Choose up to your Top 10, you have multiple votes! You may vote for one or more up to 10.
The gallery is here for commenting.

You have the ability to choose up to 10 of your top choices by selecting them from the poll.
The poll will remain open for 72 hours, and any previously registered member of DGrin may vote.

Warning: you will not be able to come back and add more choices after you click the voting button.

There were 1 disqualification this round

K10D - missing EXIF for stars and flares.


P.S. If your observant you will see that more than 10 can be chosen. Just remember if you vote for all of them its like you didn't vote

*Also you are able to see any photo in its large form by clicking on it.

Great stuff all, Sorry I did not get an entry in RL been slowing me down. Tough Vote They are all really nice.

Missed you in there, Keith! It was a close call for me to be able to get something together as well. I think for many people this is an exceptionally busy time of year.....

Still doesn't seem right.. Almost all these photos have something in them besides text with no exif.. Like the swirls in the Alice in Wonderland.. Thats a texture...... Created by a layer in PS.... The desaturation of the dog in the second photo... Thats a layer in PS... The red coloring in The Grandfather... do you see where Im going with this? So I think K10D's DQ is unjustified..

I would suggest that digital processing or compositing challenges have a different set of rules. Maybe something like "The chief element of your design needs to be a photo or series of photos all taken within the timeframe of the challenge and documented by individual exifs, and there should be no photographic elements in the design from other photographers or without a timely exif file." This would allow for embellishments like PS-generated textures, brushes, etc.

Brandon is right, you can find something from several of the entries that could be called into question. But, even sillier, I think, is an exif file for a black or color-filled layer.

When we did the last Mega Challenge for the album cover I realized at the last minute that the filled in black background I used might be against the rules. So I shot a picture of a wall and dropped the exposure to make it black for my background. To be honest It felt like a complete waist of time but I did it to make sure I was within the rules.

I thought the rules this round were clear enough.

"With the exception of your text, all pixels used in your poster have to be justified with a current EXIF. That means any layers including textures and backgrounds. So be sure to list all your EXIF info if you have multiple layers of images."

I don't really understand what is confusing about these instructions.

The only issue I have is there are some images above that seem to have broken this rule even if just a bit. To me if one is ok then all should be ok just to be fair.

But that's just me!

Originally Posted by DeuceFour So I think K10D's DQ is unjustified..

Maybe the reason for the DQ was stated incorrectly? In K10D's exifs, the date modified was earlier than the date taken (date taken: 4/29, date modified: 4/28), which would be a valid reason for a DQ in any challenge. I would guess an error in the camera settings.

Been a bit of a crazy ride the past few contests - JAG, bless your heart for taking on this moderation thing!! I could see where it would be extremely hard to determine what pp processes might be okay and which ones may not, since some of the actions & plug-ins for PS are created with other photogs' textures (or if you created your own with an older photo, etc.), some textures are preloaded into pp programs, and some processes are created just playing within a pp program using the original photo in different layers or using fill or adjustment layers, plus we don't always know what is contained in different pp filters, plug-ins or actions - some of them explain how they get the result & some of them don't.

I'm completely in awe of these movie posters! I loved looking at all of them. I had some great ideas (There's Nothing About Mary; True Grits; Ugly Woman....) but hadn't the wherewithall to get it together for the challenge. Congratulations to all of you who entered--wonderful work!

1. The dq'ed image had all pixels accounted for with the exception of the stars and flares, he had no exif for them. I realize those are a filter in and editing program, but they are pixels that were not accounted for in the exif. You all do not realize how I hard it is for me to dq ANY image in any round! I want all to play, but the instructions are set at the beginning of each challenge and I will stick to them.

2. In my original instructions I wrote:

With the exception of your text, all pixels used in your poster have to be justified with a current EXIF. That means any layers including textures and backgrounds. So be sure to list all your EXIF info if you have multiple layers of images.

and:

EDITING RESTRICTIONS listed above.

What I was really looking for here, was that all images, layers, pixels be actual photographs! Since I did not put the word "Photograph exifs" in my instuction, I allowed 'freshly created' other images. It was an executive decision on my part and that is how it stands.

3. As for the Alice in Cyberland, it is clear that the pixels of the background are the same pixels of her original image and have been smeared with a filter. Another words, nothing was added to the existing pixels, they were just moved around. I do know how ps and other editing program filters and scripts work!


