Impressionism: Wow! DPC has changed...

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

09/14/2007 05:22:14 PM · #80

Originally posted by mad_brewer:

Because your "noise stars" would be a new element, instead of just added noise or texture. Are you referring to Rebecca's DQ in the free study?

No, I'm talking about yellow in Impressionism. Look at it. there are flecks of white all over the picture that are not present in the original. One man's texture is another man's element and it is not clear to me at all why these flecks would be ok while dodging stars out of noise would not. (personally I think both should be illegal, but if yellow is deemed legal I am always willing to use all the tools available to me).

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/14/2007 05:32:13 PM · #81

Originally posted by levyj413:

So the question is: if you make a starfield by sharpening noise that's there but low contrast, are you going to be DQ'd?

I've had a couple of entries similar to this which were ruled legal, but I think* the key factors in making that determination were:
1. the noise was present in the original capture
2. there was no local editing (e.g. Dodge/Burn) -- all effects were produced by global application of color adjustments and UnSharp Mask (i.e., legal under Basic Editing)

*I don't know the actual reasons because I don't read any threads where validation of my entry is being considered

And a related image ...

Message edited by author 2007-09-14 17:42:00.

Jutilda

Canon EOS-7D

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro for Canon

09/14/2007 08:25:52 PM · #82

<>

Just getting around to reading this and I have to say I totally agree. I didn't enter, so no sour grapes here.

chip_k

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/14/2007 08:41:37 PM · #83

Call me Shirley, but I totally expected PAINT Impressionism. I had no CLUE the other existed.

I do think it would have been really cool to run it under BASIC rules. That way, people are forced to come up with through-the-lens creativity.

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

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

09/14/2007 09:37:42 PM · #84

Originally posted by chip_k:

Don't worry, I'm sure it'll be around again. :)

dtremain

Canon EOS 80D

Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 II

09/14/2007 10:31:33 PM · #85

Not sure BASIC would have helped. Voters did not like "Boys", and it was done without in-camera or filter or editing effects.

posthumous liked it well enough for a Red, but don't count on an unusual effect being rewarded by the voting public.

I appreciated this challenge for two reasons - it forced me to do something with my camera that I had never consciously attempted and it forced me to go to the internet to try to figure out what "impressionism" was. I felt my shot had all of the elements, except bright colors (and they just were not there).

Considering the definitions of "impressionism" I would expect a little more leeway on software / filters that achieve some of the hallmark features of impressionism than would be OK in another type of challenge.

EyeTrap

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

09/14/2007 11:26:42 PM · #86

Originally posted by chip_k:

Agreed, in cases like this where the challenge is to create an effect from a camera basic would be more appropriate because it forces one to try to come up with techniques or try new things rather then rely on filters to get the desired effect.

FWIW... i used filters and had i not i think my entry would have done worse but at the same time... i didn't think too much about ways to capture it without filters. I had one possible entry that used water reflection but the bow of the boat looked a little too distorted so opted for the one i entered.

I'll create a challenge outtake folder. I'd be interested to know what peoples 'impressions' :P of it are... ok after that bad line i'll go crawl back into my hole hehe

Here is a none filter entry (pretty much basic editing rules [thumb]586949[/thumb])

Message edited by author 2007-09-14 23:28:17.

fotomann_forever

09/15/2007 03:31:46 AM · #87

Originally posted by dtremain:

Considering the definitions of "impressionism" I would expect a little more leeway on software / filters that achieve some of the hallmark features of impressionism than would be OK in another type of challenge.

Rules are rules, no matter what the challenge. Truth is most photos in this challenge used a filter to create a feature that would change a typical viewers description of the image. I guess mass DQs aren't going to happen though. I just hope that if there is a next time that either a flag will be added, or the challenge will run under Basic or Minimum rules or Expert (if we want to have most of the photos actually be legal).

alexzen

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

09/15/2007 09:09:32 AM · #88

I approached this challenge assuming filters were not allowed. So, I submitted a sample to the SC first to get their opinion before deciding which way to go.

The response from SC was

'filters are fine, but be aware that heavy application may get voted down...'.

I admit I was swayed by the fact that a) one of the ribbons in the prior Impressionism used a filter and 2) that I would be competing with lots of images that did use a filter.

While I would have liked to have explored in-camera effects, I opted out and used PS knowing that is what I would most likely be competing with. (...I know....no integrity....)

bleu

Canon EOS-5D

09/15/2007 07:16:12 PM · #89

I did not use a filter and my image did not do well. Maybe next time-I'll try it. nah! I still think it is a little cheesy. Some did apply them in moderation and I think they worked well ON SOME!

