My 4th place got DQ - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

03/28/2007 01:54:58 PM · #51

I understand why this was dq'd but like Achoo said, there is a fine line. I hate to bring another image into this to compare to but if I was srugolo I would've felt that my editing was legal based on Cindi's Evolution Revolution cloning on the right side. Not saying that she should've been dq'd at all but just that the rules are sorta hard to follow sometimes. What some see as adding a "Major" element, others don't.

03/28/2007 01:58:36 PM · #52

Originally posted by dudephil:

I would've felt that my editing was legal based on Cindi's Evolution Revolution cloning on the right side.

This wasn't a background issue, it was a matter of adding shapes/objects that weren't in the original (the beams of light). No objects were added in Cindi's.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

03/28/2007 02:04:37 PM · #53

But neither did SandyP on her Whispers of Gold image. Didn't she just darken the background?

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

03/28/2007 02:09:54 PM · #54

Originally posted by scalvert:

This wasn't a background issue, it was a matter of adding shapes/objects that weren't in the original (the beams of light). No objects were added in Cindi's.

Exactly. Per the DQ notice on the image:

Disqualification Details
"You may not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture."

I'm not seeing where this is that difficult to understand.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

03/28/2007 02:14:27 PM · #55

Originally posted by dudephil:

Didn't she just darken the background?

No, Sandy essentially removed the entire background (a stone wall). Idnic's background was all black except for a piece of gray fabric along the right edge.

chimericvisions

Canon EOS-60D

03/28/2007 02:14:49 PM · #56

Originally posted by Greetmir:

well what I don't understand is ... was it the rectangular blasts of light below the window that were created or only the 4 point starburst?

There is no "starburst". Those are the tiles on the floor, clearly visible in the original.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

03/28/2007 02:15:36 PM · #57

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scalvert:
This wasn't a background issue, it was a matter of adding shapes/objects that weren't in the original (the beams of light). No objects were added in Cindi's.

Exactly. Per the DQ notice on the image:

Disqualification Details
"You may not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture."

I'm not seeing where this is that difficult to understand.

If you don't see where it's difficult to understand then why chime the hell in? I'm just trying to understand the difference between the legality of creating a background element vs creating a foreground element.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

03/28/2007 02:21:35 PM · #58

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by dudephil:
Didn't she just darken the background?

No, Sandy essentially removed the entire background (a stone wall). Idnic's background was all black except for a piece of gray fabric along the right edge.

I understand but like I said, it's gray. Where would the cutoff point be? If half of Sandy's original background was solid black would it have been legal to make the other half black? 1/4? 1/8? Really not trying to be a dick and hope I'm not coming across that way but the lines are certainly confusing at times.

03/28/2007 02:21:42 PM · #59

Originally posted by dudephil:

I'm just trying to understand the difference between the legality of creating a background element vs creating a foreground element.

Where was a background element created? It shouldn't be that difficult to understand: you can't create a "thing" that didn't already exist in the original (shafts of light, sparkles, rainbows, etc.), but you can darken or lighten existing areas in Advanced or clone out small distractions as long as you don't obscure something important in the process (detailed background is important because it shows the context).

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

03/28/2007 02:23:32 PM · #60

Sorry, guess I'm just a dumbass.

Edited for stupidity :D

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 14:37:16.

03/28/2007 02:28:50 PM · #61

Originally posted by dudephil:

If half of Sandy's original background was solid black would it have been legal to make the other half black?

A basic description of the photo's elements should remain the same from capture to entry. If the captured image is basically a flamingo on a featureless background, then you can change the color or clone away some distraction intruding on the edge as long as the background remains featureless. If the captured image is basically a flamingo in front of a stone wall, then that stone wall should remain visible in some way.

Common sense should guide you on most of these... is the thing you want to hide or clone out prominent or a minor distraction? If you're not sure about a specific image, then ask.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

03/28/2007 02:40:21 PM · #62

Now that makes sense. If I'm reading this correctly if Sandy had taken this in a studio with a solid white backdrop then she could've changed the background to solid black because it didn't have any textured features to begin with, correct?

03/28/2007 02:51:20 PM · #63

Correct. Detailed backgrounds stay detailed, featureless backgrounds stay featureless, and you can fix a minor intrusion on either.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

03/28/2007 03:05:43 PM · #64

Originally posted by dudephil:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scalvert:
This wasn't a background issue, it was a matter of adding shapes/objects that weren't in the original (the beams of light). No objects were added in Cindi's.

Exactly. Per the DQ notice on the image:

Disqualification Details
"You may not use ANY editing tool to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didn't already exist in your original capture."

I'm not seeing where this is that difficult to understand.

If you don't see where it's difficult to understand then why chime the hell in? I'm just trying to understand the difference between the legality of creating a background element vs creating a foreground element.