Now this last part of my little rant....

I cannot make you all read or follow instructions. If you have questions and are not clear on an instruction, then post on the thread and I will give you an answer if I can. These challenges are for you to learn new things. We do not need to modify how they are run. I will hold ever entry to the same set of rules and instructions. This round I wasn't too happy about at the last few hours, someone comes up with a stretch of the instructions intent, thus making it difficult for any changes in my wording to be more clear. PLEASE everyone who enters these challenges NEED to read the instructions and be sure you are understanding them correctly. Ask your questions within the first week so that it can be consistant for everyone. This is not easy for me to know what you understand and what you do not until you post a question!

PS...
I was just thinking about the original rules of the dss challenges. It is clearly stated:

2. Proof of Fresh Photo: Entries must have exif embedded (do not use methods such as "save for web", which strip exif info). As such, only images taken digitally will be accepted (no scanned images). Photos made via HDR must include the exif from one of the merged images. Composite images must be composed entirely of fresh images, and must include exif from ALL of the images used

So what I was asking was not out of the normal for composit images and is applied to all challenges unless I specifically change it for a challenge in the instructions.

Jag, Thanks for your patience and challenging subjects and thanks everyone for your comments. I really learned a lot from all of you.
In my case I was trying to understand the rule by asking questions. I am new to layers and Photoshop. Before the Norman Rockwell challenge, I was only using the tool to crop and change the light a little bit. So I learned to use Photoshop during the last 3 challenges. I was not even thinking that a solid black color will change the exif file and I was thinking that black is so simple thing that is not considered as a background or texture. Everyone can take a black photo.
The other confusion I had was the fact that we can select a part of our picture and copy it, so I thought that I can also delete some rectangles from a file and this way I created the filmstrip. Since I did all the job myself without using others' work or even any guideline, I thought it is considered an original work. I asked the question on Saturday, but even with the first and second reply I did not understand that what Jag really meant was an actual photo image of a film strip. As he was saying that it should have current exif and not current photography exif. I was thinking that as long as we have a valid exif file we can move, delete, crop, copy, and duplicate our own pixels, like Alice in Cyber-land.

After the last reply on Monday, I remembered I have some film strips and I took a photo on a red paper and made the strip again. I created the whole thing in less than 30 minutes including taking photo, uploading and post processing. The other method (PS) took more than 2 hours as I didn't know how to do it in Photoshop and making symmetry cuts was so much trouble. The films created using both approaches exactly look the same. You can see my files including the real film strip picture in my link to the exifs. Now even my exifs are following the first rule that some of us didn't understand in the first place. So I did not want to change any rule and I just wanted to understand and follow the rule.
I wish I was understanding it sooner as it was easier than learning to do it in Photoshop. However, I am happy as I always wanted to learn it and now I know a lot more. Some people think that it's easy to do these stuff in Photoshop, but really its more difficult that taking the actual picture. I personally like to take pictures more than doing post processing. It is so unfair to say that if someone have used Photoshop to add more pictures and elements to their work, their picture has less value. Capturing more pictures and finding relation and making story out of them is not an easy job. You need to take more number of good pictures. In my case I made the Muppet holder from branches and strings. It just took me 45 minutes to convince "The Godtoddler" to wear the outfit and 30 minutes to convince him to hold the sticks. Then running behind him for 50 minutes with a flash in one hand and camera in the other hand to create the scene I was looking for with the proper intentional lighting effect I had in my mind. Taking picture of someone or an object who stays still in a well lighted studio is not this much challenging. However I beleive to make a story we need the challenge. The subject we had was about a movie, so I wanted to have the challenge of a director . I spent so much time on it, but I am happy as I learned a lot and I like my result. I am sure it will stay for my son and my husband printed it to take it to his office

Wow wish I could have gotten here earlier. Looks like a small controversy going On about the DQ of my photo. First of all, would like to thank all of you that supported my poster, but the truth of the matter is, the moderator made the correct decission to DQ it based on her facts. I agree with her choice 100%. Rules are rules that we all must abide to, to make it fair for all. I have no problem with it & nor should anyone else. Just recently bought my new K-5 & like I do a lot of times just rushed to use it & didn't get the time set correctly. Since I'm 600 miles away from it won't be able to get it corrected untill I get back. Disappointed, Sure am but it was my mistake for not carefully checking that all my T's were crossed & my I's we're dotted before posting. So as far as I'm concerned, end of discussion. I'm ready to go for the next contest. Going to go vote for my choices & move on.

