|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/21/2004 08:26:54 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
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.
|
i'm sorry eddy, but i disagree. your title specifically refers to the color--something that was not in the original photograph, whether you envisioned it or wished it were that way or not! i was quite impressed with your shot when i saw it in voting, thinking you had done it with colored lights, gels, gels on mini-flashlights, something. then i read your discription afterwards and was frankly annoyed because despite the fact that the whole impact (including title) of the image revolves around the colored smoke, that highly key element was added after the fact, which is a big deal to me. there have been many times when i wanted to try something and couldn't think of how to make it work, but certainly didnt go about adding the main impact/focalpoint of my photograph in photoshop. to quote someone else, "i wanted to photograph pixies in my garden, but since i couldnt find any, i just made them in photoshop." point being, while your original photograph was nice, it didnt actually include the colored smoke, therefore would probably not have had the same impact, and at the very least would have called for a different title. sure creating in photshop is easier than figuring out how to make it work in real life. but is that really acceptable?
i have always, since practically the beginning, argued heavily in favor of advanced editing rules and still believe firmly in them, but think there is a measure of keeping in the spirit of actual photography too. and even though, as i said, your basic entry, i.e., the nice composition and the clarity of the matches and the smoke, is a nicely done photograph, the final product does not seem to follow that spirit. just my opinion. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 09:18:33 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
your title specifically refers to the color--something that was not in the original photograph, whether you envisioned it or wished it were that way or not! |
As I stated previously, even under the Basic Editing rules, it has always been permissible to "shift colors", selectively desaturate, convert to sepia, etc. using a variety of tools, including "Levels". Take a look at the "colorizing" done in this photo (as one example) under the Basic Editing rules. There are literally hundreds of entries that have been "colorized" using a variety of methods, including other ribbon-winning entries in which the color depicted in the entry "was not in the original photograph". There is nothing in the Advanced Editing rules that would preclude the use of masked adjustment layers in Overlay mode.
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 21:19:33. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 09:20:37 PM · #28 |
i *really* don't see how eddy's shot is any different from the scores of selective desaturation images we've seen.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 09:23:19 PM · #29 |
i agree - and good example.
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Alecia:
your title specifically refers to the color--something that was not in the original photograph, whether you envisioned it or wished it were that way or not! |
As I stated previously, even under the Basic Editing rules, it has always been permissible to "shift colors", selectively desaturate, convert to sepia, etc. using a variety of tools, including "Levels". Take a look at the "colorizing" done in this photo (as one example) under the Basic Editing rules. There are literally hundreds of entries that have been "colorized" using a variety of methods, including other ribbon-winning entries in which the color depicted in the entry "was not in the original photograph". There is nothing in the Advanced Editing rules that would preclude the use of masked adjustment layers in Overlay mode. |
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 09:33:48 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
As I stated previously, even under the Basic Editing rules, it has always been permissible to "shift colors", selectively desaturate, convert to sepia, etc. using a variety of tools, including "Levels". Take a look at the "colorizing" done in this photo (as one example) under the Basic Editing rules. There are literally hundreds of entries that have been "colorized" using a variety of methods, including other ribbon-winning entries in which the color depicted in the entry "was not in the original photograph". There is nothing in the Advanced Editing rules that would preclude the use of masked adjustment layers in Overlay mode. |
and as i stated previously, my opinion was about whether or not your entry followed the *spirit* of the rules, not a debate about whether or not something in [either] rule-set precludes anything else. i'm aware of the rules. and honestly, had you tried with gels or what have you and succeeded in getting even faint colors then boosted the heck out of them using every trick in the photoshop book, that would be fine. but as i said, taking white smoke and artificially coloring it, in fact adding an element that did not previously exist, then making that the essence of your photograph does not seem really fair to me. but as i also said, it is merely my single opinion. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 09:41:13 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i agree - and good example.