09/15/2007 07:48:40 PM · #90

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Look at it. there are flecks of white all over the picture that are not present in the original.

Indeed. :-/

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Truth is most photos in this challenge used a filter to create a feature that would change a typical viewers description of the image.

In the rules, changing a typical viewer's description of the image refers to elements that are moved, removed or duplicated, not filters.

Message edited by author 2007-09-15 19:51:48.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

09/15/2007 08:05:33 PM · #91

Originally posted by bleu:

I did not use a filter and my image did not do well.

From the scores thread-

Originally posted by scalvert:

I find it highly amusing to see those who used filters worried about low votes at the same time those who didn't use filters worry about competing against those who did. :-/

News flash: it doesn't matter. Both approaches have one thing in common... neither guarantees a good (or bad) image, and scores are usually a measure of the end result, not the path you took to get there. We all have different tastes, and a shrewd visual chef will appeal to most (but not all) regardless of the ingredients available.

The blue ribbon entry used a filter, the red ribbon didn't. Obviously, success was possible either way.

sh0rty

Nikon D70s

09/15/2007 08:26:26 PM · #92

Originally posted by Gordon:

6th place in impressionism I

205th place impressionism II :)

Missed out on my first brown ribbon :(
New lowest score ever :)

If by "brown ribbon" you mean last place...sorry I stole that one from you. I knew it would do bad...but I never imagined I could achieved such an honor with it. ;-)

sh0rty :P

Message edited by author 2007-09-15 20:27:35.

zxaar

09/15/2007 08:33:32 PM · #93

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Look at it. there are flecks of white all over the picture that are not present in the original.

Indeed. :-/

I think there is a difference between flecks and dots of noise. Second, drachoo image still look like a photo, though altered. But the other image in question looks like painting not photo after the filter is being applied. (not arguing whether legal or not, just pointing out the obvious difference).

09/15/2007 08:39:46 PM · #94

Originally posted by zxaar:

I think there is a difference between flecks and dots of noise.

The contention was that white specks constituted an added element. There are added white specks in both. Yes, noise is allowed in Basic, but filters are allowed in Advanced, too.

Originally posted by zxaar:

Second, drachoo image still look like a photo, though altered. But the other image in question looks like painting not photo after the filter is being applied.

There's no rule against looking like a painting. Tonemapping, color shifts and excessive Neat Image can all result in a painted appearance.

zxaar

09/15/2007 08:45:44 PM · #95

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by zxaar:
I think there is a difference between flecks and dots of noise.

The contention was that white specks constituted an added element. There are added white specks in both. Yes, noise is allowed in Basic, but filters are allowed in Advanced, too.

Originally posted by zxaar:
Second, drachoo image still look like a photo, though altered. But the other image in question looks like painting not photo after the filter is being applied.

There's no rule against looking like a painting. Tonemapping, color shifts and excessive Neat Image can all result in a painted appearance.

probably you failed to read this in my post :

Originally posted by zxaar:

(not arguing whether legal or not, just pointing out the obvious difference).

I understood what you were saying.

09/15/2007 08:55:01 PM · #96

Originally posted by zxaar:

probably you failed to read this in my post :

Originally posted by zxaar:
(not arguing whether legal or not, just pointing out the obvious difference).

I understood what you were saying.

Nope, I read it. I just don't agree that there's an obvious difference. The principles are the same IMO.

fotomann_forever

09/15/2007 09:23:38 PM · #97

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Truth is most photos in this challenge used a filter to create a feature that would change a typical viewers description of the image.

In the rules, changing a typical viewer's description of the image refers to elements that are moved, removed or duplicated, not filters.

Does an artistic filter not move pixels? Does it not do this in much the same way as the radial or motion blur filters?

09/15/2007 10:00:49 PM · #98

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Does an artistic filter not move pixels? Does it not do this in much the same way as the radial or motion blur filters?

Many filters move pixels (USM, lens correction, etc.). It's adding the sense of motion that makes the others illegal, as specifically noted in the rules.

fotomann_forever

09/15/2007 10:04:11 PM · #99

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Does an artistic filter not move pixels? Does it not do this in much the same way as the radial or motion blur filters?

Many filters move pixels (USM, lens correction, etc.). It's adding the sense of motion that makes the others illegal, as specifically noted in the rules.

But adding a sense of a painting is different?