| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/21/2004 12:13:27 PM · #1 |
Okay, I have a feeling this question might reveal the identity of one of my photos in a current challenge, but I think it's for the greater good that we discuss whether a particular technique should be disqualified under the advanced ruleset.
Under the current rules, if a background is a solid colour straight out of the camera, then it is okay to change that colour using 'Colour Balance', 'Hue/Saturation', 'Replace Colour', or 'Selective Colour'.
Once that colour has been changed, it would be within the rules to add another layer with a black-white gradient and reduce the opacity in order to give the previously adjusted background a change in luminescence from dark to light.
Both techniques are used regularly in challenges.
With me so far?
Many people commenting on my current photo think this is 'illegal'... well, it may not be to everybody's taste but as far as I'm aware I'm not breaking any rules.
On my photo, I utilised a shortcut which involved selecting my (one solid colour) background and substituting a gradient fill... but I must emphasise that it could have been done the way I just outlined by shifting hues and adding a gradient over the top.
So, as far as I'm aware this is allowed, just not to everybody's taste.
If you feel differently about this technique, please discuss it in this thread. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 12:41:30 PM · #2 |
Bob:
First, obviously voters can vote and comment however they want. We don't have any control over that.
As to whether or not such a photo would be DQ'able... I think what it comes down to are two "tests": 1) whether the changes were to a "major element" (i.e., a large portion of your submission) and 2) whether or not an "object" (for lack of a better term) was "created" that wasn't in the photographed image.
Quoting from the rules:
using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not
That's my opinion as one member of the SC.
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 12:44:51. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 12:48:11 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Bob:
First, obviously voters can vote however they want. We don't have any control over that.
But in terms of whether or not a photo is DQ'able, I think what it comes down to are two "tests": 1) whether the changes were to a "major element" (i.e., a large portion of your submission) and 2) whether or not something was "created" that wasn't there in the first the first place.
Quoting from the rules:
using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not
But I'm just one member of the SC. |
Yes, but none of that really addresses my question... it depends on whether you think a graduated background is a major element of a photo.
But what you can definitely say is:
1: You can change a colour in a photo to another colour (let's say a white background to a red background, by using 'Selective Colour' in PS). Agreed!
2: You can overlay a gradient onto a photo (several validated photos have used this technique to mimic a grad ND filter on skies). Agreed!
3: You can combine these two steps to change a white backround into a graduated red one.
Like I said, the votes that the voters are handing out is irrelevant... it doesn't have to be your taste. But I can't see why this wouln't be legal.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 12:53:48 PM · #4 |
cant u just send them your original photo and your steps to be validated? that way the voters wont think you cheated.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 01:30:45 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Under the current rules, if a background is a solid colour straight out of the camera, then it is okay to change that colour using 'Colour Balance', 'Hue/Saturation', 'Replace Colour', or 'Selective Colour'. |
Legal, but determined on a case by case basis, by the SC, if it has violated the 'spirit of the rules'.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Once that colour has been changed, it would be within the rules to add another layer with a black-white gradient and reduce the opacity in order to give the previously adjusted background a change in luminescence from dark to light. |
Same as above.
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
On my photo, I utilised a shortcut which involved selecting my (one solid colour) background and substituting a gradient fill... but I must emphasise that it could have been done the way I just outlined by shifting hues and adding a gradient over the top.
So, as far as I'm aware this is allowed, just not to everybody's taste.
If you feel differently about this technique, please discuss it in this thread. |
It was done by replacing a portion of the image (which is determined, as per the rules Eddy quoted) and would have to be determined on a case by case basis, just as the other two above are.