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Alecia:
your title specifically refers to the color--something that was not in the original photograph, whether you envisioned it or wished it were that way or not! |
As I stated previously, even under the Basic Editing rules, it has always been permissible to "shift colors", selectively desaturate, convert to sepia, etc. using a variety of tools, including "Levels". Take a look at the "colorizing" done in this photo (as one example) under the Basic Editing rules. There are literally hundreds of entries that have been "colorized" using a variety of methods, including other ribbon-winning entries in which the color depicted in the entry "was not in the original photograph". There is nothing in the Advanced Editing rules that would preclude the use of masked adjustment layers in Overlay mode. |
|
i'm not really sure how that is a good example. correct me if i am wrong, but it looks as if generale has just switched around a bunch of hues and saturation levels of existing colors, not actually added colors that werent there. and as far as selctive desat goes, is that not in fact just taking away the already existing element of color, whereas this issue is about physically adding the color later where it didnt exist in the original photograph? thats adding a previously non-existent element of the photograph, to me. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 09:46:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
i *really* don't see how eddy's shot is any different from the scores of selective desaturation images we've seen. |
Its not different. Those other images also use software to create the primary impact.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 09:50:46 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Its not different. Those other images also use software to create the primary impact. |
Again, in those images the element (color) was all ready there. In this case, a major element (color) WAS NOT there. Previously Eddy's used gels or directed flashlights to get similar effects. I think that is where some of the concern/debate is coming from. In a selective desat shot- the color is there and then removed.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. Just pointing out a differing POV.
Clara
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 10:06:11 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
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. |
Sorry, I was using this as an example where I could use EddyG's logic, where he colored the smoke, to simulate northern lights. Not the gradient example.
Edited: commas for clarity.
Message edited by author 2004-09-21 22:06:51. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 10:19:07 PM · #35 |
Must be nice to be the one interpreting the spirit of the rules eh, Eddie?
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 10:20:46 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
i'm not really sure how that is a good example. correct me if i am wrong, but it looks as if generale has just switched around a bunch of hues and saturation levels of existing colors, not actually added colors that werent there. and as far as selctive desat goes, is that not in fact just taking away the already existing element of color, whereas this issue is about physically adding the color later where it didnt exist in the original photograph? thats adding a previously non-existent element of the photograph, to me. |
I don't understand the difference between switching the hues of existing colours and adding colours that aren't there. There is no logical difference. By changing the hue of an existing colour, you are creating a new one. Every colour, including white and black can be hue shifted (using Selective Colour if necessary) to any other colour in PS. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 10:28:50 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I don't understand the difference between switching the hues of existing colours and adding colours that aren't there. There is no logical difference. By changing the hue of an existing colour, you are creating a new one. Every colour, including white and black can be hue shifted (using Selective Colour if necessary) to any other colour in PS. |
ok. if so, then i guess he could have achieved the effect just by doing a very simple and basic selective color/hue adjustment right? anyway, i only have issues with the fact that the color in *rgb smoke* did not exist in the original photograph, he added them (the primary element) after the fact. that's it, nothing more. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 10:32:50 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I don't understand the difference between switching the hues of existing colours and adding colours that aren't there. There is no logical difference. By changing the hue of an existing colour, you are creating a new one. Every colour, including white and black can be hue shifted (using Selective Colour if necessary) to any other colour in PS. |
ok. if so, then i guess he could have achieved the effect just by doing a very simple and basic selective color/hue adjustment right? anyway, i only have issues with the fact that the color in *rgb smoke* did not exist in the original photograph, he added them (the primary element) after the fact. that's it, nothing more. |
Ah, okay... we're not talking about my pic anymore :-)
Well in that case, if we're going to allow selectively colouring smoke 3 different colours, does that make my case stronger?
