 'dust removal' rule, frustration over not being able to recall editing steps, and a demonstration of triviality at its best. |
what confusion? "don't spot edit in basic" seems pretty clear. if breaking a rule as simple as that is trivial, how should we define what is NOT trivial?
i'm sorry to the OP for his DQ, but even he was unable to recreate the photograph in question. with this much time and attention paid to it, someone should have been able to do it.
and, as i have been saying in the entire thread, there were more issues with the photo than just the one dust spot. you all were never given the benefit of seeing a high-res version of the original after repeated suggestions to do so.
it's best that we just let this one go. |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 06:33:01 AM · #92 |
| Very bad call...might end up driving more people away... |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 07:03:12 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by stupidcat:
... it appears as there have been many examples with this photo that the spots could have been removed legally. ... |
Really? When / where? Can you show the examples of this? |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 07:05:46 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by stupidcat:
Very bad call...might end up driving more people away... |
Might also give others confidence in the system to make them stay |
|
|
|
06/22/2009 07:23:57 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by stupidcat:
Very bad call...might end up driving more people away... |
Whereas making random exceptions to the spot editing rule DEFINITELY would... |
|
|
|
06/23/2009 08:48:44 PM · #96 |
| I am new here...just a quick question...In the recent zoo challenge the rules were to promote your local zoo, I was unable to get to the zoo, so I did not submit anything. The third place winner (while an amazing concept) took the image in her back yard. Am I wrong that that seems more DQish than a dust particle??? Someone please help clarify |
|
|
|
06/23/2009 09:01:09 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by krcnaples:
I am new here...just a quick question...In the recent zoo challenge the rules were to promote your local zoo, I was unable to get to the zoo, so I did not submit anything. The third place winner (while an amazing concept) took the image in her back yard. Am I wrong that that seems more DQish than a dust particle??? Someone please help clarify |
Forget the back yard! She was 2000 miles away from that zoo! ;)
I happen to think it's fine, actually more than fine, some folks may have voted her lower had they known, but it certainly is not against the rules, rather a debate about "DNMC". In reality, it seemed clear to me that it was not taken at a zoo yet the voters decided that was acceptable, or at least not worth nit picking since the humor and unique presentation were fantastic. |
|
|
|
06/23/2009 09:10:54 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by krcnaples:
I am new here...just a quick question...In the recent zoo challenge the rules were to promote your local zoo, I was unable to get to the zoo, so I did not submit anything. The third place winner (while an amazing concept) took the image in her back yard. Am I wrong that that seems more DQish than a dust particle??? Someone please help clarify |
This is the hard part about navigating challenges... Whereas you felt you were not eligible to enter this challenge because clearly you could not "promote your local zoo", YOU did not enter... Others simply find ways around these challenge descriptions and enter anyway. (which as I understand is NOT against any rules)
I too could not make it to my local zoo, so I didn't enter. It never occured to me to "cheat" (that's my word and my word only) to use an animal in my backyard and pass it off as an image from the zoo... I happened to love that image and I scored it very high, but when doing that, I really did think it was an image from the zoo.. I'm just naive like that I guess..
So, as a DPC'er you have to decide, probably on a challenge by challenge basis, what you are willing & not willing to bend the truth on, when entering a challenge.. |
|
|
|
06/23/2009 09:23:50 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by kandykarml:
I too could not make it to my local zoo, so I didn't enter. It never occured to me to "cheat" (that's my word and my word only) to use an animal in my backyard and pass it off as an image from the zoo... I happened to love that image and I scored it very high, but when doing that, I really did think it was an image from the zoo.. I'm just naive like that I guess..
So, as a DPC'er you have to decide, probably on a challenge by challenge basis, what you are willing & not willing to bend the truth on, when entering a challenge.. |
Well that's a bit harsh to imply she cheated. Some are rather good at using what's around them to create an entry. It's not the first time  LydiaToo has pulled this off, and it won't be the last I'm sure. As an aside, when was the last time you saw an Eastern Box Turtle at the San Diego Zoo? ;) |
|
|
|
06/23/2009 09:41:58 PM · #100 |
Yeah you cant compare DNMC with actual rule violations - there are good policy considerations to keep them separate. The biggest, of course, is that of interpretation... the breadth of opinions on interpretation for meeting the challenge criteria is exponentially larger than that of a rules violation, even in the contested cases we've seen. Also, it sort of goes against the spirit of this being a learning site, and finally, would require a heavy amount of policing.
I think its best to let the voters be the arbiters of conformity to the challenge, even if it their verdicts come after the details of the entry have been revealed.
And for what its worth, Lutchenko's entry should have been DQ'd... IF ONLY b/c the SC had no choice but to do so. As a rule, we cannot just go on the 'word' of participants as to the validity of their entries - if that were acceptable, we could all just say our entries are fine and there would be no control. He (and the rest of the site) was given the opportunity to replicate his entry, no one could do it, so there really is nothing more to talk about. I mean no disrespect to the OP, i know DQs can suck, but in this case you can't expect the SC to overturn a ruling with no evidence other than the artist's "word", that would just be bad policy. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2025 07:32:25 AM EDT.