Yes, it could have been done another way, but it wasn't. As an example, I have a friend that has on occasion borrowed tools for a task being done. Since they are mine I can, of course, ask for them back at any time and they will be immediately returned. However, I could also just go over to his house and get them while he is a work. Both result in the same thing, I get my tools back, but one is a more 'legal' way to go about it. A photoshop example, only adjustment layers are allowed, but blending modes are not. This is not a problem if you know the blending modes can be duplicated by a curves adjustment; which is legal -- but it would not be legal to use the blending mode and then argue that it is a shortcut for a alternate (but more involved) legal method.
As I see it, there are two camps on this issue. One that 'equalizes' things by figuring that 'if' the person had the resources (for a lens that will blur a background properly, for a different colored backdrop, etc) then they would have used that and everything would be fine -- so they should not be penelized for not having the resources to do so in the first place. The other camp, of which I find myself more than not, thinks more along the lines of what I mentioned above, 'yes it could have been done that way, but it wasn't.'
Just an opinion from someone that is not an SC -- so it really doesn't matter a whole lot.
David
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 01:38:11 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Bob:
First, obviously voters can vote and comment however they want. We don't have any control over that.
As to whether or not such a photo would be DQ'able... I think what it comes down to are two "tests": 1) whether the changes were to a "major element" (i.e., a large portion of your submission) and 2) whether or not an "object" (for lack of a better term) was "created" that wasn't in the photographed image.
Quoting from the rules:
using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not
That's my opinion as one member of the SC. |
How does your RGB Smoke photo fit into this scheme? The photo is nicely executed, but the primary impact of it was created with photoshop. That photo would not be the same at all if the colors in the smoke were not present. Granted, the modifications you made were not the creation of physical objects, but the mods did create the majority of the impact. How would one differentiate using software to create physical objects versus creating the main aesthetic appeal in an image? Is there really a difference?
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 01:44:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
... How would one differentiate using software to create physical objects versus creating the main aesthetic appeal in an image? Is there really a difference? |
The first is easier to define and arbitrate -- but, that is the only difference I've been able to find. So no, there is no real difference.
Just another opinion. :)
David
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 02:02:38 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by EddyG:
Bob:
First, obviously voters can vote and comment however they want. We don't have any control over that.
As to whether or not such a photo would be DQ'able... I think what it comes down to are two "tests": 1) whether the changes were to a "major element" (i.e., a large portion of your submission) and 2) whether or not an "object" (for lack of a better term) was "created" that wasn't in the photographed image.
Quoting from the rules:
using tools to duplicate, create, or move major elements of your photograph is not
That's my opinion as one member of the SC. |
How does your RGB Smoke photo fit into this scheme? The photo is nicely executed, but the primary impact of it was created with photoshop. That photo would not be the same at all if the colors in the smoke were not present. Granted, the modifications you made were not the creation of physical objects, but the mods did create the majority of the impact. How would one differentiate using software to create physical objects versus creating the main aesthetic appeal in an image? Is there really a difference? |
Wow, I didn't vote on Smoke, and I didn't read the description of how Eddy did that until you pointed it out. I personally don't find that in the spirit of the rules. (Sorry Eddy, just my opinion, you created a major element in the photo, tri-color, out of nothing using Photoshop.) |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 02:41:38 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Wow, I didn't vote on Smoke, and I didn't read the description of how Eddy did that until you pointed it out. I personally don't find that in the spirit of the rules. (Sorry Eddy, just my opinion, you created a major element in the photo, tri-color, out of nothing using Photoshop.) |
Is this going to turn into another "Photoshop" vs "real world" debate? =] As I stated in my comments, I did attempt to tint the smoke using gels. However, in the end, I found it easier to create a "seamless" filter in Photoshop rather than trying to "clone out" the seams from my "physical" filter.
The way I see it, "color" is not an "element"; it is not a tangible "object" that is created -- it is simply "toning" existing photographic elements, just like converting a photo to sepia, or quad-tone, or black or white "tones" the photographic elements.