FWIW, the smoke photo doesn't violate the photographic purist in me... I think it was a very creative and tasteful application of PS. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 10:49:58 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Must be nice to be the one interpreting the spirit of the rules eh, Eddie? |
Decisions on any photograph up for validation/DQ consideration are made by the entire Site Council. In cases where a Site Council member's entry is being reviewed, that Site Council member typically does not vote.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
09/21/2004 11:12:26 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Must be nice to be the one interpreting the spirit of the rules eh, Eddie? |
I trust that Eddy would abstain from that SC discussion as it relates to his shot. |
|
|
|
09/21/2004 11:25:02 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Alecia:
your title specifically refers to the color--something that was not in the original photograph, whether you envisioned it or wished it were that way or not! |
As I stated previously, even under the Basic Editing rules, it has always been permissible to "shift colors", selectively desaturate, convert to sepia, etc. using a variety of tools, including "Levels". Take a look at the "colorizing" done in this photo (as one example) under the Basic Editing rules. There are literally hundreds of entries that have been "colorized" using a variety of methods, including other ribbon-winning entries in which the color depicted in the entry "was not in the original photograph". There is nothing in the Advanced Editing rules that would preclude the use of masked adjustment layers in Overlay mode. |
How exciting to be cited as an example (even a bad one!). As with most of my shots, I think that was all done with Curves. |
|
|
|
09/22/2004 02:11:07 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Must be nice to be the one interpreting the spirit of the rules eh, Eddie? |
Decisions on any photograph up for validation/DQ consideration are made by the entire Site Council. In cases where a Site Council member's entry is being reviewed, that Site Council member typically does not vote.
-Terry |
Just as a matter of curiosity, on a question I have had for some time and never think to ask. When it is an SCs photo that is up for qualification, do they have access to any discussion that takes place prior to the vote? Or are they kept in the dark as to its progress after submitting the original?
Also, on a similar line of thinking. I have read it said that as soon as the vote reaches a majority in one direction or another, the matter is closed. Does this mean that slow responders in the SC could be left out of a discussion completely? What I mean is, could the discussion be held, majority swayed by reasons presented, vote cast and a counter arguement that could have been put forth by a member that happened to be sleeping or at work at that time never be considered?
Just random things I have wondered about, but that don't particularly have any significance in this particular thread. Feel free to PM me any response if you feel it will take this thread even further off-topic.
David
|
|
|
|
09/22/2004 02:31:31 AM · #43 |
There has to be some kind of quorum of votes to DQ a photo, so late-comers are occassionally left out, but with minimal effect. The vast majority of photos are judged unanimously (or nearly so) for an obvious violation. Where the vote is more closely divided over a subjective interpretation we try and get everyone to vote.
When I had a photo up for consideration (for DQ), I simply refrained from reading the SC comment thread on that specific photo. I still don't think I know why the original request was made. We usually wouldn't discuss one of those photos in the general thread for that challenge. |
|
|
|
09/25/2004 11:44:04 AM · #44 |
I just found out that after over 5 days of deliberation, my entry in the "Smoke" challenge has been validated by the Site Council with a vote of 9-4. (I was not part of any SC discussion or involved in the voting.) Now that the decision has finally been made, I just wanted to make a comment to those who thought my entry should be DQ'd.
For as long as I've known, DPC has permitted images to be "hue shifted" (even under the Basic Editing rules.) I simply was selective in my hue shifting -- and selective adjustments are permitted under the Advanced Editing rules. One of the big benefits of the Advanced Editing rules is that it permits tools and techniques that have always been available in the "traditional" darkroom. For example, selectively using the dodge and burn tools on a photo to change the apparent lightness or darkness to something (much) different than what was captured by the camera. What I did is no different -- but instead of selectively changing the lightness, I simply changed the hue.
DQ'ing my photo would be inconsistent with how color in a submission has been interpreted in the past with regards to "what must be present in the photographed image". To my knowledge, no entry has ever been DQ'd because of "color shifting"; the rules have been interpreted such that any type of color shifting is legal. One reason for this is because color is an easy thing to manipulate, even in the film world, through the use of filters on the camera or during development in the darkroom. The only stipulation is that under Basic/Classic editing, the color shifting "method" has to be applied to the entire image, which is easy enough to be selective about, using such things as the individual color channels in the "Hue/Saturation" function, for example. (It is important to note that there is nothing in the rules about the "impact" of a photo having to be captured in the camera. For example, it is perfectly OK to take a picture where the "horizon" is parallel to the edge of the frame but then crop and rotate it so that it appears the camera was "tilted" during exposure, adding "impact" and a sense of "motion" to the photo because of the now-angled leading lines. But I digress...)