Good luck to all. Everyone did great work this round, gonna be tuff to choose.

Memol - just an FYI, I thought your entry was fantastic and well worth all of the chasing and convincing that you did. It was my favorite of the bunch!

As for the Challenge, I thought the rules were very clear and did not have any problem understanding them. I have always taken a picture if I need a background; it never occurred to me not to. There is a definite difference between manipulating pixels and adding little extras from an editing program (stars, bows, pumpkin faces). Layers still make use of the original pixels.

Honestly, I wouldn't want the rules to be as long and complicated as a camera manual. This is supposed to be fun. It is it is!

Originally Posted by DeuceFour Still doesn't seem right.. Almost all these photos have something in them besides text with no exif.. Like the swirls in the Alice in Wonderland.. Thats a texture...... Created by a layer in PS.... The desaturation of the dog in the second photo... Thats a layer in PS... The red coloring in The Grandfather... do you see where Im going with this? So I think K10D's DQ is unjustified..

Just voted and read all the comments above. In my case, I recently bought PS Elements, and this was the first time I ever explored anything beyond the clone tool including layers & text. So I guess you could say this was indeed a true challenge for me which is good. But, to be honest with you, I'm not entirely sure I even understand what the controversies refer to. As I understood it, I thought it was legal to apply filters (like twirl and posterize) and actions (like inverse) to an image w/proper exif. I did not add any add'l layers from a photo beyond the headphones and I included that. Am I missing something? I thought filters just rearrange the pixels already in the photo. This is over my head

Originally Posted by GretaPics Just voted and read all the comments above. In my case, I recently bought PS Elements, and this was the first time I ever explored anything beyond the clone tool including layers & text. So I guess you could say this was indeed a true challenge for me which is good. But, to be honest with you, I'm not entirely sure I even understand what the controversies refer to. As I understood it, I thought it was legal to apply filters (like twirl and posterize) and actions (like inverse) to an image w/proper exif. I did not add any add'l layers from a photo beyond the headphones and I included that. Am I missing something? I thought filters just rearrange the pixels already in the photo. This is over my head

You understand it perfectly. Filters that only manipulate the already existing pixels such as smearing them around or adjusting their brightness or contrast are ok. Even cloning from your original image to put on top in a second layer is still ok. Scripts, plugins and anything that adds pixels such as tubes (prefabricated images) or stars, flares ect...those are not allowed. You have to create them by taking a picture of something and manipulating existing pixels to create the effect and thus have an exif to prove it.

Originally Posted by SeascapeS Memol - just an FYI, I thought your entry was fantastic and well worth all of the chasing and convincing that you did. It was my favorite of the bunch! As for the Challenge, I thought the rules were very clear and did not have any problem understanding them. I have always taken a picture if I need a background; it never occurred to me not to. There is a definite difference between manipulating pixels and adding little extras from an editing program (stars, bows, pumpkin faces). Layers still make use of the original pixels. Honestly, I wouldn't want the rules to be as long and complicated as a camera manual. This is supposed to be fun. It is it is!

Thanks, it was a nice challenge and beautiful a creative entries. I learned a lot more in this challenge. The rules are not that long, but it was not clear to me. Always my entries were so simple that I did not have any problem. I will get back to photography after this one. I started photography to have some fun and capture the nice memories and beauties. I wanted to get a little distance from computer, but again I ended up sitting and working with the computer :)

Awesome entries everyone! It was a neck and neck race between the top two, there were so many awesome images! Great work everyone! Thank you for participating!

Winning PM will be sent out ASAP

Congrats lkbart! Great concept and so well executed!!

Not surprised! Congratulations lkbart GP

Congrats, lkbart! Great image!!!!!

Wow & Yippee!! Thrilled is definitely an understatement!! Great entries by everyone - Katavar barely squeaked past The Grandfather! Thanks for the votes & comments - a very fun round, cool theme! Kudos to Fred, who seems to be my good luck kitty!