Admin Validation - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

10/14/2002 09:21:03 PM · #1

There is a photo in this challenge that was validated by the admins, but I am having a very hard time believing the validation, and would really like to know how it was validated.

What do I do? I have left a note on the photo asking the photographer to send me a line, but he has not yet. Not only does it look illegally edited, it looks like it was not done well.

Any input?

I have been wrong before, and I can accept that, but this one really makes me question myself. Usually, once I really look at the photo, I think, oh yeah, of course. But this one I question more everytime I look.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/14/2002 9:20:34 PM.

Jak

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

10/14/2002 09:25:12 PM · #2

Zeiss, having asked for an admin validation, and having received it, my suggestion is we can all wait 5 or 6 days to find out the truth, yes?

FranziskaLang

Nikon D100

10/14/2002 09:26:23 PM · #3

zeiss, having had one of my photos validated before, i believe the admins do an excellent job in following up on dq requests. if the photo in question has an admin note on it that it is illegal, i would trust that it is. vote on it as if it was and then find out more next week if the photographer doesn't get back to you before then. if you really feel you cannot vote on it as an honest submission, don't vote at all to be fair to the photographer.

indigo997

Nikon D70

10/14/2002 10:30:54 PM · #4

You might wanna be sure you signed your comment. I got one asking for a response with no name! Having said that, I know of two others that have been verified and look like they used PS illegally. I personally found out how they were do tho so I agree that you should just vote it as being legal.

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

10/14/2002 10:38:13 PM · #5

I did get one, I just was not patient enough. I still want to know more. This is definitely beyond my current knowledge.

drewmedia

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/14/2002 11:40:38 PM · #6

We do not put admin notes on images without originals and step-by-step instructions on how the effect was acheived. Take our word for it. As for finding out how it was done, I guess patience will have to win this one.

Drew

rapsiii3

Kodak DC3400

10/15/2002 01:42:42 AM · #7

cheater, cheater, cheater! Lets all point and boo. Well, I guess there has to be an accountant in every household. I divorced mine. She cheated.

Konador

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

10/15/2002 02:30:00 AM · #8

Even if a photo does not have an admin note and you think it has worthy grounds for disqualification, then please please request it, and vote as if it was legal.

All DQ requests are discussed in-depth, and ones that deserve to get DQd will. If a photo is indeed legal, we don't want the person to have low votes because people didn't believe them, because that is just unfair. If it turns out that the photo is NOT legal then it will be disqualified and in that case your vote will not count anyway!

Remember:
Always vote on a photo assuming it is legal

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

10/21/2002 03:30:26 PM · #9

Now that this challenge is over, I'm quite curious to learn which shot was in question here... Zeissman? Thanks!

Konador

10/21/2002 03:37:51 PM · #10

I'm guessing it was the 2nd place photo Become Wrath

Zeissman has created another thread concerning this here: (link)

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 3:36:12 PM.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/21/2002 04:20:21 PM · #11

Yes it is "Become Wrath". The whole reason is, I do not konw how to get that affect. Even with the explanation. I will have to play a little with some photos I have and see if I can do it.

Here is what makes me uneasy:
1. Every time I have tried desturation, I cannot get just one color to to remain. They always interfer with each other. I will have to try converting color channels though. But I do not undestand why the skin is not reddish.
2. The hard edge around the color area of the eye looks very unreal.
3. The underneath the red looks like it is in BW and the red is a layer of the BW.

Remember, I was asked. I am not out to try to get this photo DQ'd. But I am very curious. My daughter Hannah has blue eyes, so I will try this with a picture of her at home.

I did not create the other thread, someone else did. I did leave a few comments on the photo though.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 4:19:05 PM.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/21/2002 04:39:30 PM · #12

I think the key step occurs before the desaturation. First do some color manipulation to get the eyes as "pure" a blue as you can; you are essentially isolating the area with a color instead of a mask or selection tool. Once you have an area which is a sufficiently different color than the rest of the image, you can manipulate it in numerous ways...try taking a photo of a piece of colored paper on a plain contrasting background, and against a photo with other colors predominating, to experiment with. I think you can get the odd edges with sharpening effects and tone adjustments.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 4:38:01 PM.

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

10/21/2002 04:48:01 PM · #13

Well here's the question. I know how he got the eyes to be red, that's pretty easy because all he does is he wears a blue contact lens, desaturate it, then increase on the RED channel which will increase the intensity of the blue contact lens.

The question i have is: isn't that spot editing? you are only increasing a color channel and that's it, so it seems to me it's editing only a part of it.

