DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Advanced editing question
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/30/2005 11:35:56 AM · #1
I have a pic where I want to change the color of a gray subject to white, it occupies about 1%-2% of my total area, but after changing the color from gray to white, it seems to me a major element. Will that be legal?
At this time, I dodged it to make it white. But there could be other ways to achieve the same same effect. But I am not sure if that's legal ?
This is for light challenge, so you can guess making the color from gray to white, makes something look like a light source :D

I would like to hear your opinion.

I have already PM-ed one SC memeber, but I haven't yet received a reply.
01/30/2005 11:38:45 AM · #2
Can you PM me with a link to the photo?

Whether this is a major element depends on what the item is.

-Terry
 01/30/2005 11:42:38 AM · #3
PM-ed you with links to the original and the dodged versions of the photo.

thanks for a quick response.
 01/30/2005 12:02:08 PM · #4
Originally posted by gaurawa:
PM-ed you with links to the original and the dodged versions of the photo.

thanks for a quick response.


No problem... I've replied with my personal opinion, and posted the links to Site Council for review.

-Terry
 01/30/2005 03:16:22 PM · #5
Juggle,

If I selected out ANY portion of the image and changed it from gray to white by using levels, or red (or any color) by using hue/saturation, this would be legal in advanced editing right? Just for my own information...

Robt.
 01/30/2005 03:25:48 PM · #6


The above was done using selective re-saturation by changing areas of white to other colors and it was deemed legal. I assume what is being asked is pretty much the same as what Eddy did in the above image so technically I would imagine it would also be legal.
 01/30/2005 03:30:49 PM · #7
Originally posted by moodville:


The above was done using selective re-saturation by changing areas of white to other colors and it was deemed legal. I assume what is being asked is pretty much the same as what Eddy did in the above image so technically I would imagine it would also be legal.

Yes, I agree with you moodville and I had sent the same photo as reference in my first email to one SC member asking him if I could also do something similar changing my gray to white :)

edit: spelling

Message edited by author 2005-01-30 15:33:16.
 01/30/2005 04:12:06 PM · #8
Originally posted by bear_music:
Juggle,

If I selected out ANY portion of the image and changed it from gray to white by using levels, or red (or any color) by using hue/saturation, this would be legal in advanced editing right? Just for my own information...

Robt.


From the rules:

Selective Editing: Adjustments can be made selectively to your photo. Cloning, dodging, burning, etc. to improve your photo or remove imperfections or minor distracting elements, etc. is acceptable. However, using any editing tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not permitted.

Note this last sentence refers to ANY editing tools. If an edit is found to violate this clause, the method used to achieve it is not particularly relevant.

-Terry
 01/30/2005 04:32:02 PM · #9
This isn't just a matter of changing something that is gray to white. That is over-simplified and is incomplete. The advanced editing rules define how we can use legal tools like dodge and burn. You are to use these tools to improve the existing content but not to create new content. In my opinion if you dodge an element so that it now appears to be a light source and glow then you have altered the original content by adding in a new element. I could go outside right now and find a house that still has its Christmas lights hung but turned off. I could then photograph that house, as is, and then edit the photograph so that I made all of the lights glow and then, for an additional effect, I could select the sky and burn it and alter its color so that it looked like dusk. The result would be a pretty picture of a house with glowing Christmas lites on at dusk but it would be a false representation of the original photo. The glowing lites are a significant element of the image that didn't exist in the original photo so I would vote DQ on such an image. Here is another example: I could photograph an ordinary blank wall and then in my editor I could take my Hue/Saturation tool and write a word on that blank wall. That word now becomes a significant element in the photo. I used a legal tool but I used it in an elegal manner.

The smoke image is different because it is only the hue that is being altered and not any of the elements (as far as I can tell). The origianl photo still contained the matches and the smoke but EddyG creatively altered the color. I'm kind of on the fence with these kinds of color alterationss but we have always allowed desaturation/saturation and hue altering to individual elements of a photo. I personally think that this verges on digital art because you are creating colors that didn't exist before but I believe the SC wants to allow a certain artistic license to the colors in a photo but remain strict when it comes to the alterations of the elements in a photo.

T

01/30/2005 05:23:06 PM · #10
IMHO Yes what I am trying to do is digital art, but I do find some photographs on dpchallenge which I consider digital art. I can't define what's allowed and what's not.
At this time I am waiting for SC to tell me if they consider this particular case a 'Digital Art' or 'Creativity' :)
I am expecting a decision before the challenge starts, so that I can submit/unsubmit/change my entry.

