How I got the shadows - DPChallenge Forums

11/02/2005 02:44:43 PM · #1

I've been asked how I got the shadow effect on my Light on White image. Pretty simple really. Didn't really do much except RAW conversion and level adjustments and then color saturation.

The starfish was store bought and I used a piece of specialty glass from our architectural library here at work. Shot next to an open window and processed. It seems people thought it was created via PS hence the validation request.

Here are some outtakes:

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D

11/02/2005 02:54:37 PM · #2

you know whats astounding more then your shadows, is the fact that it took 41st place,
I feel there are many shots that yours should have placed in front of,
this is a great photo,

GOOD JOB,

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/02/2005 02:59:17 PM · #3

Whoot. That image could easily run afoul of the "removal of major elements" rule, based on past decisions I've seen handed down...

R.

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/02/2005 03:03:01 PM · #4

Originally posted by bear_music:

Whoot. That image could easily run afoul of the "removal of major elements" rule, based on past decisions I've seen handed down...

R.

Doesn't seem exactly on par with a chocolate brown couch.
=o

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

11/02/2005 03:04:34 PM · #5

Originally posted by bear_music:

Whoot. That image could easily run afoul of the "removal of major elements" rule, based on past decisions I've seen handed down...

R.

hmmmm.... good point! shhhhhhh! ;D

ajschel

Fujifilm FinePix X100S

11/02/2005 03:06:30 PM · #6

But isn't it so that he didn't remove elements, but simply made them disappear by smart colour adjustments? Have entries really been dq'ed on element disappearance grounds like this was done?

11/02/2005 03:11:08 PM · #7

Originally posted by ajschel:

But isn't it so that he didn't remove elements, but simply made them disappear by smart colour adjustments? Have entries really been dq'ed on element disappearance grounds like this was done?

In a nutshell, yes. It's a large gray area. One criterion I've heard they apply is "How would you describe this image as an original? And how would you descrive the submitted image?" In this case, the ripples are a major component of the original composition, and they have been obliterated.

I'm just discussing based on what I've seen, not expressing my own opinion re: right/wrongness of the action.

R.

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D

11/02/2005 03:13:10 PM · #8

I dont think he completly removed the backgroudn he said he used a piece of glass, so if you put a piece of glass about 2 or 3 inches above the white background and have the light shine through at and angle that will creat a shadow on the white below.
wouldnt it ?

11/02/2005 03:13:58 PM · #9

Come to think of it, the image has ALREADY been validated, right? So I guess that answers that question :-)

R.

11/02/2005 03:14:34 PM · #10

hehehehehe... see where i get myself into? trying to show tricks yet ending up putting my foot in my mouth :)

it is indeed a gray area but since a validation request was issued and handled by SC, of which they felt it was ok, I guess I made it barely across that threshold...

whew!

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

11/02/2005 03:14:36 PM · #11

Originally posted by TroyMosley:

The rippled surface IS the glass; those are before-and-after-processing examples of the same image.

R.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

11/02/2005 03:15:53 PM · #12

I don't see where major elements have been removed? I can see that it has been overexposed to the extent where the background has been blitzed out. If that constitutes a major element, then any high key shot is illegal.

Steve

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D

11/02/2005 03:19:02 PM · #13

ahh i c now,

11/02/2005 03:19:35 PM · #14

Originally posted by Formerlee:

Not if the high-key effect was created in-camera by overlighting the BG... But you're right, it's been asked and answered. He overexposed it in PS (or RAW I guess) and lost the bg, not much different from overexposing it in-camera to the same effect I suppose. Especially since anything we do to an image in a RAW converter seems to be considered as being "in-camera adjustment"...

R.

11/02/2005 03:25:58 PM · #15

Originally posted by bear_music:

This is a good point Robert. I never understood why RAW was considered "in-camera" adjustments. I took it in RSE and processed the exposure and the rest was in PS.

Interesting fact.

hanneke

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/02/2005 04:01:19 PM · #16

Originally posted by bear_music:

Especially since anything we do to an image in a RAW converter seems to be considered as being "in-camera adjustment"...

R.

Not really true. I had to re-post-process my "what?" photo because I used vignetting (this wasn't official, but i did it to be sure)

check this thread

Message edited by author 2005-11-02 16:01:57.

11/02/2005 04:02:30 PM · #17

Originally posted by rikki11:

This is a good point Robert. I never understood why RAW was considered "in-camera" adjustments. I took it in RSE and processed the exposure and the rest was in PS.

Interesting fact.

If you don't shoot RAW, you are using your camera's computer/software to set white balance, sharpness, color saturation, contrast, all that stuff. Your camera allows you to change these settings according to the need of the shot. But in all cases the raw info being sent to the sensor by the lens is the same. A computer is making decisions on how to interpret that info.

When you shoot RAW, you replace the camera's computer with your own computer, and make those decisions in an environment that affords you the time to make them intelligently and experiment with different weightings of the adjustments. So in any meaningful way I consider these in-camera adjustments.

What I do NOT understand is why so many people think you're a more skilled photographer if you "program" these decisions into the camera before making the shot, as opposed to doing the same after shooting... Makes no sense to me at all.

Robt.

11/02/2005 04:04:11 PM · #18

Originally posted by biteme:

Originally posted by bear_music:
Especially since anything we do to an image in a RAW converter seems to be considered as being "in-camera adjustment"...

R.

Not really true. I had to re-post-process my "what?" photo because I used vignetting (this wasn't official, but i did it to be sure)

check this thread

Yah that's true; some of the more sophistcated RAW editors are crossing the line, so to speak, and I'm aware that SC is working on how to deal with this. But in terms of contrast, sharpness, white balance, exposure etc if it's done in RAW it's considered to be in-camera.

R.

11/02/2005 04:05:02 PM · #19

Originally posted by bear_music:

What I do NOT understand is why so many people think you're a more skilled photographer if you "program" these decisions into the camera before making the shot, as opposed to doing the same after shooting... Makes no sense to me at all.

I personally don't have time to "pre-program" these prior to the shot especially candid ones. By the time you're done programming, the action is done.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

11/02/2005 04:09:30 PM · #20

Originally posted by rikki11:

I personally don't have time to "pre-program" these prior to the shot especially candid ones. By the time you're done programming, the action is done.

There are those who would say that the "true skill" of the photographer is to anticipate and be prepared. In earlier film days, you made those decisions by choosing the appropriate film and presetting your aperture/shutter speed BEFORE shooting your candids. Then along came auto-exposure and exposure in general got "easier"; the purists said real photographers didn't use auto-exposure. Then came auto-focus, and candids got a LOT easier; the purists were tearing their hair out at this development, but fortunately auto-exposure was SLOW so experienced, fast-racking photographers still had an edge. THEN auto-exposure got better and better...

And the beat goes on. Always some new advance. RAW is golden, RAW is great!

R.

ajschel

Fujifilm FinePix X100S

11/02/2005 04:12:29 PM · #21

Me loves RAW! ;-)