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

10/21/2002 04:51:23 PM · #14

Originally posted by paganini:
...The question i have is: isn't that spot editing? you are only increasing a color channel and that's it, so it seems to me it's editing only a part of it.

No, that's perfectly legal. It may only *affect* one portion of the shot in the end, but it's being *applied* to the whole image.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/21/2002 04:51:39 PM · #15

We've had this debate several times in the forums about selective
channel manipulation. ( you can search for them if you wish )

The collective opinion is that it is valid, and that you can do
transforms on only one colour channel, with the expectation that
viewers will vote accordingly if you take it 'too far'.

So levels can be done on RGB, Red, Green or Blue individually, same
with curves. The proviso is that you cannot mask off a region and
then just manipulate that masked section. But it is valid to adjust
just one channel.

This is covered by the rules saying that the levels or curves commands
are allowed, as these channel manipulations can be directly done via
these commands.

I.e., the 'no selective manipulation' stipulation is applied in the
spatial dimensions not in colour 3space.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 4:50:15 PM.

greenem2

Canon EOS-10D

10/21/2002 04:58:24 PM · #16

Originally posted by Zeissman:
1. Every time I have tried desturation, I cannot get just one color to to remain. They always interfer with each other. I will have to try converting color channels though. But I do not undestand why the skin is not reddish.

The skin is not red because the first thing I did was desaturate red. This left the blue eye and the skin was in B&W. Then I changed the blue hue to red. This does not put the red back in the skin, it stays B&W.

2. The hard edge around the color area of the eye looks very unreal.

There is an edge there because 1)I was wearing contacts, and 2)I boosted the blue with curves, which gave it a harsh edge.

3. The underneath the red looks like it is in BW and the red is a layer of the BW.

I don't really know what you mean by the "underneath." There is black in the eye because it was there in the original and my steps just made it stand out more I guess.

I will post my original in this thread as soon as I get it uploaded somewhere, a little later today probably :)

10/21/2002 05:24:45 PM · #17

How did you convert the color?

10/21/2002 05:34:52 PM · #18

he did not remove the color. Thta is, it's all in either RGB or CMYK mode. Using Grayscale mode would LOSE the color information.

It's the same way to create a duotone image -- you take an image, use channel mixer to convert it to B&W by selecting a channel and then use the saturation button to increase a color. That's it.

Originally posted by Zeissman:
How did you convert the color?

10/21/2002 05:37:21 PM · #19

That's fine.

However, if you use saturation in photoshop, it has THREE buttons on the bottom which are the shadows, midtones, highlights, which selectively saturate each region (i.e. it is a spatial increase in saturation because what it does is it selectively select the region and increase the saturation), the "mask" part is hidden from the user i think.

It doesn't matter to me either way :) i think there are a lot of other programs out there that does not allow the user to selectively choose midtones/highlights to increase saturation. They're missing out :)

Originally posted by Gordon:
We've had this debate several times in the forums about selective
channel manipulation. ( you can search for them if you wish )

The collective opinion is that it is valid, and that you can do
transforms on only one colour channel, with the expectation that
viewers will vote accordingly if you take it 'too far'.

So levels can be done on RGB, Red, Green or Blue individually, same
with curves. The proviso is that you cannot mask off a region and
then just manipulate that masked section. But it is valid to adjust
just one channel.

This is covered by the rules saying that the levels or curves commands
are allowed, as these channel manipulations can be directly done via
these commands.

I.e., the 'no selective manipulation' stipulation is applied in the
spatial dimensions not in colour 3space

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/21/2002 5:35:41 PM.

10/21/2002 05:53:55 PM · #20

I tried this on my "Everything is Rosey" photo, and I was able to get it all in BW except the scarf.

I also figured out how to change the hue. This is what I meant by convert the color.

greenem2

Canon EOS-10D

10/21/2002 05:59:32 PM · #21

Originally posted by Zeissman:
How did you convert the color?

I changed the blue to red under "Hue/Saturation." Select Blue in the "Edit:" box and move the slider until it is red, then boost saturation a bit. (you figured it out I see. Cool)

BTW, here is the original (cropped & resized):

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

10/21/2002 06:38:51 PM · #22

Originally posted by paganini:
he did not remove the color. Thta is, it's all in either RGB or CMYK mode. Using Grayscale mode would LOSE the color information.

It's the same way to create a duotone image -- you take an image, use channel mixer to convert it to B&W by selecting a channel and then use the saturation button to increase a color. That's it.

Just a side point but there are more interesting ways to create duotones
than that.

You can use the channel mixer and actually mix channels to get a more
interesting B&W, and then use the 'duotone' option to add back up to
four distinct colours with different curve profiles. Makes for much
more control and usually much better final results.

More on this approach here