| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2006 12:15:42 AM · #1 |
| The results for this challenge have been recalculated due to the disqualification of the 225th place photograph. |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 04:55:34 AM · #2 |
I guess an odd sort of congratulationss then goes to  whiterook. He can now claim 5 for 7 brown ribbons with one honorable mention.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 06:12:22 AM · #3 |
| What is it with whiterook? Is he goofing around on purpose or are his photos legit? |
|
|
|
12/16/2006 08:48:12 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by skylercall:
What is it with whiterook? Is he goofing around on purpose or are his photos legit? |
He's lulling us into a false sense of security, until he can win the "Best of 2006" blue ribbon. : - )
Message edited by author 2006-12-16 08:48:37.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 09:19:55 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
I guess an odd sort of congratulationss then goes to whiterook. He can now claim 5 for 7 brown ribbons with one honorable mention. |
Incredible! I didn't think any one could do this if they tried.....
|
|
|
|
12/16/2006 09:39:50 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
Incredible! I didn't think any one could do this if they tried..... |
I don't think anyone can do this unless they're really trying to. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 10:26:41 PM · #7 |
| The results for this challenge have been recalculated, again, due to the disqualification of the 6th place photograph. Congratulations to all those that advanced. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 10:46:11 PM · #8 |
Thought something wasn't right about that pic...
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 10:50:37 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by xXxscarletxXx:
Thought something wasn't right about that pic... |
Yep...
Message edited by author 2006-12-18 23:05:30. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 11:00:45 PM · #10 |
| It's a beautiful image regardless of where it ended up in the challenge. New users often have a hard time figuring out the ins and outs of the rules here. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 11:08:31 PM · #11 |
I really don't get why people thought there was something wrong it it. The sepia-flavored selective desat is really easy with an isolated red subject.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 11:10:36 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
I really don't get why people thought there was something wrong it it. The sepia-flavored selective desat is really easy with an isolated red subject. |
People see all the leaves on the ground and assume they must be brown, dead leaves, which have a strong red component.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 11:19:31 PM · #13 |
| Everytime I have wanted to do a selective desat for basic editing I end having problems with the tones... Specially with skin tones wich are almost always in the red channel. To desaturate those pinks the dress would have lowered its saturation, and instead of that, it is blood bright red... For me that was what made me think it was not legal editing. |
|
|
|
12/19/2006 02:01:08 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gaby_G:
Everytime I have wanted to do a selective desat for basic editing I end having problems with the tones... Specially with skin tones wich are almost always in the red channel. To desaturate those pinks the dress would have lowered its saturation, and instead of that, it is blood bright red... For me that was what made me think it was not legal editing. |
Weird, my skin tones are always in the yellow channel. And if it were pink, then a slight hue shift into yellow would be enough to dramatically change a skin tone without also dramatically changing a strong color like fire engine red. It would be something closer to orange, but that's easy enough to shift back once the desat work is done. Many dead leaves also would also go into yellow, and the milder reds in the ground cover could be eaten by the sepia anyway. Tinkering with Selective Color, Hue/Sat, Color Balance in minute changes over many adjustment levels can shift colors just enough to isolate something that's in the same channel but on the opposite end of it. I've certainly done that before. I'm not going to jump on the "I don't know how it was done so I'm not going to believe it can be done" bandwagon since none of us really know for sure how it was accomplished and all of the suspicion rests on "if" statements. I see no reason to assume there MUST be something wrong with it. She couldn't find an original, and that seems genuine enough, and it's enough of a reason for me.
Message edited by author 2006-12-19 02:05:01.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2006 02:18:12 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
Originally posted by Gaby_G:
Everytime I have wanted to do a selective desat for basic editing I end having problems with the tones... Specially with skin tones wich are almost always in the red channel. To desaturate those pinks the dress would have lowered its saturation, and instead of that, it is blood bright red... For me that was what made me think it was not legal editing. |
Weird, my skin tones are always in the yellow channel. And if it were pink, then a slight hue shift into yellow would be enough to dramatically change a skin tone without also dramatically changing a strong color like fire engine red. It would be something closer to orange, but that's easy enough to shift back once the desat work is done. Many dead leaves also would also go into yellow, and the milder reds in the ground cover could be eaten by the sepia anyway. Tinkering with Selective Color, Hue/Sat, Color Balance in minute changes over many adjustment levels can shift colors just enough to isolate something that's in the same channel but on the opposite end of it. I've certainly done that before. I'm not going to jump on the "I don't know how it was done so I'm not going to believe it can be done" bandwagon since none of us really know for sure how it was accomplished and all of the suspicion rests on "if" statements. I see no reason to assume there MUST be something wrong with it. She couldn't find an original, and that seems genuine enough, and it's enough of a reason for me. |
Rebecca is right. Konador's tutorial on selective desaturation does just that.
Message edited by author 2006-12-19 04:33:17.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2006 09:09:45 AM · #16 |
I am about to show my geographical ignorance....
"People see all the leaves on the ground and assume they must be brown, dead leaves, which have a strong red component.
R."
If I am not mistaken, she is in Australia or NZ (don't quite remember this). I am in the US and I think the seasons down under are fairly opposite of what we have here? I was curious as to why there were leaves all over the ground when I'm guessing it is Spring or Summer there. I had thought maybe they were older leaves but I was thinking they would look a little more crumpled or not as solid. Or I just have the whole season thing way off base (and am too lazy to check it out). Feel free to correct me!
