NOT CHALLENGE APPROVED - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/07/2006 01:30:08 PM · #4

Can you post the unedited version?

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

11/07/2006 01:30:18 PM · #5

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 18:16:27.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

11/07/2006 01:35:02 PM · #6

----

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 15:59:19.

fotomann_forever

11/07/2006 01:41:53 PM · #7

I'm not seeing the gloryhole imagery. I see a pretty lady doing the nasty part of drywall work.

justine

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/07/2006 01:44:27 PM · #8

How can I use Photoshop for 17 years and not even know some of these features exist?

I'm lost on this thread..are we talking about Photoshop or a hole in the wall..?
This girl is lovely and the shot is good. I like it and the lighting. I'm not sure what Photoshop work was done here.

Is this over my head?

11/07/2006 01:45:33 PM · #9

Originally posted by justine:

That's what I was saying... I want to see the original!

Screw the @$%! hole!!!

soup

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/07/2006 01:48:44 PM · #10

looks fake to me. not sure how to answer your question. woman needs to blend better with the wall. also who's paying for the holes in the wall?

EDIT: meaning it shouldn't LOOK fake even if it is.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 13:49:38.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/07/2006 02:10:12 PM · #11

I see no picture

darnok

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

11/07/2006 02:38:16 PM · #12

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

I see no picture

Neither do I. This is all very confusing to me...

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50

11/07/2006 02:57:20 PM · #13

This looks like one of those threads that I would have been involved with, but the picture is down, so now I can't be a smart guy too.

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

11/07/2006 04:37:52 PM · #14

Well, I still would've liked to see the original. The image itself was OK, nothing particularly special, but a good shot overall. I was interested in seeing exactly what edits were done. The point of the OP was new found methods in PS. I was curious to see what all was done to the image to prompt the thread.

Oh well... I guess the world shall never know.

k4ffy

11/07/2006 04:46:08 PM · #15

SO CURIOUS!

digitalknight

11/08/2006 06:14:40 PM · #16

After a day I may be able to respond to this civilly.

The models I work with are not simply pretty pieces of meat - they are intelligent, funny, daughters, mothers, sisters.

They know DPC exists, they come to see what people are saying about their photos.

What was implied in this thread still makes me sick to my stomach. If you happen to work with perverts, please keep it to yourself.

I removed all reference to who the photo was of and the photo to spare the feelings of a woman that I respect and admire.

Thank you for acting like professionals in this matter. I'll be sure to think twice before casting my pearls here again -

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50

11/08/2006 06:43:41 PM · #17

All things considered it would be impossible for me to pick a side to stand on without seeing the image in question. From the respose of others, it sounds like image was questionalbe. From the creator it sounds like it was on the level. So who is to say?

wavelength

Nikon D300

11/08/2006 07:02:54 PM · #18

Originally posted by boomtap:

It wasn't, it was just a picture af a woman with her hand next to a large hole in the drywall, and the wall had been edited to add texture.

There was nothing questionable about it, but I think the OP may have been a little too sensitive about it, and probably should have just asked the other posters not to say such things via a PM. drama drama drama.

Jason_Cross

Nikon D50

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

11/08/2006 07:13:50 PM · #19

Ah.

KaDi

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/08/2006 07:14:49 PM · #20

I saw the pic as posted. I saw the comment "pawdrix" posted. I happen to have agreed with the comment...to me, the image looked suggestive (and not in a nice way).

Removing the photo may have left people wondering but since it evoked the perception it did it was only appropriate that, for the sake of the model, it be removed...in my opinion.

It is unfortunate that the application of a newly discovered processing technique resulted in undesired perceptions. Photography can only be about the perceived from the viewers' point of view, no argument about the image nor love for those who are "imaged" changes that...good to keep in mind I think.

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

11/08/2006 07:16:14 PM · #21

Originally posted by KaDi:

hmm, okay, I guess I just didn't see anything there when I glanced yesterday.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

11/08/2006 07:45:23 PM · #22

I would like to publicly apologize for the comment I had made. It was callous of me to think what I had mentioned was of value or in any way.

The OP was as innocent as the image itself. I had just passed on, two co-workers initial reaction to the image from a distance. A non-event and bad error in judgment that I regret.

Entirely, a lame thing to do on my part that tainted an otherwise innocent post.

My fault, of course and again, I do apologize.

digitalknight

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

11/08/2006 07:48:37 PM · #23

Let me add Steve, that I appreciate your apologies both private and public.

Nothing to see here, let's move on...