Message edited by author 2005-01-30 17:32:59.
 01/30/2005 07:09:49 PM · #11
Originally posted by gaurawa:
IMHO Yes what I am trying to do is digital art ...

IMO, if you view what you are wanting to do as having crossed the line into digital art -- it has, regardless of what anyone else may think. Intention plays a large role in wether or not a major element was created.

David
 01/30/2005 07:49:54 PM · #12
Originally posted by Britannica:
Originally posted by gaurawa:
IMHO Yes what I am trying to do is digital art ...

IMO, if you view what you are wanting to do as having crossed the line into digital art -- it has, regardless of what anyone else may think. Intention plays a large role in wether or not a major element was created.

David

DPChallenge allows digital art to some extent. I don't know if I crossed the line and this is what I am asking here.
 01/30/2005 08:20:57 PM · #13
This is in many ways a ridiculous debate, in the sense that just such dodging of elements into prominence has a long and storied history in the "real" photography world. IMO, if it exists in the original, under advanced editing rules virtually anything you do to it short of actually cloning or moving it in some way should be kosher. But I don't make (or offically interpret) the rules.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-01-30 20:21:37.
 01/30/2005 08:57:09 PM · #14
We could also consider that the element that is there could - in a color lab - be selectively processed with different chemicals to change the coloring. This is not an addition of the element, but a processing choice to highlight the element. If however, nothing existed before and you changed chemicals to create the 'light source' (triangle polygon tool and massive dodge to create a spotlight effect comes to mind) then I would think that's a DQ waiting to happen.
 01/30/2005 09:02:37 PM · #15
Originally posted by bear_music:
This is in many ways a ridiculous debate, in the sense that just such dodging of elements into prominence has a long and storied history in the "real" photography world. IMO, if it exists in the original, under advanced editing rules virtually anything you do to it short of actually cloning or moving it in some way should be kosher. But I don't make (or offically interpret) the rules.

Robt.


I don't believe this is a ridiculous debate. Did you see my previous post? How an editing tool is used is significant in determining whether or not it is legal. Users like Gaurawa are just trying to understand the rules which, I'll admit, can be a little confusing.

Some rules do turn into a bit of a judgment call and what we have tried to stress periodically is if you want to avoid any controversy about an image stay well within the safe side of the line. This is a site about photography and not digital art.

T
 01/30/2005 11:05:14 PM · #16
Don't get me wrong; I said "in many ways" and that's significant. Look, I follow the rules, and I appreciate staff taking the time to explain how they are interpreted. The rules are what they are, and we agreed to abide by them.

But, in this specific area, the rules as being interpreted lean towards actually retarding long-established photographic skills, and this is what I am musing on. Personally, I find the restriction on the dodge/burn tool, especially in basic editing, to be kind of silly from a photographic perspective, because dodging and burning has been fundamental to good printmaking since prints have been being made.

I understand the restriction on selections in basic editing, and on pixel-content layers, no problem. And I am perfectly willing to abide by the burn/dodge rule as long as it's in force. I just think it's kind of misguided, and I'm expressing my opinion on the matter.

So I beg everyone's pardon if I seem to be arguing with the interpretation of these rules, because I'm not. I just branched out and waxed philosophic on the substance of them.

Robt.

01/31/2005 12:06:14 AM · #17
Originally posted by bear_music:
This is in many ways a ridiculous debate, in the sense that just such dodging of elements into prominence has a long and storied history in the "real" photography world. ...

Robt.

I find the arguement that it was done in the traditional darkroom to not be very valid. There were (and are) 'wet' darkroom artists the same as there are digital artists now. The difference, however, is the lack of another classification to place upon the 'wet' darkroom artists. Most people just don't know what goes on in that mysterious little room when the lights go out, they only know an image on photographic paper comes out. So anything that ended up on photographic paper was clumped together as photography, no matter who far it strayed from what was captured with a camera.

I started into photography as a serious hobby after I bought my first digital -- film being far too expensive for me to learn on. I know the basics of film processing (very basic) and quite a bit more about digital processing -- but one thing I do know is what I captured with my camera. For me, to process it beyond what is required to properly present what was captured is not out of the question -- but I certainly would not call the result a photograph.

But, a quick question for you, if I haven't alienated you (certainly not my intent).

Originally posted by bear_music:
... Personally, I find the restriction on the dodge/burn tool, especially in basic editing, to be kind of silly from a photographic perspective, because dodging and burning has been fundamental to good printmaking since prints have been being made.