Message edited by author 2006-12-19 09:10:11.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2006 10:53:04 AM · #17 |
I wonder why, if so many people thought there was something wrong with it, why it apparently never received a single validation request during voting. And yet everyone's jumping all over it now... why, exactly? The leaves. The editing. The geography might be wrong. Nitpicking galore. When  chele pulled it off with her Headwear entry, a much more complicated job in basic editing from the look of it since it kept and hypersaturated every color in the spectrum and yet somehow managed to desaturate everything but the hat, everyone thought she was brilliant, but a relative newbie comes along, does well in her first challenge and stumps almost everyone with a much simpler edit than that rainbow-striped hat, so something has to be wrong? Did everyone just assume in voting that it was taken by one of the DPC masters? But because it was taken by a newcomer instead of one of the post-processing legends or what have you that something must be wrong? I'd like to think it's not a lot of hypocrisy, but it's kinda looking like it. :-/
Message edited by author 2006-12-19 10:54:45.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2006 11:03:08 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by karmabreeze:
I wonder why, if so many people thought there was something wrong with it, why it apparently never received a single validation request during voting. And yet everyone's jumping all over it now... why, exactly? The leaves. The editing. The geography might be wrong. Nitpicking galore. |
No one's jumping all over it... it was questioned, we requested proof, a proof file was not submitted, it was DQ'd. we don't know whether the editing was legal or not, nor will we ever know, since we don't have an original.
'nuf said. |
|
|
|
12/19/2006 11:10:19 AM · #19 |
|
|
|
12/19/2006 11:22:35 AM · #20 |
Right. Which only happened after the challenge ended and not during even though all sorts of folks have stated their suspicions. That's precisely my point. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2006 11:26:53 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
I am about to show my geographical ignorance....
"People see all the leaves on the ground and assume they must be brown, dead leaves, which have a strong red component.
R."
If I am not mistaken, she is in Australia or NZ (don't quite remember this). I am in the US and I think the seasons down under are fairly opposite of what we have here? I was curious as to why there were leaves all over the ground when I'm guessing it is Spring or Summer there. I had thought maybe they were older leaves but I was thinking they would look a little more crumpled or not as solid. Or I just have the whole season thing way off base (and am too lazy to check it out). Feel free to correct me! |
Parts of Australia are in the midst of a five-year drought -- it wouldn't surprise me if there were some dead trees/leaves around regardless of the season. |
|
|
|
12/19/2006 12:24:02 PM · #22 |
When I first looked at that shot, I was awed by it. I wanted to know how it was done in basic editing terms because I had a shot that I wanted to be able to do it to as well. I wanted to learn. People described the process to me and I WAS able to isolate the red in the rose. However, I could NOT get the real "blood red" color in JUST the rose that I was working with. Even adding Sepia did not do it. It was kind of a dull, "fake red" (for lack of better descripitive words). I asked again and tried again. Same thing. Anything that held any tinge of red, was still red in the shot. I didn't see that in that pic. But, again, being a newbie myself, I figured that I just wasn't as skilled at it as others were.
But, I looked closer at the gown in that shot. And, when you look really closely, you'll see a sharp, flat line at the bottom of the dress. It doesn't follow the curve of the fabric. There's also a bit of red on the woman's arm....as though the red either bled, or was "brushed" into the dress.
Then, there was the leaf question. I had that thought as well...the red that is usually in leaves, the question of what time of year it was, etc.. It looked to me like the entire thing had followed the process that others had described (desat everything but the red and add sepia), but, had been possibly selected/brushed to pump up the quality/brilliance of the red.
And, Karma, you're right....as a newbie myself to this, and still learning and trying to learn, it can be confusing as to what's legal and what isn't. I'm still double and quadruple questioning what I can do and what I can't.
And, you're equally right that there are so many in here that have top-notch editing skills and programs that for those of us who don't have all of that, we're far beneath the ability to reach that type of quality without a lot of learning. I think that's also why a lot of people kind of stopped and questioned this. Mind you, it's possible that the entrant was already very skilled and simply was able to do what was done because of knowledge. But, it was kind of questionable.
I really wish the entrant could have found the original to have proved its validity. It would have been nice to have found out one way or the other and if it was legitimately edited under basic rules, it would have been a wonderful thing. |
|
|
|
12/19/2006 12:40:46 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by PhotoInterest:
But, I looked closer at the gown in that shot. And, when you look really closely, you'll see a sharp, flat line at the bottom of the dress. It doesn't follow the curve of the fabric. There's also a bit of red on the woman's arm....as though the red either bled, or was "brushed" into the dress. |
I didn't want to weigh in on this, but the above paragraph caught my attention as there was one area of the dress I questioned. The lower right corner of the dress displays an extreme right angle - very sharp and distinct. I downloaded the photo, raised up the levels and contrast then viewed the shot at 600% - in particular that corner. I am no expert, but looking at this area this way, to me, clearly shows that there was selection or brushing made of some sort. The dark red clearly does not follow the dress outline and the leaves in the area are colored red where the dress should be but isn't. Also, as stated above, there is clearly red on the arm along the dress line.
I don't know if this proves anything, but if someone else would check to confirm or refute this I wouldn't mind.
Message edited by author 2006-12-19 12:43:04. |
|
|
|
12/19/2006 12:44:26 PM · #24 |
This image:
from another challenge is a fantastic example of how selective desaturation can be done in basic, and look totally like it can't be done. I was amazed to see that this could be done, and so easily.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2006 01:10:28 PM · #25 |
I thought DPC strips EXIF viewer information for challenge entries. Evidently not all get stripped. I used the FxIF EXIF extension for Firefox. I added the bold.
Camera Make: SONY
Camera Model: DSC-P41
Image Date: 2004:09:01 20:29:49
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 5.0mm
Exposure Time: 0.125 s (1/8)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: -1.00
White Balance: Manual
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Landscape Mode
Exposure Mode: Manual
|
|
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: 09/19/2025 03:05:01 AM EDT.
