???????????DQ - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/15/2008 12:45:42 AM · #1

With all the photos with black or white or colored backgrounds, I cannot see how by viewing this photo it was picked out for validation, when there are at least 26 photos with plain backgrounds showing no elements supporting the product.
My Processing was done by selecting and using the gradient map, sliding the location slider to 52% had I only gone to 57% a very faint outline was visible.I wonder if the person who asked for validation did the same with the other photos of the same finish.

Original

Submission

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/15/2008 12:50:49 AM · #2

Brian

You changed the image from a computer and boxes on a table, to a computer and boxes floating mid air. I am aware that if the table hadn't have been noticeable in the cropped version then it maybe would have been different. Also the vivid blue does not represent the initial support for the subjects.

I know there is confusion over cloning out strings and other supports, as well as changing colours...like the gradient that was used in De Sousa's image...or maybe it was because SC doesn't like that colour blue...you will have to ask them the full reasoning to your DQ. I am very sorry to hear of your demise though.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

09/15/2008 12:51:06 AM · #3

Blank backgrounds are one of the most commonly requested reasons for validation (vignettes in Basic are another biggie).

BeeCee

Nikon D40

09/15/2008 02:33:08 AM · #4

It's pretty obvious in this one that you replaced the entire background; there's no depth, no nuances of light, nothing that looks remotely natural or possible for a white backdrop.

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

09/15/2008 04:41:26 AM · #5

Apparently, it's okay for some people, but not for others.

kevip6

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/15/2008 05:15:33 AM · #6

I would have to agree with a DQ on that entry, the background has just been selected and replaced.

Had you used a white sheet or something similar to create a uniform backdrop/scoop then maybe it would be different as there would be nothing in the shot to "remove"

Just my opinion of course :0)

09/15/2008 06:17:34 AM · #7

Originally posted by Mick:

Apparently, it's okay for some people, but not for others.

VERY INTERESTING,

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/15/2008 06:27:42 AM · #8

Originally posted by BeeCee:

It's pretty obvious in this one that you replaced the entire background; there's no depth, no nuances of light, nothing that looks remotely natural or possible for a white backdrop.

SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT JUST LOOKING AT THE PHOTO YOUR typical viewer's description of the photograph (aside from color),WAS CHANGED? AND YOU SAID TO YOURSELF NO ELEMENTS SUPPORTING THE PRODUCTS, I DON'T BELIEVE LIGHT IS AN ISSUE AS AN ELEMENT.

bobonacus

Canon EOS-7D

09/15/2008 06:34:09 AM · #9

Originally posted by Mick:

Apparently, it's okay for some people, but not for others.

But that is different ....

That had a plain background flattened

This had a table removed which is a fairly major object imho. If it had been shot on a plain piece of paper or something I suspect it would have been fine to flatten out any creases with dodge or burn.

timfythetoo

Apple iPhone 16 Pro Max

09/15/2008 06:42:52 AM · #10

I would have called this image up for validation. It looks like it was cut and pasted onto a new background. And from looking at the original its obvious that it was.

Now I know that you have issues with

aimeethetoo's entry -

. This was shot on a black muslin sheet. The bike was held up by the kickstand which is not visible because it was on the other side of the bike and the light was coming from in front and way high (I know cause I was holding the light). Nothing was cloned out or removed though some of the sheet was probably burned to clean up any light spillage. The background was always black, there was no cutting/pasting or major cloning that I know of. Now had I been standing in the shot with my arm visibly holding the bike up and she had cloned it out then it would be dqable. IMO my arm would be the equivalent of your table - IMHO.

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

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

09/15/2008 06:59:48 AM · #11

BrianR, you PMed me how this shot

was done. I answered your PM, not knowing you would make such a big fuzz out of your DQ (which is obvious to me, BTW). I told you, the bottles and fake ice cubes were supported by dry ice paellets, which lay in a white styrofoam box, the box itself was in a light tent. So you saw, it is possible to get a white (or black) background without breaking rules, when all the surrounding objects are white (or black). Lighting is very much an issue with these kind of shots. Your own entry has TWO differently colored backgrounds behind your subject and that is one reason, why the major object rule has been broken (I guess). The other (probably minor) reason was filling the background with blue.

Dirt_Diver

Nikon D3s

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

09/15/2008 07:14:44 AM · #12

Sorry to hear about your DQ. I would say it was DQ'd because of the table everything is sitting on. If it was all continuous then it might have made it but when removing a whole background like that it's very risky.

If you think you were cheated view my DQ here

Shutter-For-Hire

Nikon D90

Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D

09/15/2008 07:35:39 AM · #13

I was under the impression that we couldn't add or change the background in any way... thats why I took four huge sheets of white paper to the park for this shot

bobonacus

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

09/15/2008 07:41:11 AM · #14

Originally posted by Shutter-For-Hire:

I was under the impression that we couldn't add or change the background in any way... thats why I took four huge sheets of white paper to the park for this shot

"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."

If you had not used the white card and just dodge'd the buildings out you would have removed major features from your shot

Shutter-For-Hire

Nikon D90

Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D

09/15/2008 07:56:02 AM · #15

hmmm... nice tip =) i'll have to try that...

just on a side note... My method would also work for basic editing...

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

09/15/2008 08:04:49 AM · #16

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

...and for an interesting read (for the newbies) --> DQ'ed question

09/15/2008 09:18:04 AM · #17

Originally posted by eyewave:

BrianR, you PMed me how this shot was done. I answered your PM, not knowing you would make such a big fuzz out of your DQ (which is obvious to me, BTW). I told you, the bottles and fake ice cubes were supported by dry ice paellets, which lay in a white styrofoam box, the box itself was in a light tent. So you saw, it is possible to get a white (or black) background without breaking rules, when all the surrounding objects are white (or black). Lighting is very much an issue with these kind of shots. Your own entry has TWO differently colored backgrounds behind your subject and that is one reason, why the major object rule has been broken (I guess). The other (probably minor) reason was filling the background with blue.

Just to clear things up I am not making a big fuss about my DQ, more to the point trying to learn how all the different backgrounds are obtained for DPC Challenges.
As this is a site for learning as well as doing, you do not get any answers unless you ask.