First Peek
by colorcarnival

Comment:
That's what you get for wandering out with your camera, half nude, slippers and hair uncombed, half asleep to take a shot! *grin, wink*

Actually, for a "mistaken entry" you got a pretty decent score and comments! I don't get this when I really like an entry and have spent hours trying!!! *smile*

ETA: I'm laughing here because even KNOWING this is a mirror from your notes...I still can't tell that it is, let alone....seeing "smudges" on the mirror! ROFLMAO!!!!

Message edited by author 2008-12-15 10:55:40.

Oops Too Late
by togtog

Comment:
I have to give you credit for your "SA" entry because it really had me LAUGHING! I literally DID spit tea and burst into a fit of laughter when I saw this one. I also BOW to you for getting the responses you did on such an entry. I've made a couple of attempts at eliciting this type of response with entries like this but, never gotten people's senses of humor like this!!! Congratulations!!! I truly enjoyed this one!!!!!!!

Flying
by J-Me

Comment:

Originally posted by digifotojo: I know you're allowed to darken a background by using the burn tool, which I have done on several occasions. It removes subtle lights/colors in the background almost entirely and evidently that's ok. What you did was to create light areas in the background that didn't exist in the original. It was a good idea but evidently not acceptable. Next time, use a sky/cloud backdrop, I've seen these things in the craft stores. I like what you did though, it's very original. Keep up the good work!

I see your point Jo and thank you for the compliment! :)

Actually, though.... the ORIGINAL background was "light". It was a lighter blue with light and dark areas to it due to lighting. What I did was to darken the background by using levels, color balance, H&S, brightness and contrast to the OVERALL shot both in RAW conversion and then again in Photoshop.

The DODGE tool was used to bring back out the ORIGINAL background lightness and color. I did not use the burn tool to darken the background, which could have worked too. Perhaps, had I done it that way, it would have been legal but, I doubt it.

Anyways, it's a moot point now. No need in going over it all again since it was DQ'd and that is that.

Message edited by author 2008-12-11 15:01:38.

An urban morning
by HighNooner

Comment:
This is so strangely interesting! It really captures an emotion and is really quite a lovely shot and pleasing shot, even though not a technical masterpiece that is often the high score receivers in here. I really and truly love this shot. Captured my attention and made me come back to it for another look! :)

Oops Too Late
by togtog

Comment:
Ok, I spit tea out on this one!!!!!!!! Really chuckled!!!!!!!! Thank you for that laugh!!!! *smile*

Here's to... Good food. Good friends. Good fun.
by Lydia

Comment:
Lydia....I'd CONTEST this DQ!!!! Honestly!!! I know now that I am also going to be DQ'd in another current challenge as I had the same idea as you did.

HOWEVER....HERE ARE SOME LINKS to OTHER photos that have done the same thing and NOT been DQ'd!!!! (There are TONS of others in DPC who have done the same thing and NOT been DQ'd!!!) SC had better get their acts together!!!!





A photo and a tv set in just these two alone have been allowed to stand and stay and not be DQ'd!!!!

I'm SO sorry that this is happening to you! It's SO unfair!!!

I guess that I can expect a DQ notice on my current entry as well now as I have used the same concept.

Time Travel - The ability to journey back to the past
by IreneM

Comment:
Being one of the DQ'd as well and seeing some of the others in all challenges....I am really questioning the rules now. As Fmalan has said, I've seen the same thing happening in a lot of photos in challenges throughout this site who have done far more with photos in photos! It seems that we're walking very fine lines and no one really knows where that line truly is because so many get away with so much but, get one person who thinks it's "illegal" questioning it and it's considered "illegal" all of a sudden.

It's becoming a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't type of scenario. Damned if you don't do some really amazing things and damned if you do because it could be considered illegal if someone questions it. I'm not even sure why one cartoon shot got to stay and the other one didn't! *SIGH*

If it makes any difference right now, I liked this shot!

Flying
by J-Me

Comment:

Originally posted by citymars: Hi, Jamie. You wrote "this was shot on a blue background. Levels and color balance, hue & sat had adjustments made on them to darken it down to a dark blue/black (depending on your monitor). I then, used the dodge tool to lighten up the area around the model." If that is true, then this shouldn't have been disqualified!

I totally agree with you...but, SC doesn't agree....even after asking for explanation and appealing the decision. He was on a blue (royal blue) piece of cloth, laying on the floor. I shot this from above him, on a ladder, looking down and had him pose in different poses until I got the look of "flying". I then, darkended down the background and entire shot, using levels, H&S, color balance. Once I got the final look, I used the dodge tool to highlight by dodging around the figure and using some burning in that area as well. I guess they consider it that I "created a shape/cloud" by doing so??? I still don't understand fully, even with that explanation.

Here is the response when asked for clarification:

"The original shows a man lying on a plain backdrop, and it was a unanimous consensus that the editing you did distorted the background context/radically altered the background object and thus could not be validated.
Think about it like this: a typical viewer seeing the original would see a plain blue backdrop."

The background blue was not "plain" in the sense that there were highlighted areas due to the lighting that I had set up. The area around the model's head and hands were lighter and the outside edges darker. I brought those areas back out again???? I think this fell into a gray area and SC decided to put it into Black and White territory. Not going to argue with the point.

Ok, I see a point there in terms of the fact that I legally darkened down the blue background and highlighted it by dodging and burning....but, what about vignettes then? Doesn't that drastically alter the background? What about the tremendous number of skies in which editing brings out barely visible clouds (ie: major filtering and dodge and burn)? Ah well, lesson learned here. Unless you know exactly what you're doing with editing...BEWARE!

ETA: It seems that had I made a separate layer for the model/subject and vignetted the background in a free form style, exactly the shape that the highlighted area is in this final shot....this likely wouldn't have been considered "illegal". I guess that I could have achieved the same look but, by doing it in a different manner/technique, it wouldn't have been DQ'd. :)

Message edited by author 2008-12-08 11:18:08.

pyrokinetic
by timfythetoo

Comment:
Wonderful shot, Tim and congrats on the ribbon! :)

You really have to get yourself some models though, other than yourself! ;-) You are so easy to spot and you're right....that can work for ya....or, it can work against you...keep making FRIENDS! ;-) Thankfully, it seems that besides being an awesome shot...you have FRIENDS! :P

Natural Bling
by colorcarnival

Comment:
Ha....still get trolls in a Masters Challenge! ;-) (those who handed out the 3's and 4's....have rocks for brains!)

I really love the light coming through the flower and leaf. Really nicely done!!! Congrats on your score in such a rough challenge. It's competing against so many talented photographers so, very nicely done, Michelle! Congrats!