Free Study April 2009 (advanced editing)

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm f/2.8-4 ASPH

04/28/2009 12:58:06 PM · #1

I was wanting to enter this in the free study but after reading the rules for advanced editing I thought that maybe some of the editing I had done to this image would make it fall foul of the rules.
However, since I put a lot of time and effort into this shot I thought it might be nice to have people see it anyway and post it here and get some feedback on it.
Thanks for looking.

Here is a link to a slightly larger version. //g.imagehost.org/0938/Potato_eaters.jpg

Re-creation of the famous Vincent van Gogh painting "The Potato Eaters"
That's me on the left with my girlfriend looking at me. The older couple are the parents of a good lady friend of mine who own a dairy farm in Brabant Holland and the little girl is the adopted daughter of my friend.
Shot inside a section of the dairy shed.
I had my camera set on 10 second timer and each time after clicking the shutter button had to make a dash for the table and assume my position before the shutter went off.
The lamp, the copper kettle, the little painting on the wall and the chair I am sitting on I purchased specially for the shoot at a second hand store. The chair is an exact replica of the one in the original painting and the lamp is as close as I could get to the original. It was an electric one so I removed the bulb and the electric cabling and stuck a candle in there.
It was not dark yet outside and Kelly the little girl had to go to bed at 8 at the latest as the next day it was school so I blanketed the windows from the outside with black blankets. In editing I used the paint bucket fill to change the color to brown.
The coffee pouring out the spout I also pixel painted in as there was no actual coffee in the kettle.
The potatoes were pre-boiled and cold.

Here is the original by Vincent van Gogh on which I based my re-creation: //f.imagehost.org/0703/aardappeleters_van_gogh.jpg

Message edited by author 2010-01-22 17:09:09.

SoulMan1978

Sony Alpha a55

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

04/28/2009 01:51:46 PM · #2

That's an amazing piece of work Sangiro. Very well done on costumes, lighting, props, set up, everything. Thanks for sharing.

I'm thinking about your editing and I'm wondering if it's illegal after all. By pixel painting I presume you mean painting a specific colour onto specific pixels of your picture? I think that sounds OK provided you do it in moderation. For example I'm sure there's precedent for painting over a plain backdrop (like the black in your windows) with a slightly different colour.

That's one opinion only however, and I'd suggest maybe raising a ticket with SC for their opinion as it outranks mine ;-)

SaraR

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

04/28/2009 02:08:44 PM · #3

That really is incredibly cool, and very well done. I, too, wonder if, with the exception of the pixel painted coffee, it miht actually be advanced legal. Nonetheless, a photo to be proud of, and to celebrate. I hope you have it printed on canvas to hang on your, and your friends, wall.

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

04/28/2009 02:10:23 PM · #4

"The coffee pouring out the spout I also pixel painted in as there was no coffee in the kettle."

That would be a problem with passing validation...

Agree, it's a nice piece of work.

ETA - Oops! Sara was quicker. :-)

Message edited by author 2009-04-28 14:11:42.

SoulMan1978

Sony Alpha a55

04/28/2009 02:20:27 PM · #5

Originally posted by glad2badad:

"The coffee pouring out the spout I also pixel painted in as there was no coffee in the kettle."

Good point. That might be tricky. But it makes for a very small part of the picture I'm wondering if it'll be OK.

The alternative, and you might not like this as it compromises your work somewhat, is to remove the pixels you painted in to the coffee. I think the majority of voters won't notice.

Lutchenko

Nikon D700

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Nikon

04/28/2009 02:22:31 PM · #6

Brilliant job.
I love the fact that you have gone to so much trouble, and have recreated a very significant piece of art in such a beautiful way. (10 from me)

04/28/2009 03:04:17 PM · #7

Originally posted by SoulMan1978:

Originally posted by glad2badad:
"The coffee pouring out the spout I also pixel painted in as there was no coffee in the kettle."

Good point. That might be tricky. But it makes for a very small part of the picture I'm wondering if it'll be OK.

The alternative, and you might not like this as it compromises your work somewhat, is to remove the pixels you painted in to the coffee. I think the majority of voters won't notice.

With the speed at which many vote, I had the same thought...many would miss the coffee.

As for the size of the item in question - if you added a small seagull in flight in the distance on a beach scene would it matter? I ask because this came up before (although it may have been expert editing at the time). Don't think it would fly (no pun intended) in advanced editing either. Where do you draw the line on how big or small an added item is before it's legal or not?