Back to my point. Here are a few examples to illustrate my point about color:
 2nd Place in the "Once in a BLUE Moon" challenge. As listed in the details, this picture is actually of a sunset. That is the sun in the picture, not the moon. The original is shades of yellow and orange, not blue. And this challenge was all about capturing a specific color! This photo was validated by the SC after a lengthy discussion.
5th Place in the "Once in a BLUE Moon" challenge. No details were provided, so we don't know if the eye in this photo is really as the camera saw it. The gentleman in this picture may not even have blue eyes at all, and they may not "sparkle" like they do in the submission. We do know that his skin is certainly not "gray".
From the "Once in a BLUE Moon" challenge. This is a shot of a standard piano with black and white keys. The one key was colored "blue" with a gradient in post. After much discussion, this photo was not disqualified by the SC.
2nd Place in the "Orange" challenge. There is nothing orange in the original photo. It is a standard blue sky taken in the middle of the day. Validated by the SC. Remember, the theme of that challenge was Orange. The color to "meet the challenge" was not present in the original photo.
 3rd Place in the "Orange" challenge. This is an overcast, dreary, foggy day in the original photo. Validated by the SC. Again, this challenge was about "Orange", and "met the challenge" because of post-processing.
2nd Place in the "Shadows II" challenge. The filter in this photo is actually blue (check here for details). Validated by the SC. Surely the "impact" of this photo is because the photographer was able to shift the hue from blue to red, since a blue heart wouldn't have been nearly as effective.
Based on the above (I'm sure there are a multitude of other examples), perhaps you can understand why I was certain that my image would not be violating any rules. I was simply shifting hues (just like the above photos did). It is also interesting to note that some of the above images were indeed recommended for DQ during the voting process (which sometimes resulted in lengthy SC discussions about the legality of the "effect") but my entry did not receive a single DQ request.
And looking at some of the other entries in the Smoke challenge...
3rd Place. The photographer actually photographed white smoke on a black background. The "colors" in the submitted entry are not indicative of what was captured by the camera. Validated by the SC.
5th Place. The blue hue in this image was added by the photographer. Quoting from the details provided when the original was submitted: "hue/sat set to colorize with layer mask". Note the explicit reference to layer masks, which is also how I achieved the selective colorization in my photo; I just used three layers instead of one. Validated by the SC within 12 hours of receiving the original photo.
6th Place. Like the 3rd place image, this is actually white smoke on a black background. The colors were inverted, and the Hue/Saturation filter was then used. Again, the submitted image is nothing like what was actually captured by the camera. Would this have had the "impact" if it was submitted without these post-processing adjustments? Maybe, maybe not. But the point is that the submitted image is processed to be something completely different from what the camera captured, but because the post-processing only deals with the color of the pixels, the changes are acceptable.
Now sure, I could have went out and spent a bunch of money on a specialized graduated red-green-blue filter set, the necesary holder and the adapter ring for my lens. But since this was an "Advanced Editing" challenge where selective editing was permitted, I was able to simulate these filters digitally. The main purpose of the Advanced Editing rules was to bring more of the benefits of shooting digitally to DPC submissions. Heck, even B+W, one of the most respected filter manufacturers in the world, offers software versions of their filters.