Sorry "dude". I thought we were discussing the (originally) 4th place image from the 'Color Portrait' challenge that was DQ'd (see thread title). :D

Glad you got it worked out.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

03/28/2007 03:57:02 PM · #65

Like I said to begin with, "I understand why this was dq'd...." so it was hardly a discussion as to why the original image was disqualified but how it compared to Sandy's and Cindi's images as far as the rules go. I had looked at Cindi's shot the same as creating an element and wondered how it differed. Now I know - I think.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

03/28/2007 04:26:22 PM · #66

I do think that Shannon is putting on a brave face and making it sound much clearer than it really is. The difference between Sandy's shot and Cindi's is really quite small. If I were SC (thank goodness I'm not) and were forced to choose, I would have DQ'd Cindi and not Sandy.

The real answer is it is subjective so the more you do the more risk you run getting a DQ. You might get away with it, but you may not. Also, at any given time different SC members are voting so it isn't even the same body of people making the decisions.

It's as good a system as we've got, so we need to go with it, but for those who can handle the truth, the answer is, yes, it is subjective.

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 16:26:48.

yann

03/28/2007 04:43:57 PM · #67

When you dodge an object, it's like creating more light on that object.

The cool thing here is that he created an object that is in fact just light hitting particles.

To simplify, you can create light on an object, but not on particles, which is kinda contradictory since particles (even when floating in the air) are still very small objects.

Did I get this right? ;)

srugolo

Nikon D800

03/28/2007 04:45:50 PM · #68

Nice interpretation ;-)

Originally posted by yann:

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/28/2007 04:47:07 PM · #69

Originally posted by yann:

Not exactly. Had Srugolo brighten that whole wall evenly he wouldn't have gotten DQed. It was the specific shapes that was created which produced the rays that was the problem not the fact that brightness/light was added.

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

03/28/2007 04:55:05 PM · #70

Originally posted by yann:

To simplify, you can create light on an object, but not on particles, which is kinda contradictory since particles (even when floating in the air) are still very small objects.

Did I get this right? ;)

I'd say no, you didn't get this right. You can add light to an entire area, or to an object as a whole, or part of an object that has boundaries to begin with. You can't create stripes where there weren't any.

srugolo

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

03/28/2007 04:57:24 PM · #71

Not exactly.

Nobody is using D&B to darken or brighten evenly. The problem here is that the result is some recognizable shape. So my learning at the end is: if you use something that turns into any form of geometric shape (circles, rectangles, square, or whatever is a recognizable shape in our culture) it is not legal; if you use D&B in a way that doesn't produce geometric shapes (I mean pseudo-random shapes), this is legal.

If I have had in my head a clear explanation of the word "feature" as "some sort of recognizable shape" I would have never done that Post Processing as the subject is not the light, but my daughter and her expression. Unfortunately, for non english speaking people, the word feature is not so clear in that direction...

Silvestro.

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by yann:
When you dodge an object, it's like creating more light on that object.

The cool thing here is that he created an object that is in fact just light hitting particles.

To simplify, you can create light on an object, but not on particles, which is kinda contradictory since particles (even when floating in the air) are still very small objects.

Did I get this right? ;)

Not exactly. Had Srugolo brighten that whole wall evenly he wouldn't have gotten DQed. It was the specific shapes that was created which produced the rays that was the problem not the fact that brightness/light was added.

kellyrc01

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

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

03/28/2007 04:59:29 PM · #72

This has me questioning a photo I would live to submit for an advanced editing challenge. I have a photo where I have blurred the background to make the images in front stand out more & I know the rules say you can add effects to all or some of the image (which I have done), but now I'm second guessing myself that this is okay. Any advice would be appreciated!

Message edited by author 2007-03-28 16:59:43.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

03/28/2007 05:14:23 PM · #73

Originally posted by srugolo:

Nobody is using D&B to darken or brighten evenly. The problem here is that the result is some recognizable shape. So my learning at the end is: if you use something that turns into any form of geometric shape (circles, rectangles, square, or whatever is a recognizable shape in our culture) it is not legal; if you use D&B in a way that doesn't produce geometric shapes (I mean pseudo-random shapes), this is legal.

You know, that will never get written down, but I bet it's the closest thing to the truth there is.

03/28/2007 05:18:32 PM · #74

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by srugolo:
The problem here is that the result is some recognizable shape. So my learning at the end is: if you use something that turns into any form of geometric shape (circles, rectangles, square, or whatever is a recognizable shape in our culture) it is not legal...

You know, that will never get written down, but I bet it's the closest thing to the truth there is.

It's already written down: You may... apply filters, effects, dodge & burn, and other tools to all or part of your entry, but NO new shapes or features may be created in the process.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5