Shifting colors has always been allowed, even under basic editing, using various methods, including "Hue/Saturation", "Replace Color", "Selective Color", etc. The only diffence is that because of the Advanced Editing rules, I was able to apply these color shifts selectively with layer masks. (Note also that based on smokeditor's outtakes, it appears that the smoke in his excellent 5th place image was also "tinted" in a similar fashion.)
Even in the many color-specific challenges that we've had, where color is the key element of the photo, there has been at least one ribbon-winning shot which did not have any of that challenge's color in it at all when it was photographed, but was rather "hue shifted" so as to "meet the challenge".
The rules do not say anything about the "impact" or "main aesthetic appeal" of a photo having to be captured in-camera. Many black and white photos achieve their "impact" because they have been converted from color to black and white in post. I simply went the other way. Many other photos acheive their "impact" or "main aesthetic appeal" because of how they are cropped, etc.
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 16:04:00. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 03:19:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
How does your RGB Smoke photo fit into this scheme? The photo is nicely executed, but the primary impact of it was created with photoshop. That photo would not be the same at all if the colors in the smoke were not present. Granted, the modifications you made were not the creation of physical objects, but the mods did create the majority of the impact. How would one differentiate using software to create physical objects versus creating the main aesthetic appeal in an image? Is there really a difference? |
Excellent example... and a great shot IMO. To me, the spirit of the rules says that I can't put or take away a major *object* from my photo. This doesn't include colour when I read the rules.
Edit... I think people may want the current photo disqualified because they *don't like it*. Now, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but I think that if I had carried out my colour gradient in a more subtle way, then this would not have become an issue. I think the issue here is one of how subtle (or not) the effect was. I don't feel I've violated the spirit of the rules, but I may be guilty of making my photo look a bit fake. That's down to my not using Photoshop well enough, not to breaking the spirit of the rules.
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 15:21:49. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 03:28:41 PM · #11 |
Well it certainly looks fake (provided its the shot I think it is). If you had gaussian blurred that fill quite extensively - a gradient fill always seems to show the graduations - and perhaps darkened gently around the objects you've kept, it might have seemed less artificial. Beyond that, it's pretty well done.
My personal feeling is that it should be DQ'd, I'm afraid. Isn't the control of light on your backgrounds part of the technical expertise we're supposed to be trying to master? Given the previous debate over the window view challenge, I think you effort does infringe that stipulation. Fortunately for you, that jugement is not mine to make :-)
Ed
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 03:38:22 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by e301:
Well it certainly looks fake (provided its the shot I think it is). If you had gaussian blurred that fill quite extensively - a gradient fill always seems to show the graduations - and perhaps darkened gently around the objects you've kept, it might have seemed less artificial. Beyond that, it's pretty well done.
My personal feeling is that it should be DQ'd, I'm afraid. Isn't the control of light on your backgrounds part of the technical expertise we're supposed to be trying to master? Given the previous debate over the window view challenge, I think you effort does infringe that stipulation. Fortunately for you, that jugement is not mine to make :-)
Ed |
Doh... I didn't see the banding on my monitor, in hindsight I should definitely have done a Gaussian Blur. But doesn't the fact that I composed my shot so I could just hue shift my background count for something here? I carefully placed a white background and exposed so I could easily blow the highlights on that background to give me a 'blank canvas' so I could hue shift easily.
The photo that you refer to in the Window View challenge is a WHOLE different kettle of fish. I even left a comment on it during the challenge wondering where it was taken from, as I was racking my brains as to where the photographer could have taken it from. Inventing an object like a window frame from nowhere is totally different to hue shifting a background. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 03:50:42 PM · #13 |
| If the background has been replaced with a gradient fill, I would consider as a major alteration to the image. But, if it only changed the background from a flat colour to a gradient - that might even well be some burning. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:06:06 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
The way I see it, "color" is not an "element"; it is not a tangible "object" that is created -- it is simply "toning" existing photographic elements, just like converting a photo to sepia, or quad-tone, or black or white "tones" the photographic elements.
|
I find this a bit disingenuous ... it constituted enough of an "element" to make it into the title ...