Note that I did not move, create or delete any pixels in my submission -- all of the "elements" in my original image existed as you see it -- some elements just have a different tint in the submission. There are literally thousands of other challenge entries that have had their pixels tinted, untinted, or even drastically altered -- even in Classic Editing challenges:
   
Finally, I think the most important lesson I learned from all this is to just leave the "Photographer's Comments" section blank on challenge entries. I now understand why people do that. And it is unfortunate. I almost always provide details about my photos, because I find the extra insight could be a potentially valuable learning tool for somebody else, and "learning" is supposed to be one of the benefits of participating here on DPC. I even used to go back and add them if I didn't have time to type something in when submitting because of time constraints. But had I simply left out the details, this "public inquiry" wouldn't have happened... |
|
|
|
09/25/2004 11:59:59 AM · #45 |
| I guess my thought on that was that in your examples, the color was just that, shifted, not created. Color itself existed in the original photos (except for the piano one, which I also voted DQ) If proposed, I will vote to not allow the creation of color in photos. Shifting is fine, as long as color existed in the first place. This is only my opinion. |
|
|
|
09/25/2004 12:06:46 PM · #46 |
| The color of the smoke in my photo was white/gray, which I then shifted to a different color. This is no different than shifting orange to blue -- any color (including white) can be shifted to any other color. (And there is nothing in the rules saying that you may shift the colors in your image as long as you aren't shifting white/gray.) |
|
|
|
09/25/2004 12:12:10 PM · #47 |
| Yep, the 'Selective Colour' dialogue box in PS allows you to shift white to any colour imaginable. What about white to slightly off-white? White to Grey? White to white with a hint of red? Where would you draw this line? Also, in terms of light, white contains every other colour. So a shift to another colour, is actually taking colour away. |
|
|
|
09/25/2004 12:15:23 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Note that I did not move, create or delete any pixels in my submission -- all of the "elements" in my original image existed as you see it -- some elements just have a different tint in the submission. There are literally thousands of other challenge entries that have had their pixels tinted, untinted, or even drastically altered -- even in Classic Editing challenges |
I'm glad your photo was validated and appreciate your comments. I personally agree with them. I think your penultimate statement that I quoted above is the key. Postprocessing is an essential part of digital photography, and acceptable even when the appearance is changed drastically, as long as the major elements exist in the original capture. It's the lack of adding, moving, or removing elements that distinguishes photography from other visual arts. How-to books on painting and sketching encourage the artist to consider which elements of a scene to include and where they should be placed for the most effective composition. How-to books on photography encourage the artist to consider different points of view and framing options so that the existing elements form an effective composition.
But while I reluctantly agree with you final statement, I do appreciate those who leave detailed descriptions of their intent, the choices they made, and the steps they took to achieve their goal. Learning is indeed one of the major benefits of this site, and I encourage everyone to ignore Eddy's "lesson" and provide details even if they might be controversial. |
|
|
|
09/25/2004 01:20:00 PM · #49 |
| In the end it just means that voters have one more thing to vote images down for. The line between 'clever' when done in camera and 'cheating' when done in an editing program is going to blur even more until most people are just not going to believe anything that isnt a straight forward shot. Should it be that way? No, of course not. People just dont like to be 'hoodwinked' and find out that something they were impressed with was simply painted in afterwards. Yes, it is allowed but that doesnt make people like it, but by that time the ribbon has already been given anyways. |
|
|
|
09/25/2004 01:45:02 PM · #50 |
Those validations from the 'orange' challenge are a huge diappointment - I had no idea they were done in post. In a challenge called 'orange' surely the colour is a major element?
Some will know my frame of reference for this, But I'm not actually going to bring it up again specifically.
Just expressing my viewpoint.
E
Message edited by author 2004-09-25 15:48:54.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/18/2025 09:39:34 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/18/2025 09:39:34 AM EDT.
|
2nd Place in the "Once in a BLUE Moon" challenge. As listed in the details, this picture is actually of a sunset. That is the sun in the picture, not the moon. The original is shades of yellow and orange, not blue. And this challenge was all about capturing a specific color! This photo was validated by the SC after a lengthy discussion.
3rd Place in the "Orange" challenge. This is an overcast, dreary, foggy day in the original photo. Validated by the SC. Again, this challenge was about "Orange", and "met the challenge" because of post-processing.