I understand the restriction on selections in basic editing, and on pixel-content layers, no problem. And I am perfectly willing to abide by the burn/dodge rule as long as it's in force. I just think it's kind of misguided, and I'm expressing my opinion on the matter. ...

You state and understanding (and I implied an agreement) for the restriction on selelections in basic editing, and yet 'waxed philosophic' on the use of the burn/dodge tool. Aren't they just a specific method of making a selection?

David
 01/31/2005 12:30:47 AM · #18
We could also consider that as this is digital photography, doesn't require chemicals to develop and isn't actually printed using light for submission to dpc, that maybe decisions or arguments based on the ways used to manipulate chemicals and light sensitive paper, are mostly specious ?
 01/31/2005 01:12:06 AM · #19
David,

In "traditional" terms dodging and burning are not very precise; there's an art to doing it, it;s hard to ocntrol the overflow of the application into other areas. The same tends to be true if you just use the tool in PS. But if you "select" areas first, the application of the tool is limited to only those areas selected; so it's extremely precise when selections are used, more loosey-goosey when not.

Here's an example (and forget darkroom magic for a moment); it's a well-known phewnomenon that if you mount a pure, even greay rectangle on a white board, it appears to get lighter towards the corners. part of the standard repertoire for printing lanscape photos with a lot of sky is to lightly burn in the top 2 corners to "contain" the image. This is not allowed in basic editing.

In a more general sense, there are a myriad of things you can do with a digital camera in the camera that modify the result the camera produces, sometimes dramatically. Those who have more complex cameras and lens can access many more "tools" legally in basic editing than those who have point-and-shoot cameras. As an extreme example, there are now lenses that allow you to selectively blur portions of the image, and adjust DOF along a plane other than vertical. These lenses cost upwards of 1000 dollars, and they produce effects that cannot be legally attained under basic editing rules if they are not done "in the camera". But they can be accomplished, or emulated, with PS techniques. This seems to me to be a disparity.

Or how about, at a simplet level, the fact that I can adjust my camera for varying degrees of contrast and/or sharpness, but owners of a another camera cannot? I donno, I am just musing out loud here...

Gordon,

The issue isn't really how the image is presented; for all practical purposes the image we see on the screen is a "print." My position is that the goal here is "photography", and there are many simple, non-invasive techniques that can be used to "make better pictures" that do NOT wander into the realm of "digital manipulation" because they can easily be done, in exactly the same way, with film and paper. Burning, dodging, contrast reduction and enhancement, stuff like that. There are other techniques that are purely digital; cloning, montages, the like, where things are introduced to the image that never existed int he original. It's my sense that the purpose of "basic editing" rules is to preserve the integrity of the image-as-shot, and that even in "advanced editing" rules there's a line being drawn beyond which we've moved from "photography" into "digital imagery". I'm cool with that; I'm a photographer, not a digital artist. But I've been a photographer for a long time and, for the most part, there's nothing I do in my post processing that doesn't emulate at some level things I did in film/print work. The major exception is that I can selectively blur certain areas of the print, which i could not do in conventional photography, except of course by using carefully-controoled depth of field. Which is why I used a view camera, if it comes to that.

late night ramblings...

Robt.
 01/31/2005 02:40:47 AM · #20
Bear music, you make many good points, most of which I actually agree with. For instance I have long been an advocate of the use of the dodge/burn tools for the basic editing challenges. More precisely, it was when there was only one challenge category. Since the SC had varying opinions on editing we made the decision to split the challenges into two types in addition to the fact that we were growing so rapidly. I fealt that was a fair compromise. Your response to my post confused me a little because you said that the rules retarded the use of the dodge/burn tools and then you discussed issues with the basic editing rules especially when we were specificly discussing the advanced editing rules. The thing is they are available in the advanced editing because they are considered among the advanced editing tools. There use has restrictions but I wouldn't say they are retarded because they can be used freely in order to improve the existing elements of a photo. There use is restricted in that you can't use them to create new elements that never existed in the original photo. You can still freely use the tools much like traditional photographers do. Our whole intent is that for users to be challenged with taking the best photo they can and edit to improve only that photo, not to create a new one in their editor. We do allow for plenty of creativity, however. We still allow alterations of color and values and any in-camera features. So I'm not sure how the use of these tools is considered misguided because all the tools you need for improving your photos is allowed, some just require a membership to allow for the advanced editing.

T

Message edited by author 2005-01-31 02:44:31.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/15/2025 09:55:35 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/15/2025 09:55:35 AM EDT.