I'd be finer with you saying "it was just easier than cloning out the seam lines" if you'd then accept the argument that "it was easier than buying some expensive velvet, floodlamps, and shades to make a real gradient."
The color of your smoke "makes" the image. I don't think there's any way (logically, ethically) you can allow that, but call dropping in a simple gradient background a "major" element subject to DQ.
Personally, I'm in favor of allowing both under the Advanced Rule Set.
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 19:07:02. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:29:56 PM · #15 |
I'm just reading, reading, reading, and trying to keep up with the conversation. Would someone mind posting a link to the photo in the Window View challenge to which you are referring? I'm just trying to understand what everyone's talking about. Or, if you don't wanna, I'll find another thread to eavesdrop in. :) Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:31:32 PM · #16 |
It is a photo currently entered in a challenge I think, so can't be linked. EddyG's you can see in the winning shots for Smoke.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:34:32 PM · #17 |
sorry... got confused
Edit: Now I'm really confused. Annasense, are you referring to my window view pciture or Ed's Window View picture??? They both got disqualified or editing
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 19:39:03. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:35:17 PM · #18 |
No, not that one. The Window View one that BobsterLobster referenced is the one I'm referring to. I've already scoped out the OTHER one they're talking about (in the current challenge). :)
edit: d'oh! mixed up the "they're, there, their." i'm find now.
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 20:33:06.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:35:40 PM · #19 |
Thanks Labuda!! BTW, excellent creation. I gather it was DQ'd. :) Great digital art, though. You're obviously very skilled!!
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 19:39:04.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:40:42 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
The photo that you refer to in the Window View challenge is a WHOLE different kettle of fish. I even left a comment on it during the challenge wondering where it was taken from, as I was racking my brains as to where the photographer could have taken it from. Inventing an object like a window frame from nowhere is totally different to hue shifting a background. |
Whatever he's talking about is what I'm talking about... is that yours?
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:42:32 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by annasense:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
The photo that you refer to in the Window View challenge is a WHOLE different kettle of fish. I even left a comment on it during the challenge wondering where it was taken from, as I was racking my brains as to where the photographer could have taken it from. Inventing an object like a window frame from nowhere is totally different to hue shifting a background. |
Whatever he's talking about is what I'm talking about... is that yours? |
I'm not sure... this was his comment:
BobsterLobster
Panasonic DMC-FZ10 04/15/2004 10:02:22 AM
Superb picture in every way. Inspired idea. Wonderfully executed. Great model. Good clarity and saturation. Composition works well. I'd love more details about how you did this. Should become one of DPC's favourite pictures. 10
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:47:53 PM · #22 |
Here's something to think about regarding whether color can be a major element just like a tangible object. Consider this submission:
Without the color, it wouldn't be a very good or dramatic pic. Yet now you are saying under the advanced rules, even us people in the Eastern United states could enter our own Northern Lights shots, just by using Photoshop. And it will be legal! Hmmm, I wonder how "complex" I can make them?
Just food for discussion and thought.
Edited for typo.
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 19:48:51. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 07:59:28 PM · #23 |
| The windows shot I was talking about was one of the Thames as seen though a digitally created window frame that didn't exist in reality. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 08:06:05 PM · #24 |
thanks for the clarification. :)
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 08:06:06 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Here's something to think about regarding whether color can be a major element just like a tangible object. Consider this submission:
Without the color, it wouldn't be a very good or dramatic pic. Yet now you are saying under the advanced rules, even us people in the Eastern United states could enter our own Northern Lights shots, just by using Photoshop. And it will be legal! Hmmm, I wonder how "complex" I can make them?
Just food for discussion and thought.
Edited for typo. |
To create northern lights, I would have to 'paint' in different colours. To me, this is different to choosing everything that is white, changing the hue and adding a gradient to it. |
|