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm f/2.8-4 ASPH

04/28/2009 03:12:44 PM · #8

Thanks for all the wonderful responses guys. That really makes the whole effort worthwhile.
This is the rule in Advanced editing that makes me think that this image would not qualify. And I am not talking only about the coffee pouring from the spout but particularly about the changes I made to the windows and I also cloned out some loose objects that were lying on the floor.
Anyway it would serve no purpose entering the image now as it would not be an anonymous entry anymore.

" You may not use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didnâ��t already exist in your original capture(s)."

Message edited by author 2009-04-28 15:16:44.

citymars

Nikon D700

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

04/28/2009 03:23:33 PM · #9

Good job! Left a comment.

KarenNfld

04/28/2009 04:16:28 PM · #10

Originally posted by Sangiro:

" You may not use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didnâ��t already exist in your original capture(s)."

You could challenge this......I recently brought up a photo from a challenge that had new items added to the photo and SC said because they were hard to see and were not a major element, it didn't matter! Surprise!! Seems like I've been reading the rule wrong all this time.

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm f/2.8-4 ASPH

04/28/2009 04:31:46 PM · #11

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

Originally posted by Sangiro:
" You may not use ANY editing technique to create new image area, objects or features (such as lens flare or motion) that didnâ��t already exist in your original capture(s)."

You could challenge this......I recently brought up a photo from a challenge that had new items added to the photo and SC said because they were hard to see and were not a major element, it didn't matter! Surprise!! Seems like I've been reading the rule wrong all this time.

Interesting Karen. Certainly something to remember for next time.

Simms

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/28/2009 04:36:11 PM · #12

Originally posted by KarenNfld:

I recently brought up a photo from a challenge that had new items added to the photo and SC said because they were hard to see and were not a major element, it didn't matter! Surprise!! Seems like I've been reading the rule wrong all this time.

What?! wow, lets ee a before and after - I thought adding any elements was a strict no-no.

KarenNfld

04/28/2009 05:29:54 PM · #13

Originally posted by Simms:

Originally posted by KarenNfld:
I recently brought up a photo from a challenge that had new items added to the photo and SC said because they were hard to see and were not a major element, it didn't matter! Surprise!! Seems like I've been reading the rule wrong all this time.

What?! wow, lets ee a before and after - I thought adding any elements was a strict no-no.

I don't have a before, it was someone elses photo, I just saw the shapes added after. But SC tells me it's ok. "shrug"

Ecce_Signum

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/28/2009 05:39:53 PM · #14

Surely as its a photographic 'copy' of a painting then the coffee becomes a major element? It would be much easier to 'paint' the coffee in then get the lady to hold that heavy pot and count to ten before pouring? That said its a great image!

basssman7

Nikon D500

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

04/30/2009 02:01:59 PM · #15

I do not think there is any doubt it would be illegal. :(

The windows you might get around by cloning instead of painting over the cracks. The lightening on your face could be done with the dodge tool and then selected and colour changed. However creating the coffee is not going to work.

Awesome work though! You should be proud of this one, it rocks!

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/30/2009 02:06:30 PM · #16

Originally posted by basssman7:

The windows you might get around by cloning instead of painting over the cracks.

Wouldn't cloning still be adding something that wasn't there? Perhaps it's not a large enough area to be concerned with. A selection and hue shift would work and remain legal - yes/no?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/30/2009 02:12:59 PM · #17

Originally posted by glad2badad:

As for the size of the item in question - if you added a small seagull in flight in the distance on a beach scene would it matter? I ask because this came up before (although it may have been expert editing at the time). Don't think it would fly (no pun intended) in advanced editing either. Where do you draw the line on how big or small an added item is before it's legal or not?

You may be referring to this shot:

The birds were added in post, but this was an Expert Editing challenge so what wasn't a problem. There was considerable discussion about *how* the birds were added, but in the end the image was validated. What I did was make a freehand selection of bird shapes and then burned in the selection like crazy until they turned black. Curiously, if I'd used actual gulls from a different shot and placed them in the scene then burned them like crazy until they turned black, that would have been legal with no questions asked, assuming the shot of the gulls was made during the challenge timeframe... But since i didn't have any that-week gull shots, and since as I interpreted the expert rules what I did was legal, I went ahead and freehanded it.

Apparently I wouldn't be allowed to do this again, but it's sort of a moot point since we haven't had an expert challenge in like, forever.

R.

04/30/2009 03:02:18 PM · #18

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

As for the size of the item in question - if you added a small seagull in flight in the distance on a beach scene would it matter? I ask because this came up before (although it may have been expert editing at the time). Don't think it would fly (no pun intended) in advanced editing either. Where do you draw the line on how big or small an added item is before it's legal or not?

You may be referring to this shot:

Yep! That's the one. :-)